Wordwork|play

Anti-Arab Bias in Dictionary Definitions

Though not much has happened on Wordwork|play for a few months, it has not been abandoned. It has merely been left to lie fallow for a while. I have continued to read, watch, think, and yes, cook, but I haven't done much writing. There is still more change afoot at my day job, and I'm moving to Hamilton at the end of June, but the change is now more measured and controlled. I think I'm almost ready to resume more regular writing here.

As for watching and thinking, my partner and I watched the 1997 biopic Wilde recently, a fascinating and ultimately frustrating biographical story in which two terms, used quite casually, got me thinking again about anti-Arab bias in dictionary definitions. On a few occasions, the dialogue contained the terms arab and street arab, terms with which neither of us were familiar, though negative connotations were clear.

A few days later, indeed within the same week, I came across this article from the Jordan Times about Merriam-Webster's decision to drop entries considered offensive to Arabs and Muslims. The terms at the center of the protest to Merriam-Webster, by Zarka University president Ishak Ahmad Farhan and the Professional Associations Council president Wael Saqqa, were anti-Semitism and arab. They would like to see the entries for these terms changed and/or dropped from the next edition.

While I would never suggest the dropping of entries from a dictionary or thesaurus, and indeed find it of the utmost importance that they be retained, I do believe that, as with other offensive and racist terms, the entries need to be clear about the fact that they are offensive and reference the context out of which they arose. Leaving them as they are serves not only to perpetuate negative racial stereotypes, but leads the reader to believe that these negative images are still held by the editors and publishers.   

So I did some investigating. My 2003, 2nd Edition Oxford Dictionary of English does not list the lowercase arab on its own, but does list street Arab as "noun archaic a raggedly dressed homeless child wandering the streets." The online Webster Dictionary lists Arab as "n. 1. One of a swarthy race occupying Arabia, and numerous in Syria, Northern Africa, etc.," and as a subcategory, "Street Arab a homeless vagabond in the streets of a city, particularly and (sic) outcast boy or girl." YourDictionary has, as definition 5 under Arab, "a waif left to roam the streets; street Arab." It lists street Arab separately as well. In my cursory search, only the Free Dictionary mentioned, in its definition, that it was 'sometimes offensive'.

The definition of anti-Semitism is another example. Semite is defined, in the Oxford Dictionary, as "noun a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs." It is followed by an etymological reference to "Sem 'Shem', son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended." Semitic is defined as "adjective 1 relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family. 2 relating to the peoples who speak these languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic."

The prefix anti-, as most of us know, stands for against, or opposed to. But put it in front of Semitic and it doesn't simply mean opposed to or against Semites. As pointed out in the aforementioned article, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines anti-Semitism as: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.” What of the anti-Arab sentiment in which a great deal of the Western media and Hollywood blockbusters are soaked? Is this almost fashionable opposition to Arabs and Muslims, a people clearly defined as Semitic, not then anti-Semitism? It clearly is. But not according to our dictionaries.

I checked the definitions for a number of other offensive and racist terms -- Chink, gook, Jap, Kraut, nigger, and wop -- in my Oxford English dictionary and found all of them prefaced with 'informal, offensive' or some such acknowledgment. I think it's time the editors and publishers of modern English dictionaries did the same for terms offensive to Arabs. Leave the terms and definitions in the dictionaries, but at the very least be clear about the fact that they are offensive. And why not include a little historical context? Check arab and anti-Semitism at the Online Etymological Dictionary. There we find that the offensive definition of arab has to do with a settled people's bias against nomadic peoples. As for anti-Semitism, it is acknowledged that, though most commonly used to mean anti-Jewish, the term is not restricted to such use. It even suggests that "[t]hose who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882)." Why not use anti-Semitism as a general term for 'theories, actions, or policies' that are against Semites in general, and use more restrictive terms with reference to a specific Semitic people, i.e. Judaeophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Assyrian, and so on?

Extended Break from Reviewing

It's been over a month since my last review. I feel bad about it, sometimes, but then remind myself that it is unpaid and entirely voluntary. It's a hobby, for now. But this type of hobby demands a lot in terms of time, focus, and energy.

Lately there has been a lot of change (I know, lead change, change is the only constant, etc.) at work and a fair bit of stress. While I don't usually take work home, the business and stress while at work makes me want to just relax once home. I have little energy left for serious writing. And yes, I do classify reviews as serious writing.

Anyway, when energy and focus are low, I end up working with and writing about food. People often talk about comfort food, but they are referring to particular dishes that give them comfort. I find working with and writing about food itself comforting. So most of what little energy I have left after work has lately been directed towards sprouting, cooking, and my food blog, Vegan Miscellanies.

On Old Books, Fungus, and Inspiration

What's not to love about books? I have always loved books. I love the feel of books, the look of books, and yes, the smell of books. Particularly old books. The older the better--old books look, feel and smell better than modern ones.

Oh how I love hanging out in and walking through library stacks (read about the long history of libraries here), inhaling deeply the musty smell of old books. For that, and the intellectually stimulating atmosphere of course, I miss university life. I used to think I liked the smell of books for psychological reasons--I love the idea of books, therefore I like the smell of books. But an article I came across recently suggests something more physical.

Ellen Warren writes, in the Chicago Tribune, that there may well be more to getting high on great literature than the love of literature or learning itself. In "Book Fungus Can Get You High," Warren writes that "[e]xperts on the various fungi that feed on the pages and on the covers of books are increasingly convinced that you can get high - or at least a little wacky-by sniffing old books. Fungus on books, they say, is a likely source of hallucinogenic spores." Hmm. So that could explain some of the great works of literature--the authors, spending hours upon hours in dank libraries full of old books, especially in the days before high-tech humidity control, got high off fungus spores. Their inspiration may have come from what they were inspiring (breathing in).

I really need to surround myself with more old books. Take a good whiff of old book, then get back to the computer to write. That may be another downside of digital literature--no hallucinogenic fungus to inspire.

Failed Experiment: Writing in Early Morning

A number of things robbed me of my time over the weekend, so I did not get my review of Something About the Blues written. And last night I was feeling really tired, so I came up with the plan to hit the sack early
to get up at 0400 and get a couple of hours of writing done before going to my day job.

