I am not staying up til midnight to blog - I've better things to do :-) So you'll have to accept this new year's greeting from me at 7:15 PM on Monday, December 31, 2007.
Like all the years seem to do as you age, this one flew by with barely a blink and a nod. A lot happened this year, and I think that's what contributes to time passing so quickly.
A few things that happened:
1. We bought land in Virginia.
2. My good friend Micah left for a job at a different company. (We'd worked together for over 6 years).
3. My good friend Aubrey left for Seattle to get married and pregnant. (Actually his wife got pregnant, but it's faster to say it the way I did)
4. I published my second book.
5. My short story, The Train, was accepted into Amazon Shorts.
6. My father-in-law looked for a while as if he might die.
7. My wife and kids left for three weeks to take care of her dad.
and so on. I can think of many more things to add to this list, but you get the idea. Time keeps marching on and events constantly change our world around us, whether we like it or not.
There is one thing I hope to accomplish in 2008. That would be finishing the novel I started in 2006. I haven't touched it since April of 07, but it's about 2/3 finished. I have several other aspirations as well; that's the biggest though.
Here's to the New Year, and let's hope it's a good 'un!
Cheers, Jeff
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
What Exactly are the Rules of Poetry?
Poetry is like pornography in this respect - no one seems able to define it, but they know it when they see it. Poetry is an elusive concept for many. They think that if something is written in four-line verses, then it must be poetry. Or if it is written in short-line, truncated sentences, then that qualifies as well. Some seem to think that anything written about love or sex or flowers is poetry, while others think that making a list of single words will suffice. If you can make your political views about how you hate the President rhyme, then you must be a poet laureate! There are many readers out there who would certainly applaud you for it.
So are there rules regarding the writing of poetry? Yes.
And no.
If you are writing a Shakespearean sonnet, for instance, you would construct them with three four-line stanzas (called quatrains) and a final couplet composed in iambic pentameter, with the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
Iambic pentameter means a line with 5 iambic feet. Since each iamb is two syllables, that means each line should have ten syllables. Yet if you read enough sonnets, you will see that writers will break the "ten-syllable rule" at times.
Does this make it less of a sonnet? Of course not.
Let's take a look at punctuation.
I've run into some readers who will ding a writer left and right if they don't use punctuation. While I generally do use punctuation, there are times when what I write seems to defy its use. I will acquiesce to the demands of the piece and let it work on its own merit, and I'm OK with that. E.E. Cummings (sorry for the uppercase letters e.e. lol) either used punctuation in traditional and nontraditional ways or left it out altogether. He was about flaunting an anti-establishment approach to his work.
Would e.e. cummings be criticized for this experimental and bold approach? He probably was in his day, but he is now accepted for what he was - a groundbreaking poet.
So what about the rules of poetry?
Perhaps they are more like guidelines than rules, for they seem to be somewhat flexible.
However, they should not necessarily be tossed out with the bathwater.
There is at least one rule I can think of that is very pertinent to poetry.
That is this...
DON'T BORE THE READER.
So are there rules regarding the writing of poetry? Yes.
And no.
If you are writing a Shakespearean sonnet, for instance, you would construct them with three four-line stanzas (called quatrains) and a final couplet composed in iambic pentameter, with the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
Iambic pentameter means a line with 5 iambic feet. Since each iamb is two syllables, that means each line should have ten syllables. Yet if you read enough sonnets, you will see that writers will break the "ten-syllable rule" at times.
Does this make it less of a sonnet? Of course not.
Let's take a look at punctuation.
I've run into some readers who will ding a writer left and right if they don't use punctuation. While I generally do use punctuation, there are times when what I write seems to defy its use. I will acquiesce to the demands of the piece and let it work on its own merit, and I'm OK with that. E.E. Cummings (sorry for the uppercase letters e.e. lol) either used punctuation in traditional and nontraditional ways or left it out altogether. He was about flaunting an anti-establishment approach to his work.
Would e.e. cummings be criticized for this experimental and bold approach? He probably was in his day, but he is now accepted for what he was - a groundbreaking poet.
So what about the rules of poetry?
Perhaps they are more like guidelines than rules, for they seem to be somewhat flexible.
However, they should not necessarily be tossed out with the bathwater.
