Blogcritics Author: Lori Mortimer

Graphic Novel Review: The Weirdly World of Strange Eggs by Chris Reilly, Steve Ahlquist & Jeremy Mann

Lori Mortimer — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:48:04 EST

Who is the Egg-Man? Goo goo g'joob.
I recently took a psychedelic trip through The Weirdly World of Strange Eggs, led by the Egg-Man. Goo goo g'joob.In Chris Reilly, Steve Ahlquist, and Jeremy Mann's all-ages graphic novel, the mysterious Egg-Man shows up in the tree in Kip and Kelly Hatcher's yard, speaking in verse and offering eggs that can hatch into anything the kids'...

Graphic Novel Review: Rex Libris: I, Librarian Volume I

Lori Mortimer — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:00:48 EST

"The World's Favorite Kick-Ass Sesquipedalian Librarian" chases down overdue books and fights evil. With high-powered weapons.
Forget the image of the tight-lipped, bun-haired, aged, school-marmish librarian. She's gone. If the Shifted Librarian hasn't sufficiently stuffed her worn, tattered butt into the relic bin, Rex Libris will drive a stake through the old stereotype's barely beating heart.Rex Libris, the invention of illustrator-turned-comic book creator...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

AOL Now Free For Broadband Users

Lori Mortimer — Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:34:45 EDT

Yesterday, America Online (AOL) confirmed recent rumors that they are dropping fees for broadband users. Anyone who accesses the Internet via a broadband connection can now use AOL's email, software, parental controls, and other features for free. That goes for existing customers and new members alike.But if you still use dial-up and need AOL as your Internet service provider, you can't have a free account. Neener, neener, neener.I've been an AOL member since 1993. When I joined, I think there were about half a million subscribers. For the past five years or so, if not longer, my husband and I have rarely used AOL. We kept the account as a backup and because we'd given my mother, who didn't have broadband service, a screen name. We could have closed the account, but we continued to subsidize my mom's Internet access mostly because it was cheap: we stayed on the $9.95/month plan, which gave us five hours of service, for almost the entire 13 years. My mother was very conscientious about liming her Internet use until about a year ago, when she apparently started chattin' it up on MySpace or something and routinely going over the allotted hours, costing me at least as much as the $22.95 (at the time) fee for unlimited service. That's when I switched to the unlimited plan.But now Mom has broadband (and cable phone service too -- you've come a long way, baby!). Naturally, because it would save me money, she didn't want to give up her AOL account, even though she's paying for email and Web access through her cable provider. (Why do I suddenly hear her lecture long ago about buying the cow and getting the milk for free?) So a couple of months ago, my husband and I talked about just switching the AOL bill to my mother's credit card. But then we got busy with other stuff and forgot all about it.Now, I can keep the account live without having to pay or make my mother pay. Oh, happy day. $1500 and thirteen years of AOL customer-hood, and I'm finally getting something - but I'm not sure what - for my inexplicable refusal to cancel the account. I switched over to the free pricing plan (isn't that an oxymoron?) in the wee hours last night. Let me warn you: AOL is not making it easy for us paying customers to stop paying. If they were, we'd be able to switch to the free plan online, in our member account area. But we can't. As of very early this morning, the free pricing plan was not listed among the other pricing plans from which I could choose. After reading the FAQ about the new direction AOL is taking, I learned that I had to call customer support to switch to the free plan. And we all know what that means: a lot of time on hold.I tried using the automated system to change pricing plans, but again, the plan wasn't listed among the available choices. I finally figured out how to get in the queue to speak with a real live human being and I waited my turn.I was told my wait could be as long as 2 1/2 minutes. It was almost ten minutes. But hey, at 2:00 a.m., who's counting? The upshot: If you want to stop paying for AOL service, call 1-800-984-6207 (in the U.S.). Skip the automated menus and get to a live support person as quickly as you can. Be prepared to tell the service rep that yes, you understand that a) you can't stop paying if you still use dial-up, b) you can't access AOL via dial-up if you're on the road, say, in East Jabib, and c) you can no longer get customer or technical support from AOL. I've been a member for 13 years. Last night marked the second time I ever called them. I think I'm safe. But if you're worried about needing AOL's timely help, you can still pay $4.95 for the privilege of knowing you can use their technical support services.Lastly, the customer support rep will to try to switch you to someone who can enter you in some contest or other for a chance to win some Very Important Free Item or something. I recommend you just hang up and start reading all that junk email you're no longer paying for.