No, I did not sleep through the alarm. I actually got up at 0400, turned on the computer, and came up with a prodigious amount of nothing. I didn't really feel tired. In fact, I was well rested. What I did discover was
this: inspiration does not strike me early. Creativity is at near zero in the wee hours. Whatever I managed to squeeze through the keyboard came out flat and lifeless. The lesson? If I want to get more than a few flaccid
sentences onto the page, I must do my writing in the evening. With my day job, of course, staying up late or pulling all-nighters is not really an option. Certainly not a wise one.

So, for anyone awaiting that review, please accept my apology. It will have to wait a bit longer.

The Life of a Creative Offering: Independent and yet Dependent

I was doing some research on Ecotecture (word-blend of ecology and architecture) and came across the following quote from Picasso that can be equally well applied to literature--to poetry, short stories, and novels.

A picture is not thought out and settled before hand. While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change. And when it is finished, it still goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it. A picture lives a life like a living creature, undergoing the changes imposed on us by our life from day to day. This is natural enough, as the picture lives only through the man who is looking at it.

Picasso from a 1935 interview with Christian Zervos. (found at Ecotecture Canada)

A work of fiction is the same way. No matter how much thought and effort a writer may have put into a story-- perhaps growing it out of, and around, an overarching concept or leitmotif, forming and refining characters, laying out plot elements, and then revising, refining, focusing, clarifying, culling, and polishing--to bring it to life, as soon as it is published and out of the author's hands, out of the author's control, it begins a life of its own. It is an independent, living creature. As long as it has a reader, it is alive. But it grows and changes.

People change from childhood into adulthood, and continue to change and grow and be modified by the impact of life experience. People change when they cross national, cultural, religious, linguistic and political borders, even if certain core elements remain relatively fixed. And so it is also with the work of fiction. Even if unchanged in a literal sense, an ancient Arabic, Greek, Indian, Persian, or Roman story, an Old English or Norse poem, or for that matter a Victorian, or even modernist novel, is a different creature now. It no longer means what it did in its own time and place. It has a life of its own, but is utterly dependent upon the reader. The author gives it birth, but it is the reader alone who keeps it alive, the reader alone who nurtures it, changes it, and sometimes revives it.

Blogcritic of the Day

I had a busy day today, so I didn't realize there was a nice, though fleeting, surprise waiting for me online.

I came home briefly after work to eat a little before heading off to donate blood (I have Type O-, so they really want/need mine).

When I got back home, I went through my e-mail and visitor stats routine and then browsed the internet a little. I noticed a few people had come via BC Magazine. To my surprise I saw my name highlighted at the top of the site. I had been chosen Blogcritic of the Day!

Thanks Blogcritics! And a big thank you to my readers!

From Letters to E-mail: What is Lost and What Gained?

I stumbled across an interesting site today to do with letter writing. I wrote not so long ago, in "Letters of Ted Hughes," that I am interested in the letter as an artifact. Rick Schrager has created "The Letter Project." Rick will write a letter to anyone requesting one. Because he does not know most correspondents, of course, the content may well be rather mundane. Stop by to check it out.

Modern methods of communication--from the telegram to the telephone and cellphone, from radio to television and internet-based chat programs and e-mail--are saving us a great deal of time. They connect more people, more quickly, across greater distances than ever before. Drafting our letters, if we may call e-mails that, now takes up most of the time, whereas in times past, in the days of letter writing, it was the long and sometimes risky journey that took the most time.

While we have certainly gained things, most notably time, through the digital world, I cannot help but feel we have also lost something significant. For one thing, because of the ease and speed of digital communications, we often care less about what, and how, we communicate. Letter writing was a craft. Time had to be taken to think things through and to find just the right words to express ourselves. And because feelings are often intensified over both time and distance, and the response to a poorly formulated and thus misunderstood letter took just as long to come back, letters were often both more clearly, and more passionately, expressed. Digital communication may be faster, but it is also, like much of modern life, increasingly evanescent, easily erased, and quickly forgotten.

Holiday Productivity

I haven't posted or published anything in a few days, aside from NODs. My day job has kept me rather busy the past week in preparation for the holidays, leaving little time or energy for reading or writing. Though I will spend some time with family over the holidays, I hope to get at least one review written and published, that of Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets, and get some reading done as well.

I don't celebrate Christmas. And I don't accept the oft-advanced argument that Christmas -- a holiday imposed on all of us through the audiovisual pollution of flashing lights and tinseled trees, Christmas carols, product pushing and the cheery-fake 'Merry Christmas' -- is merely a cultural affair. It is not. It is a Christian affair and should not, in a society that claims to have secular government and continues to welcome new immigrants from all parts of the world with the promise of religious freedom, equality and multiculturalism, be State-sanctioned. A secular government in a multicultural society should hold no religious event above any other. Either institute official holidays for the significant events and celebrations of all religions or stay out of it altogether!

Since the State is involved in pushing Christianity by making Christmas an official holiday, I choose to take advantage of the extra time to withdraw, as much as possible, from all things Christmas-y to get some reading and writing done. Of course I take advantage of any holiday to relax a little with good food, drink and company. However, the list of upcoming books for review is getting longer than I like to see it and there is some exciting reading (and listening) ahead. After Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets I get to immerse myself in Al Young's Something About the Blues.

Prolific Professors

I have often wondered about very prolific writers, especially professors who also write books. Thinking about them, I always felt a mixture of admiration, jealousy, and shame. I admired their dedication, energy, and output, and bemoaned my lack.

I am still too angry to write about it properly. Read "A Million Little Writers" on how many writers, especially, though not exclusively, professors, manage to be such prolific writers. I too could be prolific if I had a host of minions to do the work for me--I come up with an idea and they do the research and writing to which I can affix my name.

Following Developments of E-Ink Technology

For a few years now, I've been watching developments of electronic paper display, or electronic ink technology. I checked the E Ink Corporation web site from time to time, hoping to see products on the market useful to readers and writers. Suddenly now, there seems to be an explosion of devices on the market making use of this technology.

The resolution is not yet very high, and they don't have video or even colour. But being able to carry with you one device about the size of a paperback novel (maybe a little smaller) that can hold hundreds of books, and that, unlike previous generations of e-book readers, despite being digital, is as easy on the eyes as paper, is exciting. Before e-ink, digital books simply were not appealing to me because of the strain on the eyes of looking at a screen. PDAs, though fun, were not viable as readers either, for the same reason.