There is at least one rule I can think of that is very pertinent to poetry.
That is this...
DON'T BORE THE READER.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Finally Figured It Out
Earlier in the season, when the Patriots were defeating opponents by 20, 30 or more points, they were roundly accused by many of running up the score. Most speculated that it was Belichick's way of thumbing his nose at the league after the now infamous videogate episode with the Jets.
It's taken most of the season, but I now think I know what was going on. After winning three Super Bowls, what was left for Belichick, Brady and crew to accomplish? Another Super Bowl Championship would be nice, but, frankly, they've been there, done that.
What remains is this: to establish a legacy and ensure Hall of Fame status by setting new records, both as a team and individuals. I believe Belichick and the front office went into the season with these goals in mind. Why else would they stack the team with a gazillion receivers, including Wes Welker and Randy Moss if not to give Tom Brady a good shot at unseating Manning as all-time leading TD thrower?
I believe they also had an undefeated season in mind as well - the first team in history to do it with 16 games, unlike the Dolphins who did it when the league only played 14 games.
Think of all the other potential records - most passes received, passing yards, and so on. The Patriots' early dominance in the season put them in a position to be able to chase after all those numbers. And I believe that has been their intent the whole time.
It's taken most of the season, but I now think I know what was going on. After winning three Super Bowls, what was left for Belichick, Brady and crew to accomplish? Another Super Bowl Championship would be nice, but, frankly, they've been there, done that.
What remains is this: to establish a legacy and ensure Hall of Fame status by setting new records, both as a team and individuals. I believe Belichick and the front office went into the season with these goals in mind. Why else would they stack the team with a gazillion receivers, including Wes Welker and Randy Moss if not to give Tom Brady a good shot at unseating Manning as all-time leading TD thrower?
I believe they also had an undefeated season in mind as well - the first team in history to do it with 16 games, unlike the Dolphins who did it when the league only played 14 games.
Think of all the other potential records - most passes received, passing yards, and so on. The Patriots' early dominance in the season put them in a position to be able to chase after all those numbers. And I believe that has been their intent the whole time.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Just Call Me Old-Fashioned
I have been on writing sites for the better part of two years now. They have been mostly poetry sites, but I've also joined a few prose sites as well. And I also spend some time at the Amazon shorts message boards swapping reviews with other contributing writers to the program.
The poetry sites are all armchair, do-it-yourselfer poets. By that I mean there are no well known, published professional poets at these sites. You won't find Maya Angelou or John Ashbery hanging out at poets.com, thepoetstree.com, worldofpoets.com or any of the numerous "workshop" sites.
On the Amazon shorts boards, you will find writers whose works have been published, though they may not be as mainstream as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. Yet they still aspire to that which anyone who creates aspires - recognition and success.
I read a lot of things, and I've noticed a lot of people writing much about demons, fairies, new age mysticism, and erotic fantasy. I find this to be, perhaps not unexpected given our cultural schizophrenia these days, but somewhat discomforting.
It's as if we've replaced "How do I love thee, let me count the ways" with the bizarre, the occultic and the downright salacious. Perhaps even more unsettling is the amount of people who encourage it. Literary value is being replaced with an odd sensationalism that is like a narcotic of words.
I am a fan of classical writing - I haven't read nearly enough of it to be well versed. But I find it satisfying on many levels. I also think a good story can be told without sex, without demons, without spirit lights and metaphysical nonsense.
Just call me old-fashioned I guess.
The poetry sites are all armchair, do-it-yourselfer poets. By that I mean there are no well known, published professional poets at these sites. You won't find Maya Angelou or John Ashbery hanging out at poets.com, thepoetstree.com, worldofpoets.com or any of the numerous "workshop" sites.
On the Amazon shorts boards, you will find writers whose works have been published, though they may not be as mainstream as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. Yet they still aspire to that which anyone who creates aspires - recognition and success.
I read a lot of things, and I've noticed a lot of people writing much about demons, fairies, new age mysticism, and erotic fantasy. I find this to be, perhaps not unexpected given our cultural schizophrenia these days, but somewhat discomforting.
It's as if we've replaced "How do I love thee, let me count the ways" with the bizarre, the occultic and the downright salacious. Perhaps even more unsettling is the amount of people who encourage it. Literary value is being replaced with an odd sensationalism that is like a narcotic of words.
