on revising

As I said in an earlier post, writing is subjective like other arts. The more I study it, the more frustrating it becomes. It would be easier if there were hard-fast rules that simply could not be broken. English is too flexible. Never write in fragments(unless that is the tone or voice you are going for). Never write in the passive voice (unless you are trying to shirk blame, or your boss tells you to write that way) Never write in short simple sentences (unless that is the style you are going for) So basically, write the way your boss or instructor tells you, until they are no longer your boss or instructor, then go back to writing the way you want. It's just like when I was going to school for photography. I had to shoot subjects my prof liked if I wanted a good grade. After I was done with that class I went back to shooting what I liked. That's not to say I didn't learn anything; I certainly did and I shot my old subjects in new ways, but the subjectivity frustrated me.
Looking at the article we had to read for this blog, notice all the green squiggly underlines, indicating grammatical aberrations picked up by Word. Now of course people will say "Well, that's just Word. ignore it. What does Microsoft know anyway?" Microsoft certainly doesn't know everything about writing, but I'm sure they hired professional grammarians when writing the code for Word. It's just like the photographic exhibit at the DIA by the famous NY photographer. It's ok for her, but don't you do it; at least not until you become a famous author, then you can break all the rules.

On, "On Writing"

I am really enjoying King's On Writing book. One thing about King's writing that I have always appreciated is his conversational style. He pulls you into his writing by using language from the street that is Earthy and colloquial but then once he pulls you in, you realize he has something intelligent to say and his use of foul language doesn't take anything away from the substance.

Writing is an art form, much like photography. When I first graduated from highschool, I attended CCS with the intention of getting a degree in photography. In my first year we learned all about the mechanics of making technically perfect photographs. If we submitted prints that suffered from poor contrast or exposure or were spotted poorly (spotting was the term used for "inking in" the white dust spots you invariably get in analog, old-fashioned negative-to-print photography), your grade would reflect it, and you would likely also be subjected to a lecture.
I recall on one of our many trips to the DIA to look at the work of some famous New York photographer who was famous (or infamous) for producing poor quality prints complete with chemical stains, poor exposures, no dust spotting, etc, I commented to my professor that if I had turned in a photograph like any of these he would throw me out on my ear. He said "yeah, you're probably right." But since this is "so and so", I said (whoever this famous and now forgotten New York photographer was), her work is put on display at the Detroit Institute of Arts! My prof replied: "Yup."
I realize now what I failed to realize at 18. Miss famous New York photographer certainly knew better and was assuredly capable of creating correctly exposed photographs, with good contrast and no discernible dust spots; she chose not to. She was allowed her technical faux pas because her work said something and was effective in its own way. Writing is the same thing. Before you break the rules, you have to know the rules.

on memior bashing

I have to admit, the only memoirs I am interested in reading are ones written by historical figures I have an interest in. I don't think that memoirs should only be written by people who possess a shared public interest, however. It is probably good for everyone to write their memoirs if for no other reason than to clarify their own thoughts, leave something to posterity and family history, and of course, writing practice! I just don't thing everyone should hope their memoir will become the next best- seller; any more than they should hope that their next poem or work of fiction will become the next best-seller.
Tom Bodet wrote some interesting books in the late 1980's based on his experiences in Homer Alaska. In one called "Small Comforts" (my apologies to the MLA police; I don't have the option to underline the book title here), he speaks on his writing experience, and I paraphrase here: I have never written anything that I didn't read and think to myself, who really cares? I am always pleasantly surprised when someone does. Bodet didn't really write this series as memoirs, per se', in fact I think they are classified as fiction, but they are based on real people and real experiences. Told in his warm, off-hand style, they are enjoyable, easy reads.
All art is subjective and what is interesting/boring to one is not to another, so write on. Maybe someone will care; maybe not...

First person female

we've read about women writers in the 19th century writing under male pseudonyms because they either would never be published because they were women, or what they wrote about would be considered a scandal if found that it came from the pen of a woman. So it is interesting to see the role reversed in this article-though for decidedly different reasons. I haven't written much fiction yet, though I could see myself writing in female characters and think nothing of giving them voices. I don't think they would be androgynous or masculine characters, just because I wrote them. Sometimes people feel you can't really relate to a certain type of character if you come from a completely different background. George Carlin once said white men have no business singing the blues. As funny as i found that skit, and despite the fact that i have an enormous respect for Carlin, I don't agree with the statement. I think white men can sing the blues. I think a black man can be president, too for that matter, and i certainly think men and women can write as each other. After all, if you look at the science fiction genre, most stories take place in impossible places with impossible characters, but many people "buy it" and get a lot of enjoyment out of reading a science fiction tale, even if they know all along that the author is not a real robot and it's not the year 2112, or whatever.