A recent e-mail from Amazon.com introducing Kindle, their own reader with electronic paper technology, got me going again. Since I cannot afford to go out and purchase it now, especially since I need to research different options first, rather than jumping on the bandwagon with the first product placed under my nose, I will hold off a bit.

What I did do instead of running to the store to purchase Kindle, was a little research. I found the following companies offering readers with electronic ink displays (listed in no particular order):
- Amazon--Kindle
- eREAD--STAReBook
- 3GC, llc (dba. MyAirplane.com)--eFlyBook
- Emano Tec, inc.--MedTab
- iRex Technologies--iLiad
- Polymer Vision--READiUS
- Sony--Sony Reader
- Tianjin Jinke Electronics Co., LTD--Hanlin eReader

If I can arrange it, given my limited income, I shall be reviewing these items here as I can get a hold of them. I normally wouldn't review electronic gadgets on this site, as it is firmly a litblog, but these are alternative book technologies (for reading and writing) and thus directly relevant to this site.

Things to Love About Being a Critic

I was recently asked to submit my book recommendation(s) for the NBCC's new Best Recommended List. When I saw the list posted on Critical Mass, the NBCC's blog, I had to go and see which books had made it into the top 5 for each category and, less importantly, whether my recommendation had made it into the list.

Interestingly, though I'd glanced at or leafed through a couple of the books on the list, I haven't read a single book listed in it's entirety. Some sound very interesting. And my recommendation under non-fiction, David Livingstone Smith's The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War, was not on the list. Oh well, not a big deal.

While on the NBCC site, I got to reading Steve Kellman's acceptance speech for the 2006 Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing. He mentioned a number of things in his speech about being a critic, especially a book reviewer, that really struck a chord. Though I am still rather new to the profession and a part-timer with an unrelated day job, I found myself nodding in agreement throughout. His words made me feel good about what I do with my time after work and on weekends.

Kellman says--I'm paraphrasing here--that shunning bullshit (or horseshit) rhetoric is the first responsibility of the critic, and "[b]eing accurate, honest, informative, and provocative are others." Those are the things I strive for in my reviews. Like Kellman, I don't see much use in simply providing a brief plot summary and thumbs-up or thumbs-down. That does not enrich our culture, nor meaningfully engage the reader.

He quotes Pauline Kael's advice to reviewers (in her case of movies): "You must use everything you are and everything you know that is relevant." The beauty in talking and writing about literature is that, in doing so, the whole universe of thought and experience and subject matter is opened up. "The more we know," says Kellman, "the more we are." And here's my favourite part:

...since the critic is someone who is always learning on the job, whose very job is to learn, using everything you are produces a kind of fractal computation--the self taking the measure of an ever-enlarging self.

Beautiful!

The above is equally true for the theatre and movie critic as for the book critic. But unlike theatre and movie criticism, which requires that the critic goes out into the world, "book criticism is a solitary occupation conducted by an individual reader confronting a volume page by page and conjuring up a commentary word by reluctant word." It is an interesting mixture of private and public, solitary and social. And it is a wonderful combination of pleasure and pain.

I love it!

Managing the Day Job/Writing Balance

I still find it very difficult to manage the day job/writing balance. My day job can be quite draining even when routine. But when major changes happen--rearrangements of personnel, business realignments, changes/additions to workload, etc.--and things are neither quite secure nor settled, I am left with no energy to spare after work beyond dinner and passive activities like watching movies or t.v. shows (I generally spend very little time on the couch and in front of the 'idiot-box').

There have been some major changes at work over the past few weeks that have resulted in little reading, and even less writing getting done. I don't get paid for the writing I do (though I'm always open to offers/requests), so it might be said there's no pressure. There is pressure, mainly self-imposed, but pressure nevertheless. My stack of books-to-be-reviewed is growing, as you can see in the 'Upcoming Reviews' module, and I feel bad about keeping the publicists/publishers/authors whose books are in the pile waiting. I also feel bad about disappointing readers who come to my site to read about specific books. And then I feel bad about not writing enough, about not making enough progress as a writer--I haven't published an article or review in almost a month, nor have I sent out any queries.

The recent changes at my day job--there have been quite a few--resulted in a major case of writer's block. Even on nights when I sat down at my computer and opened a page, determined to get something written, I could not even think up a simple lead-in paragraph to an article or review. Completely blocked. So instead of wallowing in self-pity, which I hear is not uncommon among writers, writers generally being a disturbed lot, and to make myself feel better, I'd love to hear from other struggling writers who have a non-writing day job. How do you manage the balance? Please do comment!

Now back to my writing...

Book Review: Consider the Source; A Critical Guide to the 100 Most Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web, by James F. Broderick & Darren W. Miller

(Published Oct. 31, 2007 in BC Magazine)

Whether you are a newshound, student, journalist, or writer, this handy guide to news websites should save you a great deal of time.

Whether you are a student, writer, journalist, or newshound, you are often in need of sources. For most of us, the days of spending hours in a library accessing card catalogues, microfiche, and microfilm are over. Not only do most of us no longer need to use such time-consuming and inefficient technologies in search of information, many of us rarely feel the need to physically step into a library. We now have the power of the internet to access, from the comfort of our homes, an almost endless stream of information. Though we may still need to buy or borrow books, magazines, journals or newspapers for our research, the internet once again gives us ready access to information about them, their publishers and authors, and a means to buy or reserve them.

With such ready access to information, and such a dizzying number of sources, how can we know which sources to trust? How do we know the information we access is not only accurate and thorough, but also fair and balanced? How do we know whether a given source has a political, social, ideological or demographic agenda or bias? The long answer is to take the time to read our sources thoroughly and critically, and to research the authors, institutions, publishers, and sponsors behind them. Increasingly, people either lack the critical thinking and analytical skills necessary to judge their sources, and/or lack the time to do so.

This is where Consider the Source; A Critical Guide to the 100 Most Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller comes in. They have done much of the work for us. At least for a hundred sites. As the title quite unambiguously suggests, this book examines and guides us through 100 prominent online news and information sites. It purports to give us "a glimpse behind the screens of the most important news and information Web sites--from those connected to global news services to those connected only to the modems of independent journalists and idiosyncratic culture watchers."