I am a fan of classical writing - I haven't read nearly enough of it to be well versed. But I find it satisfying on many levels. I also think a good story can be told without sex, without demons, without spirit lights and metaphysical nonsense.
Just call me old-fashioned I guess.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth
So now the Mitchell report has been released. And we find out that there are some marquis names on the list, though not nearly as many as was thought would be. What is the response?
Overall, I'd say the response has been fairly tepid. While the media has been blasting around the report as if we have reached doomsday, statements from individuals on the list remain strangely absent with a few exceptions.
Baseball has always lived by its own code of ethics, the main ethic being that what happens in baseball, stays in baseball. History is rife with stories of drug usage, alcoholism, rampant infidelity in the sports world, even criminal activity in the sports world, but the leagues, for the sake of public relations, have always tried to bury everything in the proverbial sand where they stuck their heads.
It's rather childish when you think about it. It's as if by ignoring the problem, or by playing shallow lip service to it, then it becomes persona non grata. It goes away.
Fans won't do anything about it. They won't boycott any games for a greater principle of cleaning up the sport. Owners won't do anything about it because they continue to make piles of loot despite the cheating. And the players certainly won't do anything about it because they make millions which adds up to privilege.
Roger Clemens' attorney has stated that his client was wrongly accused of using steroids.
Roger had the opportunity to be questioned by the Mitchell investigation team and be above board about everything. He refused to do so. His refusal is more than telling. It is damning.
So where does that leave us all?
Most likely looking towards pitchers and catchers gathering in Florida in February. It will all pass under the bridge and away down stream. There will be puffs of argument from time to time that records now need asterisks.
But, in the end, it will all fade away as if nothing ever really happened.
Overall, I'd say the response has been fairly tepid. While the media has been blasting around the report as if we have reached doomsday, statements from individuals on the list remain strangely absent with a few exceptions.
Baseball has always lived by its own code of ethics, the main ethic being that what happens in baseball, stays in baseball. History is rife with stories of drug usage, alcoholism, rampant infidelity in the sports world, even criminal activity in the sports world, but the leagues, for the sake of public relations, have always tried to bury everything in the proverbial sand where they stuck their heads.
It's rather childish when you think about it. It's as if by ignoring the problem, or by playing shallow lip service to it, then it becomes persona non grata. It goes away.
Fans won't do anything about it. They won't boycott any games for a greater principle of cleaning up the sport. Owners won't do anything about it because they continue to make piles of loot despite the cheating. And the players certainly won't do anything about it because they make millions which adds up to privilege.
Roger Clemens' attorney has stated that his client was wrongly accused of using steroids.
Roger had the opportunity to be questioned by the Mitchell investigation team and be above board about everything. He refused to do so. His refusal is more than telling. It is damning.
So where does that leave us all?
Most likely looking towards pitchers and catchers gathering in Florida in February. It will all pass under the bridge and away down stream. There will be puffs of argument from time to time that records now need asterisks.
But, in the end, it will all fade away as if nothing ever really happened.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mitchell Report
The following are ostensibly to be found in the George Mitchell report on steroid and/or human growth hormone usage in Major League Baseball. Most of the evidence is documentary, ie cancelled checks, phone records and such.
The following players were connected to steroids, either use or possession, in the report:
Lenny Dykstra
David Segui
Larry Bigbie
Brian Roberts
Jack Cust
Tim Laker
Josias Manzanillo
Todd Hundley
Mark Carreon
Hal Morris
Matt Franco
Rondell White
Andy Pettitte
Roger Clemens
Chuck Knoblauch
Jason Grimsley
Gregg Zaun
David Justice
F.P. Santangelo
Glenallen Hill
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Ryan Franklin
Chris Donnels
Todd Williams
Phil Hiatt
Todd Pratt
Kevin Young
Mike Lansing
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Adam Piatt
Miguel Tejada
Jason Christiansen
Mike Stanton
Stephen Randolph
Jerry Hairston
Paul Lo Duca
Adam Riggs
Bart Miadich
Fernando Vina
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagne
Mike Bell
Matt Herges
Gary Bennett
Jim Parque
Brendan Donnelly
Chad Allen
Jeff Williams
Exavier "Nook" Logan
Howie Clark
Paxton Crawford
Ken Caminiti
Rafael Palmeiro
Luis Perez
Derrick Turnbow
Ricky Bones
Ricky Stone
The following players were cited under "Alleged Internet Purchases of Performance Enhancing Substances By Players in Major League Baseball."