Lori has been writing professionally for over 15 years. She recently finished a two-year stint as the founding editor of Student Health 101, an interactive health and wellness newsletter for college students. She also writes about books, writing, education, and anything else that comes to mind at MORTpiphanies.

Tennessee to Make Gym Class Mandatory Five Days A Week

Lori Mortimer — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:04:12 EDT

CNN has the news that Tennessee is going to make gym mandatory five days per week for its public school students. They're doing it, they say, to address the rampant obesity among even the youngest students.I have a simpler solution. It's called RECESS. How about schools reinstate THAT instead of creating yet another bureaucratic, red tape machine that, in this case, doesn't really do students any more good than letting them play outside for 30 or 40 minutes a day?And it wouldn't hurt if schools stopped selling nutritionally horrid lunches, either. In my local elementary school, pizza is available every day. That means a kid who's on a subsidized lunch plan or whose parents send her to school with lunch money every day can eat pizza five days a week. And nobody cares.So first schools do away with recess entirely or reduce it to a meaninglessly short period of time, like ten minutes, then they pile up the lunch menu with calorie- and fat-laden foods, and then they wonder why the kids are gaining too much weight. Naturally, their solution is to make yet another "standard" that has to be tracked and reported for each child and that requires hiring additional teachers, rather than just letting the kids run around on the playground every day.According to the article, in one school the morning gym activity is to jump rope for 30 minutes. I realize that jumping rope is good exercise. But 30 minutes for ten-year-olds? Unless the teacher lets the kids play jump rope together and have fun with it, you can basically put another notch in the usually-fun-activities-that-school-sucked-the-ever-loving-life-out-of bedpost.The people in Tennessee seem perplexed that they have to make gym mandatory in order for schools to offer PE classes to their students. Well, duh. Schools are being measured by only one criterion -- yearly performance on standardized tests. They have cut out damn near everything that doesn't directly map to those tests. In Tennessee and across the US, the over-emphasis on standards and high stakes testing has shut down PE classes and recess and art and music and all sorts of other school activities because those things don't show up as questions on a state mandated test.From the article:"In Franklin, they are consistently at the top of the state in standardized testing," Winborn said. "We hoped other school systems would see the light and follow suit, but it appears the only way to have a daily physical education is to mandate it."Yes, it does appear that way, doesn't it? Sorry if people don't naturally see the correlation between increased PE classes and improved test scores. That's because they've been having it pounded into their heads for years that students need more time on "the basics," of which physical health and conditioning is not a part. It's going to take more than a correlation in ONE school district between increased PE classes and higher test scores to make believers out of most people.That said, kids need more wiggle time at school, so I'm in favor of any increased physical activity, even if it's highly structured gym time.More recess would be better, though.