Jim Broderick, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of journalism at New Jersey City University in Jersey City, New Jersey. He started his career writing for Indiana State University's newspaper, The Indiana Statesman, and has written for newspapers and wire services in New York City and in the Midwest. Broderick is the author of two books--Paging New Jersey: A Literary Guide to the Garden State (2003, Rutgers University Press) and The Literary Galaxy of Star Trek (2006, McFarland Publishing)--and lectures frequently on New Jersey literature and pop culture.

Darren Miller has worked as a reporter and editor for newspapers in New Jersey and North Carolina. He spent two and a half years covering the people and politics for The Mountaineer. Miller has also been editor-in-chief of The Gothic Times in Jersey City, New Jersey, writing about such topics as the death penalty, murder trials, municipal corruption, and natural disasters. He has appeared in schools and elsewhere to talk about journalism, and writes about the media on his blog, Taking Notes.

Broderick and Miller, having recently written Consider the Source together, are now working on Web of Conspiracy: A Critical Guide to the Conspiratorial World on the Internet, a book about conspiracy theories and the Web. Much more information, as well as links to the 100 sites profiled in Consider the Source can be found on their website, The Reporters' Well.

Consider the Source obviously does not, nor could it, discuss or even list every important sources of news and information on the internet. How then did they decide which sites to cover and which to leave out? The authors do state that the sites chosen have a certain prominence, reputation and importance and, significantly, that they offer content that is largely free. How exactly prominence, importance, or reputation were defined is not entirely clear. These are, after all, subjective terms. Was prominence based on a certain circulation or number of hits, or were polls conducted? How was importance defined? Important in what way and to whom? And what exactly constitutes a certain reputation? However these terms were ultimately defined, having extensively perused the guide, it seems the sources--some of them well-known, others less so--cover a wide spectrum and are treated critically and fairly.

Consider the Source examines the strengths and weaknesses of each site, listed in alphabetical order, and provides links to them. The criteria used to critique the sources are fairly straight-forward: balance, thoroughness, compelling writing, and sensible use of available technology. Each source is covered under the following useful, and fairly brief, sections: "Overview," "What You'll Find There," "Why You Should Visit," "Keep This in Mind," and "Off the Record." These provide the reader with not only a general overview of the source as a whole, but also the site's main features, reasons to visit (or not to visit, in some cases), lesser known aspects, such as it's history or ideological roots or leanings, and other interesting facts. For every source, also, a URL and small visual snapshot are provided. And at the end of each there is a rating displayed as 1 to 5 newspapers.

As important as content in a site's critique is its accessibility and user-friendliness. Some sites, while scoring high in terms of content and historical importance (see AFP--Agence France-Press, "considered to be the oldest news agency in the world"), received a low final rating because their sites were poor (1 newspaper out of 5 for AFP).

At the end, Consider the Source has an appendix listing all sites covered by their ranking, from five newspapers down to one. This is a very handy feature, allowing the reader--perhaps I should say user--quick access to rankings for specific sites. Though handy, I sincerely hope users will read, at least once, the complete critique of each source used. And this leads me to one concern. So many people already don't take the time, or have the critical skills, to adequately determine the value of a given source. This guide, though very useful as a reference for the busy researcher, does not provide, except perhaps by example, access to the tools themselves, to the critical skills needed to analyze sources. There are, after all, many more sites on the internet than the hundred discussed here.

Consider the Source should fit comfortably on the busy researcher's reference shelf. Whether you are a newshound, student, journalist, or writer, this guide should save you a great deal of time in getting a sense of the reliability and usefulness of at least one hundred prominent, important, and reputable news and information sites. Put it next to your writer's guides.

Update: Review of Consider the Source Submitted

My review of Consider the Source has been submitted to BC Magazine. I will post it here as soon as I hear that they have published it.

Thanks for your patience.

Hankering After Good Literary Fiction Titles for Review

I've gotten into a non-fiction groove for quite some time now, not because I wanted to review more non-fiction than fiction, but rather because I've seen very few fiction titles offered through blogcritics of interest to me. While I haven't done a thorough analysis of blogcritics' offerings, it seems to me that there is much more, in terms of books, in non-fiction, while the bulk of fiction is genre-based.

Non-fiction reviewing is great, don't get me wrong. I've read and have written on some very interesting books lately, and there are, if you'll glance at the 'Upcoming Reviews' module in the sidebar, some very interesting and informative books coming up in the next month or so. As for genre fiction, though I acknowledge its place, it's not really my thing.

I have been in contact with Sourcebooks and am awaiting some poetry collections--"Poetry Speaks Expanded" and "Something About the Blues." I am looking forward to those, but I am also hankering after some really good literary fiction. I've been eying the books short-listed for the Giller, Governor General's, and Man Booker Prizes.

Anyway, I hope to get back into literary fiction after the current pile of 'upcoming reviews' are done. Here's a call to publishers, publicists and authors to send me books of literary fiction for review. Though I am just one person with a day job and therefore cannot promise to review all books sent me, I am certainly always open to receiving review materials.

Is Literary Fiction on the Decline?

I came across an interesting article today from the Toronto Star--"Why novelists are nervous." The article, by the Star's books columnist Philip Marchand, made me grunt, swear, beat my fist upon the unsuspecting and innocent dining-room table and, since she was within earshot, share especially frustrating points with my partner. You, incidentally, are also within proverbial earshot.

We have often discussed and lamented the very things brought up in the article. Marchand notes changes in practice, if not policy, at this year's International Festival of Authors in Toronto, to which I won't have the time to go. "It used to be," he writes, "that non-fiction writers need not apply to appear at the International Festival of Authors--unless they were literary biographers." This year, the IFOA, starting at Harbourfront today, has expanded its non-fiction entries available and will highlight the Charles Taylor Prize for literary non-fiction. And a number of prominent writers--Charlotte Gray, Larry Gaudet, David Gilmour, and Rudy Wiebe--will be there specifically because of their non-fiction work.

What's so bad about opening the festival up a bit? Nothing, really. I'm all for inclusion--there is a great deal of very good non-fiction work being produced. The question is whether literary fiction coverage will be reduced, or pushed aside, to accommodate the inclusion. Does it mean, as 'some nervous novelists' feel, that literary fiction is slowly losing its footing in our culture? Marchand says that particular complaint is being raised more often from various quarters--"'literary fiction is losing market share to memoirs and genre fiction'" (from Australian Book Review, April 2005), and '"literary fiction has lost its authority in the culture'" (from Publishers Weekly, Sept. 10). John Updike, quoted by Marchand, also thinks people are becoming less comfortable with the novel, in part because readers no longer have the "backward frame of reference that would enable them to appreciate things like irony and allusions. It's sad."