Rick Ankiel
David Bell
Paul Byrd
Jose Canseco
Jay Gibbons
Troy Glaus
Jason Grimsley
Jose Guillen
Darren Holmes
Gary Matthews Jr.
John Rocker
Scott Schoeneweis
Ismael Valdez
Matt Williams
Steve Woodard
The following players were linked through BALCO:
Benito Santiago
Gary Sheffield
Randy Velarde
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Bobby Estalella
Barry Bonds
Marvin Benard
Friday, December 7, 2007
I Don't Get Facebook
I really don't.
I don't know why people are there, why they sign up for an account.
I don't see the site as being terribly interactive except for some goofiness like building a limited snowman or spending $1 to send someone a small icon of flowers or chocolates. It's also a wonky site, not overly intuitive from the start.
Yet they claim tens of millions of users.
I don't get it.
I don't know why people are there, why they sign up for an account.
I don't see the site as being terribly interactive except for some goofiness like building a limited snowman or spending $1 to send someone a small icon of flowers or chocolates. It's also a wonky site, not overly intuitive from the start.
Yet they claim tens of millions of users.
I don't get it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
10 Ways to Tell You have Entered an Online Poetry Workshop
1. The meter is tortured, the topic is banal, the rhyme is forced, but people are still cheering it and calling it awesome.
2. There is a preponderance of poems about fairies, unicorns and knights.
3. Reviews consist of only: "great job", "I really liked this" or "I don't get it".
4. There is a preponderance of poems about making love under trees beside a stream running through a golden field.
5. Love is always rhymed with above.
6. Much sighing and whispering going on in the poems.
7. People refer to a sonnet as free verse.
8. Site members are proud of their high rankings and fabricated titles.
9. People claim to be published poets because their work shows up in a poetry.com vanity publication.
10. There's not much good poetry to be found there.
2. There is a preponderance of poems about fairies, unicorns and knights.
3. Reviews consist of only: "great job", "I really liked this" or "I don't get it".
4. There is a preponderance of poems about making love under trees beside a stream running through a golden field.
5. Love is always rhymed with above.
6. Much sighing and whispering going on in the poems.
7. People refer to a sonnet as free verse.
8. Site members are proud of their high rankings and fabricated titles.
9. People claim to be published poets because their work shows up in a poetry.com vanity publication.
10. There's not much good poetry to be found there.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Go Figure
I have a myspace account. It's part of my online promoting of books that I'm trying to sell. Myspace is a weird place. All the negative stuff with regards to kids on myspace notwithstanding, it's loaded with porn spam and flat out strangeness.
So be it. It's the egalitarianism of the internet I suppose.
However the weirdness I'm referring to is how people respond to you when you request to add them as friends. I can find folks from all around the world, send a friend request and they either accept it or not - no fuss, no muss.
Try sending a request to someone who attended the same school, and I, with very few exceptions, receive the third degree. I get messages saying:
1. Do I know you?
2. Why do you want to be friends?
3. Do we know the same people?
And so on, and so on.
I don't know what it is, but networking via school attended seems to invoke some sort of suspicion on the part of the requestee. And a real irony is that they often have "friends, networking" listed as their reasons for being on myspace.
It's funny, in a wry sort of way.
So be it. It's the egalitarianism of the internet I suppose.
However the weirdness I'm referring to is how people respond to you when you request to add them as friends. I can find folks from all around the world, send a friend request and they either accept it or not - no fuss, no muss.
Try sending a request to someone who attended the same school, and I, with very few exceptions, receive the third degree. I get messages saying:
1. Do I know you?
2. Why do you want to be friends?
3. Do we know the same people?
And so on, and so on.
I don't know what it is, but networking via school attended seems to invoke some sort of suspicion on the part of the requestee. And a real irony is that they often have "friends, networking" listed as their reasons for being on myspace.
It's funny, in a wry sort of way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)