Grades and Competition in School

Lori Mortimer — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:57:16 EST

One of my high school English teachers liked to remind us students that he had more control over our grades than we did. We spent about 3/4 of one marking period working only on grammar and sentence diagramming, which most of the class learned well enough to get high scores on the quizzes and tests. After we finished our grammar section, I had a very high A average, as did most of my friends.But I didn't get an A for the marking period. The teacher designed the grammar section to end with enough time left in the marking period for us to read and be tested on Death of a Salesman. The teacher himself called the test "the death test" and bragged that nobody ever got an A on it. The goal of the test was to pull down our grades and reduce the number of A's given out that marking period. I scored in the low 50s on the test and, as a result, got a B on my report card, in spite of the fact that I'd gotten a high A on everything except that one test. The same thing happened to a bunch of my classmates, too.Imagine if my teacher had been required to give not grades but a specific evaluation of what we'd learned that marking period. He would have to have admitted that I'd mastered the entire grammar curriculum and that I'd done poorly only on the literature test (which tested the singular skill of regurgitating, word for word, the teacher's interpretation of the play). Such a system would have completely emasculated this guy's power play with our grades.Most people who've been through traditional schooling can tell at least one bad story about grades. It's just one of those unfortunate school rites of passage. We all move on and realize that one bad experience won't affect much in the long run. That said, it's refreshing to know that a school district near me is replacing the standard letter grading system with a more comprehensive skills evaluation system. The system, based on the state standards for each grade level, lists all the skills covered in each curriculum area and denotes where each student stands in relation to the standard: beginning, developing, competent, excelling.Naturally, because it's good for students, lots of people hate the idea.We Need to Know Who's Better Than Whom The local newspaper ran a "hot topic" opinion poll, asking readers what they thought of the proposed change. The response was overwhelmingly negative. One chief objection: we live in a "competitive world" and children need to learn to survive in it.I find this argument refreshingly honest; it doesn't try to hide the big lie about grades, which says that grades are a tool for communicating how well the students are learning. The truth, as the "competitive world" argument attests, is that grades are a tool for establishing competition between students.But what are they competing for?Why, for grades, of course!(You didn't think this was about learning, did you? Silly reader.)We all know everyone can't get an A. Teachers aren't allowed to give all A's, and even if they were, they usually don't. If all students are doing very well, schools still must let parents know who's doing better than whom. So we rank them with letter grades.When many students score well, the criteria for who gets an A often becomes more restrictive because only a few select "stars" can get A's. If everyone passes all the math tests with a 97 or above, for example, marking period grades must still be distributed across a spectrum. Enter the curve. The test must be too easy if everyone is doing that well, so the test scores must be adjusted so that only those who scored a perfect 100 get an A. Those with a 98 get a B. And those with a 97 get a C. And voila! We now know which students got higher scores than their peers.Obviously, my example is an exaggeration, but don't be too hard on me. I was only a C student in math.[Aside: I was the beneficiary of many a math test curve, but the situation was the reverse of the scenario I described above. The curve was designed to pull student grades up instead of down. Just as it wasn't acceptable to my English teacher that students who he thought should get B's get A's, it's not acceptable for the "best" student in the class to get a B on his report card, is it? So the tests were graded on a curve to ensure that the grades for the class would start with A. Again, it's about ranking, if not fitting kids into preconceived slots, not about learning.]Because grades are subjective ("she had a B+, but I gave her an A- because she's been working so hard"), malleable from assignment to assignment ("this test has an extra credit section, but that test doesn't"), and restricted in number ("everyone can't be an A student"), what in the world does a single letter grade on a report card tell a parent about what his or her kid is learning?Absolutely nothing.But it does tell a parent where his or her kid stands relative to the other kids in the class. Over time, report cards become code for what kind of people the kids are. And the kids know this. I was a C math student. Becky is an A student. Want to find a babysitter? Call the high school and ask who the honor students are.Competitive Learning: Gee, That's Healthy Somehow, those who oppose the standards-based evaluation in the local school district have convinced themselves that academic competition is good for kids, even kids in lower elementary school. In a society where grammar school children play competitive sports -- and kids as young as 9 or 10 ride the pine while the "good" players get all the playing time -- and where schools try to coerce students into reading by holding reading competitions, I'd say it's pretty clear that schools employ plenty of other competitive whips. They don't need competitive learning.But this model of schooling is extremely effective. Children learn very early that school = competition. And through 12 or more years in competitive schooling, they learn to compete in damn near everything they do. They learn it so well, in fact, that by the time they're adults, their employers send them, en masse, to teamwork and team-building training. Really, it's no surprise that 83% of employers pay for employee team-building training. Adults have spent a lifetime hoarding knowledge, "doing their own work," and trying to beat out their peers for that one last spot on the soccer team or A for the course -- they don't know how to collaborate effectively with people with whom they share common interests and goals.Unfortunately, many parents object to the non-letter grade evaluations because they've bought into the idea that they need to know this letter, even though it tells them nothing substantial. All they know is where their children stand relative to the other children in the class. If their kids have all A's and B's on their report cards, then they're among the elite.Another objection was that parents wouldn't know how well their students were doing. Of course, that's about ranking, too. Obviously, the new assessment format gives parents a lot more information about how their kids are doing and what they are and aren't learning. They just won't be able to figure out if their kids know more than anyone else's kids. And why should they?Look, if we want kids to stay interested in learning and to actually enjoy it, get rid of grades and competition in school. Lots of other changes would help, too, but this one change will let each child learn without looking over his or her shoulder. And parents will know a lot more about what their kids are learning in school.They Just Can't Help Themselves, Can They? Before we go, let's look at those new evaluation categories one more time: beginning, developing, competent, excelling.Even when trying to do the right thing, schools can't help but put a ranking or value judgment into the mix. Excelling doesn't belong in that list. If you're trying to show skill or knowledge development, you don't use the word excel because you can't excel at a standard. You can master or maybe exceed it, though. By sticking excelling in there, the district continues to imply that some kids are "excellent" and the others aren't. So if those kids are excelling, what are the other kids doing? Here's how the categories might look if all of them dripped with value judgments: Floundering Stuttering Cruising ExcellingSee what I mean?