It is sad. I've certainly noticed less allusion in modern fiction (with notable exceptions), certainly allusion to older forms--literary, as well as cultural, linguistic, and religious. More often now, allusions are to popular culture, or music, or other contemporary forms. Again, I don't decry these. But I worry that there is an erosion of culture where much of the former depth is lost, that deep, nutrient-rich vertical accumulation out of which successive generations have grown, and that we'll be left with only a thin layer of often artificially enhanced and fertilized topsoil. Without that depth, we lose perspective, and without perspective we lose strength, especially to weather storms. Pardon the extended agricultural metaphor.

Philip Roth is also quoted, responding to a question about the conditions for literary fiction, in which he states that there's no doubt that the conditions have deteriorated. He says the status of literature has gone down since he began writing, and that there are also fewer serious critics, fewer serious readers, and many more distractions. He points to 'the screen' as a major distraction--the movie screen, the television screen, and the computer screen. We may as well throw in souped-up cell phones, iPods, and gaming machines that provide both auditory and visual distractions. And then, of course, there are the distractions, brought to young people in large part by ubiquitous advertisements, of mass consumerism.

Marchand, perhaps to balance the article's perspective, approaches both the festival's artistic director, Geoffrey Taylor, and independent booksellers. Taylor, not surprisingly, assures readers that the change does not portend a decline in literary fiction. They have added to, not subtracted from, the program. "But we're trying to be more reflective of what people read," he adds, and "[r]eal readers will read all kinds of things."

Independent booksellers in Toronto, Marchand finds, don't think there is a decline in literary fiction. But I think they, like the festival organizer, are the wrong people to ask. It is in their best interests to sound upbeat about it all. How else can they continue to sell? It might be more instructive to ask the owners/managers of large bookstore chains. First, they carry enough of everything to not care so much about the decline of any one area, and second, because they are so much larger, they are better able to recognize and predict overall trends.

What I would have liked more of a focus on is the decline of literacy, something to which he refers, almost as an afterthought, in a paragraph mentioning the impact of the events of 9/11 on the New York publishing industry. And "the situation is different in Canada and the United States," he adds. Yes, perhaps, but mainly in degree. In many areas we are fast catching up. And not in a good way, either.

Some Notes on Toronto's "The Word on the Street" 2007

My partner and I spent most of the day in Toronto today at "The Word on the Street," an annual book and magazine festival. While we enjoyed it, on the whole, walking away with some useful information and a couple of good books (we would have liked to walk away with many more books, but are rather financially challenged), it ended with both of us very disheartened, disturbed and enraged. I'll get to that part in a bit.

My partner bought Courage Underground, a small book of poetry by Julie Roorda, published in 2006 by Guernica. I bought Writing Life: Celebrated Canadian and International Authors on Writing and Life, edited by Constance Rooke and published by McClelland & Stewart in 2006, with proceeds to PEN Canada. I shall write about that when my pile of to-be-reviewed books gets smaller and I get to reading this one.

We also attended a couple of events at the Diaspora Dialogues Tent--"Sounds of the City: Hip Hop, Soul & Spoken Word" and "Writing "The Diaspora": Strengthening Our Voices or Ghettoizing Ourselves?" The first event, at 1600, was an interesting mix of spoken word and soul, featuring Mohammad Ali, lisa 'luscious' tai, a young Somali-Canadian artist (she is not listed in the program and I don't remember her name), and GreenTaRA.

While I enjoyed the clever and politically-charged spoken word of lisa 'luscious' tai, and found the songs of GreenTaRA quite pleasing, I particularly liked the little sketch by the young Somali-Canadian artist, a conversation on politics and soccer between two old Nicaraguan men in a Toronto barbershop that was rather profound. I was also quite impressed by the young Mohammad Ali, "a socialist anti-war activist and hip hop artist working with the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, the Toronto Haitian Action Committee and the War Resisters Support Campaign." His Haitian history and freedom rant, with tie-ins to George Bush and the war on terror, was right on the mark and very well executed.

The last event we attended, also in the Diaspora Dialogues Tent, a discussion of the usefulness and continued relevance of terms such as 'mainstream' and 'writer of colour' in the publishing industry, was expected to be interesting but academic and civil. It might have been so had the latter of the following two unscheduled panelists not showed up--Tina Edan, a poet and community leader in Toronto, and Joseph Kertes, founder and director of the Humber School of Writers at Humber College. Scheduled to be on the panel were Nadine Sivak, Policy Officer at Canadian Heritage, and House of Anansi Press Publisher, Lynn Henry.

Since I did not, unfortunately, record the panel discussion, nor take notes, I will have to summarize (hopefully someone has recorded the discussion and will post it online). The discussion was at first fairly interesting and civil, with some disagreement between Joe and the rest of the panelists on equality of opportunity and access of minority writers in the publishing industry. While Nadine cited statistics compiled by the Canadian government on funding offered to writers and other artists, noting that minority groups were greatly underrepresented in receipt of funding, Lynn emphasized that much still needed to be done in terms of seeing proportional representation of minority writers in the Canadian publishing industry, and Tina mentioned the lack of representation of minorities on panels, in funding committees, and at the head of publishing houses and writers' programs, Joe Kertes would have none of it. He seemed to be of the opinion that, to paraphrase, 'you can only do so much to coax them into writing', that there no longer exist, in Canada, any barriers to access for minority writers, and that we now live in a wonderful country where we all love one another and where there is equal opportunity and access for all.

Joe's views seemed to range from naive to arrogant to downright patronizing and colonial. Indeed, some of his comments were reminiscent of 19th Century British colonialists in India. Indeed, when discussing Aboriginal issues, his comments prompted Tina to interject with a 'Colonialism 101' remark, explaining that they were indeed the First Peoples here, and that Canada carried out a genocide against them that, in some ways, continues to this day. Joe retorted angrily that there is no such thing as original peoples anywhere, and that while there might at one time have been mistreatment of Aboriginals in Canada, it is certainly no longer happening. He turned to the audience, requesting a show of hands on the question of a continuing genocide against Aboriginal Peoples, and many in the audience lifted their hands. One audience member suggested, for a little proof that something is still very amiss on Native Reserves, that he try drinking the water there. Joe Kertes' arrogant, patronizing and, quite frankly, colonialist attitude is a grim reminder of just how far we have yet to go and what barriers to access minority writers do indeed still face with people like him at the helm of creative writing programs and in other positions of power in the publishing industry.

Update: NBCC, Literary Blogs, BlogRush, and the Word on the Street

I recently became a member of the National Book Critics Circle and have added a linked button to the NBCC site (see middle sidebar, halfway down). I am happy to be a member of an organization that not only supports reviewers, but also supports literature through its campaign to save the book review, as well as through the content of its websites--NBCC main (especially useful here for the general reading public are the "Useful Book and Criticism-Related Links"); and Critical Mass, their blog (especially "The Critical I: Conversations With Critics and Review Editors", and "Critical Outtakes: Discussions With Writers").

To further support literature, I've also added "Literary Blogs" to my sidebar. Expect this to grow as I discover more. This is not a comprehensive list of blogs discussing literature, but rather blogs I myself visit now and again. While I take pleasure in having people read my reviews and reflections on literature and writing, I firmly believe that diversity of perspective is as important as biological diversity. Read, think, discuss. Read my site, read their sites, and I hope you'll return to Wordwork|play.

I also joined BlogRush today, a blog syndication network (click here to learn more about them), in an effort to get my site out there a bit more. I don't know yet how that will work out, but I thought it worth a try. I'll try to fine tune the widget a bit over the next little while to control what type of sites appearing in the BlogRush box to make them content-relevant.

And tomorrow, my partner and I are going to The Word on the Street book and magazine festival at Queen's Park Crescent in Toronto. I'm so excited. It'll be the first time for both of us there. There'll be arts organizations, educational and literary associations, institutions, and libraries, book publishers and sellers, magazine publishers and sellers, workshops, media, etc. I'll report on that, hopefully, tomorrow night after we return from the event.

NOD: Virtual Worlds, then onto Teeth, Another First for Me

My review of Virtual Worlds should be submitted today, published on Blogcritics Magazine, then posted here by tomorrow or, at the very latest, Monday. Here's another thought-provoking NOD from Virtual Worlds:

Being connected is what 16-32 years olds (sic) live for, says Sky Dayton, who founded EarthLink in 1994 at the age of 23 and is now CEO of Helio (a joint venture of EarthLink and SK Telecom). "It's not content that's at the core of new media; it's communications..."

And now on to Teeth, by Aracelis Girmay. This will be my first poetry review. I have, of course, written essays on poetry during my university days, but writing reviews for the general public is quite another matter.

There have been many firsts since I began reviewing. There was, not so long ago, my first novel review. I stressed about that one a fair bit. Then there was my first non-fiction book review. I stressed about that one a fair bit as well. And now I am about to embark on my first poetry book.

I hope my first attempt will not be too amateurish and will, at least somewhat, do the work justice. Ultimately it is you, the reader of my reviews, who must judge their effectiveness. While I continue to ask your indulgence as I hone my craft, I do very much appreciate your comments and feedback. Indeed, I solicit feedback.

On to An Ocean of Air, by Gabrielle Walker

I have submitted my review of David Livingstone Smith's The Most Dangerous Animal and am waiting for Blogcritics to publish it before posting it here.

Now on to other things. Since I am already well into my next non-fiction book for review, Gabrielle Walker's An Ocean of Air: Why the Wind Blows and Other Mysteries of the Atmosphere, I will begin my NODs for/to this fascinating book.

The previous book was, for the most part, depressing. This one, because of its subject matter, is light. Aside from my NODs and occasional reflections related to them, I will not discuss the book much further until my review of it is up.

Today's NOD, a few sentences about Joseph Priestly, will be accompanied by comment because it is so admirable, and yet so difficult to emulate:

Priestly had no fear of false starts and misconceptions, and detailed all of his mistakes for the benefit of the "adventurers in experimental philosophy" who would follow him. Nor was he afraid of being caught out in his errors. "He who does not foolishly affect to be above the failings of humanity," he once wrote, "will not be mortified when it is proved that he is but a man."

While I do have a fear of false starts and misconceptions, that fear having been firmly driven into me through socialization and past experience, I do agree with Priestly in principle. As much as he detailed his mistakes for the benefit of the scientists who would follow him, I had planned, when first starting this blog, to detail my own mistakes related to writing. I must say, however, that acknowledgment of being new to a task, or to be blunt, having fucked up, is not easy. I feel a certain amount of pressure to conceal both my newness to professional writing and my missteps along the way in order to project a favorable, accomplished, professional image. The fear is that such acknowledgments would prejudice my readers and hinder me in my progress. Who, after all, wants to hire a newbie?

I will gladly be 'caught out in my errors.' Though not pleasant, it presents a great learning opportunity. That is why comments are always open on my posts. For that reason and, of course, for encouragement and discussion. As for the last part, I completely agree. I am but a man, but human. I have no illusions about my human failings.

Look for more interesting little tidbits in the form of NODs from Gabrielle Walker's book.

NOD (Nugget of the Day): Irresistible Morsels from Current Reading

Most books worth reading, be they fiction or non-fiction, contain at least one or two striking phrases, phrases that stand out because they are cleverly or beautifully constructed, or because the idea(s) they contain are particularly powerful. Each of these descriptors--clever, beautiful, powerful--itself could be unpacked and further defined. Each of them, also, is subjective. Really good books contain numerous such phrases.

Not so long ago I picked up an old Aldous Huxley book, a work of historical fiction entitled The Devils of Loudon. I hadn't read more than 20 pages before realizing that there were simply too many delicious nuggets in that book to continue reading sans pencil. I stopped reading, grabbed a pencil, and instead of continuing where I'd left off previously, returned to the beginning. Armed with a pencil, I was able to capture, by underlining, the many beautiful, clever, disturbing, insightful, powerful, or shocking sentences and paragraphs.

It may be an old habit formed in university English courses, but I rarely read a book without pencil in hand. Or if it's a borrowed book, small sticky notes. And this is always the case when reading a book for review. It may take me a little longer to get through a book, stopping here and there to underline or write a note, but the process helps me find relevant points for discussion more readily. And, significantly, it is also a great aid to memory, underlining the selection, as it were, in one's memory.