Creative Class: Homeschooling and Affluent Kids

Lori Mortimer — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:18:19 EST

Once considered the domain of only deeply religious families who didn't want to send their kids to secular schools, homeschooling has been gaining popularity among not-particularly-religious families. In "Meet My Teachers: Mom and Dad," Business Week covers the growth of homeschooling specifically within the "creative class."According to Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class and The Flight of the Creative Class, the creative class consists of educated, affluent people who, um, "create for a living":[They]...seek not only fulfilling jobs, but also tolerant and vibrant communities and cities. This new class of workers does not define itself by national boundaries, but is highly mobile, willing to relocate for the best social, cultural, and economic opportunities. The creative class, 38 million strong in the U.S., produces a disproportionate share of wealth, accounting for nearly half of all wages and salaries earned - as much as the manufacturing and service sectors combined.Sounds like a pretty good life:Highly educated? Check. More than adequate income? Check. Freedom to live where you want? Check.So what do they have to complain about, these jazzy, improvisational creators? School, apparently. If they don't like their public schools, the creative class can presumably find a different community with more suitable schools. Or they can pony up and send their kids to private schools -- in fact, some of these parents attended elite private schools themselves. But they're homeschooling their kids instead. Why? Safety First According to the US Department of Education, 85% of homeschooling parents cited "concern about school environments, including negative peer pressure, safety, and drugs" as their primary motivation for homeschooling.Other motivations include religious or moral instruction and dissatisfaction with the standard educational model. Many parents don't like that in most schools, students cover the same material at the same pace, no matter how poorly that content and pace might suit them individually. They also cite the emphasis on rote learning and standardized testing.The Internet and changing economy have helped make homeschooling appear easier now than it once did. It's always been possible, of course, but information about any topic is now just a Google search away, and online courses abound. Plus, the creative class can move around as jobs and the economy change without putting their children through the struggle of being the new kids in school.Homeschooling Is Like a Box of Chocolates The beauty of homeschooling is that no two homeschool environments are alike, just as no two families are alike. Each family can tailor its "school" environment to its own set of learning styles, interests, skills, schedules, and even biorhythms. That said, a few common flavors of homeschooling exist.A traditional model sits at one end of the spectrum. Here, parents implement a school-like system, set a daily schedule, plan a curriculum, and teach their kids what they (the parents) think they (the kids) should learn each year.At the other end sits the "unschooling" model, in which learning and living are intertwined and where the children simply do the things they're interested in (year-round). They learn just by living, like going to the grocery store and inadvertently doing some math, or by specifically seeking knowledge or skills in something they're interested in, like playing the piano or learning another language.No matter which flavor of homeschooling a family fancies, most families share at least one rationale: Who knows my children better than I do?Homeschooling Could Help Public Schools -- But It Won't Homeschooling's fast growth -- 1.1 million kids were homeschooled in 2003, up 29% from 1999 -- bodes poorly for American public schools in the short run. More and more parents are dissatisfied with public education and are willing to do something about it. Rather than try to quickly change public schools to benefit their children -- which is about as likely as me seeing my 21st birthday again -- they're just walking away from school altogether. Opting out makes a powerful statement simply because Americans don't usually do that. We're way too worried about being just like everyone else.Plus, opting out removes money from public schools, which, according to my backwards logic, means the homeschooling trend could help schools in the long run. Most school districts receive funding on a per pupil basis. Each child who leaves "prevents" his or her annual dollars from going to the school s/he would have attended. That's bad for schools because they survive by economies of scale.So we don't just have poor people wanting private school vouchers to get away from dilapidated, dangerous urban schools. And we don't just have a small religious minority staying home. We also have educated, middle-to-upper-middle-class families deciding they can live without our suburban schools, even the highly regarded ones.In a perfect world, homeschooling would grow enough within the middle-class that it causes public schools -- from the NEA down to the local school committees -- to see that they need to change. Homeschoolers don't really care what happens to public schools because they've left the system behind. But still, their leaving could lead to some educational soul searching and positive changes.But I'm not holding my breath. In fact, I think the Kafkaesque opposite is more likely: homeschooling will so successfully challenge public schools that it will threaten teachers, administrators, and bureaucrats. Unwilling to allow another *free* educational option to compete with theirs, they'll lobby to pass laws that heavily regulate, standardize, and test homeschooling until individual families can do little more than replicate the public school model at home. Parents who don't comply will be prosecuted for daring to raise and educate their kids without government intrusion.Right now, homeschooling laws vary by state; some states regulate fairly strictly, while others take a laissez-faire approach. But give homeschooling another ten years of exponential growth, and I promise you that all states will assert more control and that the federal government will stick its fingers in the pie, too.Indeed, some education "experts" are already banging the regulatory drum:Schooling in isolation could threaten civic cohesion and diversity of thought, says Stanford University education professor Rob Reich. Reich favors stricter homeschooling regulations to supplant the current patchwork of state laws so that children can be assured of exposure to more than just what their parents sanction.First, how do you get "diversity of thought" out of one-size-fits-all public schools and not from individual families charting their own educational courses?And second, you can see that Reich, who makes his living off the public school model, feels threatened by the people who don't value his "expertise." When enough people like him get the ears of our state and federal legislators, you can bet your bottom dollar that homeschooling will become just as regulated as public schools, to the detriment of all parents who value choices in education.