To share the many wonderful nuggets contained in the books I am reading and reviewing, I will begin posting, under a new category, my nuggets of the day (NOD). I will try to post one daily, but please don't hold me too rigidly to this schedule. The NOD, conveniently, will also serve as a nod to the book (and author) from which (whom) it is derived. Less significantly, it will also provide busy readers with daily fascinating and thought-provoking, yet quickly-read, posts. There shall be no reason, if you'll excuse the pun, to nod off when reading these.

Errata in Review of If Olaya Street Could Talk

In e-mail correspondence, John Paul Jones, the author of If Olaya Street Could Talk pointed out a couple of mistakes I had made in my review. Since I value and strive for accuracy and integrity in my writing, I am grateful to have them pointed out.

I wrote that KFSH was modeled on St. Jude's. Here's the author's correction: "King Faisal Specialist Hospital was not modeled on St. Jude's. KFSH commenced operation in 1975. It was in the late '80's that Dr. Al-Rashid starting building his St. Jude model, 40 km away from the KFSH hospital. It was eventually given to KFSH to manage and operate, and became an integral part of the KFSH operation."

Secondly, I had written that a number of the 9/11 hijackers were from the same area as Juhaiman Al Ataybi. Correction: "Juhaiman Al Ataybi, the leader of the group who took the Grand Mosque in Mecca in 1979 was from Qassim, which is about 300 km north of Riyadh. Several of the 9-11 hijackers were from the Asir, the mountainous region from in the far west ( Yemen's "lost provinces"). The confusion no doubt came when I said that we may have very well passed each other on those mountain roads - the post-mortem on the attack indicated they had split up, and converged on Mecca from all directions, in small groups."

Two New Modules in Sidebar: Upcoming and Recent Book Reviews

Since I am doing a lot more reviews of books lately, and I intend to continue doing so, I decided to add two new sidebar modules. One is designed to entice, the other to remind and redirect. 'Upcoming Reviews' shows readers a list of books currently on the soon-to-be-read-and-reviewed shelf, while 'Recently Reviewed' shows readers the books I have recently reviewed and connects them either to Amazon.com (if image is clicked) to purchase the book, or to my review (if link in notes is clicked).

I hope these new additions will be helpful, even if a bit redundant. Three of my recent reviews have been syndicated to advance.net and boston.com, so I do get some more visitors from across the United States and elsewhere. Once on my site, whether via online news sites or otherwise, these modules are meant to provide easy access to further reading. Maybe readers who liked a specific review will not only read other reviews I've written, and/or come back to my site from time to time for upcoming ones.

On the Power of Polished Writing

I see certain misuses and abuses of written English all over the place. I see people confusing 'there', 'their', and 'they're'. I see people confusing 'then' and 'than'. I see improperly placed apostrophes, improper pluralization, and false back-formations. The really sad thing is that these errors are appearing all over the place--billboards, magazines (both in ads and in articles), newspapers (both large and small), personal and business websites and, of course, workplace memos.

I don't mind neologisms and slang in certain contexts, nor (though it took me a while to get comfortable with this) the use of the plural pronoun to eliminate gender bias, nor abbreviated, modified, shorthand forms in internet chat programs. But please, please, take some time to check your work when publishing material, whether on the workplace intranet, the internet, or print media!

Seeing these errors in corporate e-mails and memos is irritating enough. Seeing them in advertisements and on corporate websites is, quite frankly, off-putting. Seeing them with increasing regularity in newspapers and magazines is simply ridiculous! Are our schools not imparting language skills anymore, passing on elementary language skills like punctuation, spelling and grammar? We all make a typo here and there or forget how to spell a word, but little errors and misuses such as the above are indicative of improper/incomplete education and/or carelessness. And as far as the print media is concerned, where the heck are the proofreaders and editors? Should they not be catching these things?

So what set this rant off today? Well, I read a memo at work wherein two increasingly common mistakes were made--'your' used in place of the contraction for 'you are', as in "your supposed to wear the company badge at all times," and an apostrophe used to pluralize, as in "visitor's are required to sign in." These errors irk me so. I've often thought, when confronted with such glaring errors at work, of stepping forward to become an unofficial proofreader/editor of corporate communications. But then, knowing my employer, I would likely end up with an extra workload and no concomitant pay raise.

Good writing packs more punch. A well written article is more likely to be taken seriously than one riddled with typos, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, or punctuation problems. It works the same way if the content is spoken rather than written. The words of someone who speaks clearly and enunciates well will generally carry more weight. The same goes for inflection, but that is for another post.

Allow me to proffer an example from my university days to illustrate the power of polished writing. I had written an essay for a religious studies class in which, as the professor later pointed out, the argument was circular. I still got an A for the paper because, as the professor explained somewhat sheepishly, it was so well written and such a joy to read. Of course professors nowadays are also bombarded with horrendous writing, especially in first year classes, leading some English instructors to spend a significant portion of a first year English class on grammar and essay writing. Though feeling a mixture of elation and embarrassment at the time, I now think the professor made an error in judgment in overlooking the circular logic.

Rightly or wrongly, it pays to write well. That is not to say that one should follow Strunk & White to the letter. There is something to be said for the natural evolution of language, as with neologisms and slang, and much to be said for the creative and purposeful break from convention by those familiar with it, by those who know the rules. In the end, however, clear, correct, polished writing packs punch. You are well advised to write with care. And don't be shy about consulting a dictionary or style guide from time to time.

Syndication of Posts and Whole Blogs

A couple of my book reviews have recently been syndicated to online news sites. I had published the reviews first on Blogcritics Magazine. The books editor then selected my reviews and passed them on for syndication to advance.net and boston.com. Having little past publishing experience and exposure, I was rather excited to find my writing made available to a much bigger audience through syndication.

Excited as I was to be syndicated, I wanted to find out more about the practice and process of syndication. So I did a little research. The relevant dictionary definition of syndicate is to "sell (a comic strip or column, for example) through a syndicate for simultaneous publication in newspapers or periodicals" (The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, via YourDictionary.com). The irony here is that, though my reviews are being published on multiple news sites simultaneously, they are not being sold to these sites, at least not by me. The only thing I get out of it is the exposure.

An article by Stephen Bryant on the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review, entitled "Syndicate this! Linking old media to new," reports on the emerging relationship between old and new media. More specifically, Bryant addresses the syndication of blogs content on major news sites. Among them are such papers as The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News. Dave Patton, CEO of Pluck, has created BlogBurst to help news organizations select blogs for syndication.

The idea of BlogBurst is basically this: bloggers submit their sites to BlogBurst and their editors then look over each site to determine whether both content and quality are appropriate for syndication. Why can't news editors do this themselves? Apparently, says Bryant, it is less a matter "of ability than editorial control. Newspapers need to pre-approve content for fear of diluting their brand." In other words, they need someone to filter sites. BlogBurst provides that service to them.

I have given BlogBurst some thought, finding aspects of it, particularly the exposure it could give me, appealing, but also have some nagging questions. Once my site is selected as one for syndication, how free am I to speak my mind, to choose what I want to blog about, or even what language to use? I would gladly blog for a news site on specific topics on a regular basis, in which case I know by whose rules and boundaries I am constrained. I am also happy to have individual posts/articles selected for syndication, as is currently the case through Blogcritics Magazine. I am wary, however, of having someone's editorial control, someone's filter, restrict my creative range and freedom on my own blog.

I have only scratched the surface of the complex relationship, a quickly evolving one at that, between old and new media. Even as far as syndication services like BlogBurst are concerned, I have more research to do, so I keep an open mind.

What are your thoughts on the syndication of entire blogs? If anyone has experience with such, please share your insights with me. I'd be happy to hear from all sides on this issue.

Watching and Learning from Visitor Stats

Until recently, my visitor stats did not mean much to me. I simply did not have enough traffic, nor did I spend enough time analyzing it, to learn much. I still have relatively little traffic coming to my site and can think of several factors responsible--infrequent posting (I don't post quite every day), type of subject matter (social and environmental justice issues, literature, and writing), breadth of subject matter (see long list of categories), and the lack of a following (visitors who check back regularly).

Since I began writing for BC Magazine, I've noticed brief spikes in traffic after publishing an article with them. The highest spike came about a week ago, after my review of Andrew Beierle's novel, First Person Plural, was simultaneously published by BC and syndicated to the Advance.net and Boston.com news sites. My visitors over the next couple of days shot higher than they'd ever gone before.

I realized that the syndication of my book review resulted in a much wider audience, which in turn was driving the traffic back to my site. So when I published another book review a week later, this time of Nancy Alonso's Closed for Repairs, and it also was chosen for syndication, I half expected similar spikes in traffic. They did not materialize. Certainly not today, though I will still watch tomorrow closely.

So I got to thinking. Why would one review draw more visitors than the other? Both reviews received the same potential audience, the same exposure--blogcritics.org and my blog, as well as the advance.net family of news sites and the Boston Globe site. They were also both published at the start of the week. So the difference in traffic generated lies, I think, in the demographic appeal of the subject matter of each review, and to some extent, perhaps, also in the freshness on the market of each book--the first review was of a book not yet released, while the second was of a book already on the market, but recently released in translation. Some books, because of their subject matter, appeal to a much wider audience. Some audiences, also, have more buying power.

What does all this analysis of visitor stats mean to me? Not all that much. I find it all interesting, in an academic sort of way, but think an over-reliance on quantity over quality can be treacherous. The number of people drawn to my site by a particular post, article, or review does not matter as much as the type of person drawn. Larger numbers may equal more exposure, but the type of visitor determines where and how far that exposure can take me.

Gender Commentary and Punctuation Lesson in One

I stumbled across an interesting little anecdote that serves both as commentary on prevailing views on gender in society, or gendered views, and as a lesson in punctuation.

The following sentence, with word order intact, can have entirely opposite meanings depending on the punctuation used:

"A woman without her man is nothing"

One meaning is brought about with the help of two commas and a period: "A woman, without her man, is nothing." The opposite meaning is achieved by adding a colon, comma, and period: "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

The site on which I found this little punctuation lesson concluded with "Punctuation is everything," like the one-time slogan of the Globe and Mail, "Perspective is everything." It appears under the 'Fun' category of the website, so I don't know if the gender aspect was given much thought, or if so, which version the writer might identify with.

Anyway, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that punctuation is everything, I would say that it can be a crucial determiner of meaning. And as you can see, it can also tell us a bit about the writer, or to be more specific, the punctuator (Grammatical Aside: I can't seem to find a definitive answer on general semantic differences between -or and -er agentive endings, so I don't know which this word should have). Check out the original anecdote here.

On Writing, and "Running with Scissors"

Sometime today, I'm not sure exactly when, I realized that the statement at the end of my previous post, the part about you, the reader, holding me accountable to write something every day was a little silly. No, I am not merely backtracking, wimping out, hiding in a corner. I say it's silly because you cannot possibly know whether or not I write every day. You must take my word for it. Or not. I may well be dissembling. And just because I may miss a post here and there doesn't mean I did not write anything at all. After all, not all crap deserves an audience. Some crap perhaps, but certainly not all.

Speaking of crap, I saw an interesting movie tonight, having seen a trailer for it recently, but not really knowing what it was about, nor that it was based on Augusten Burrough's memoir, "Running with Scissors." I'm not saying "Running with Scissors" was crap. Not at all. It was at times funny, most of the time dark and sad, at times enraging, and even a little inspiring. It's just that the word crap served as a useful segue into the rest of this post, away from my silly little admission about my previous post. (May my crap point boldly upwards.) If you've seen the movie you may understand the crap segue.

While I don't know to what extent the story is fictionalized memoir versus creative non-fiction, the truly fucked up family situation reminded me of a little poem by English poet, Philip Larkin, with the grandiose but tongue-in-cheek title, "This Be The Verse."

They fuck you up, your mum and dad
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

Brilliant! The frankness of the poem, as also the language used, especially for someone of Larkin's generation, astonished then amazed me. Of course--here's the rub--if we all followed his advice, we'd go extinct. Not a bad thing, perhaps, for the planet and the many beings with whom, or which, we cohabit. I digress.

Putting grand thoughts on the human experiment aside, I shall return to the subject of writing. I know I love writing and, at least in the academic realm, I demonstrated significant facility with the written word. Professors, if you will allow me toot my own horn a little, seemed quite pleased, dare I say impressed, with my writing. If any former instructor of mine, from McMaster University or the University of Toronto, should happen to read my humble blog, please do leave a comment.

I would love to quit my day job (may my employer and coworkers have mercy upon me) and write full time. But as much as I love writing, it sometimes scares the crap out of me. I mean writing for a living scares the crap out of me. But