Living & Learning Democracy: What About the Children?

Lori Mortimer — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:24:49 EST

As we know, one main goal of the Bush administration's foreign policy is to "spread democracy" throughout the world. In order to protect our freedoms at home, the argument goes, we must help free other countries from authoritarian or tyrannical governments. If we succeed (via force or "diplomacy"), we must also shepherd these countries through the how-to-run-a-democracy learning process, as we're doing right now in Iraq.Note that we haven't required Iraqi citizens to go through democracy training school before "letting" them run their own country; all the civics courses in the world can't really teach democracy. You have to live it. Thus, you won't find the Iraqi populace sitting in a classroom, studying a textbook and holding mock elections or mock jury trials before being set free as fully fledged citizens of their own country. They're learning by doing, or in this case, by living.And if Iraqi voter turnout is any indication, they're eager to self-govern. In January 2005, an estimated 60-70% of eligible Iraqi voters cast a ballot in Iraq, even though they risked being blown to smithereens (and some were). A high percentage of expatriates also voted.Hey, Aren't We Supposed To Set the Standard?Contrast that with our own, well-established democracy (representative republic, actually, but let's not quibble), which we Americans tout as the example Iraq and other countries should emulate. Only 53% of eligible Americans voted in the 2004 elections. Our youngest voters voted least, with 51% going to the polls. That number represents a dramatic increase over the previous presidential election, but it's still low, especially when you consider we're threatened only by annoying exit pollers.In general, half of eligible Americans don't vote. Why? Apathy certainly plays a part. Many Americans feel as if their vote won't change a thing. They're jaded about the machine that our government has become.But that explains some of the older voters. But what about our youngest voters, the newly emancipated young adults, who, much like the Iraqi citizenry, are tasting the democratic process for the first time? Why don't they vote in droves when they finally have a say in how they're governed?Not Rocking the VoteFor one, young people don't see how the hotly debated issues relate to their own lives. How many 20-year-olds think about social security, never mind understand it?But something else contributes, too: Our young adults have been in a classroom for 12 years, learning about democracy but not living democracy. Sure, as kids reach middle school, they elect student governments. But these "elected officials" don't govern the school. They wield no authority but to decide, on behalf of their classmates, how the fundraising money is spent or what theme the spring dance should have. Someone runs the school, but it's not the student government.I'm not belittling the fun kids have or the learning that takes place when kids plan and organize events or make decisions. I'm just pointing out that adults won't let kids make any true governing decisions.But what if we did? What if we let the students at each school govern themselves? You know, let them hire and fire teachers and office staff, choose their own curricula, and make financial decisions for the school?Disaster, right? Wrong.Living Democracy at SchoolSome schools already do let their students run the joint. They're democratic schools, where kids--some as young as 5 years old--vote in every decision about the school, from the courses it will offer (if any), to the staff (read: teachers) it hires, to the rules for acceptable behavior on campus. Every member of the school gets a vote, and since students greatly outnumber staff -- well, you can do the math.To top it off, nobody tells these kids what to learn and when to learn it; they decide for themselves. If they want to climb a tree all day, they can. If they want to study physics, they can. Each individual child decides what he or she will or won't do each day in school.I'm sure by now you're thinking that kids A) aren't mature enough to run a school, B) aren't qualified to run a school from an educational/curriculum standpoint, and C) would choose to never do any "schoolwork" if left to their own devices.But you'd be wrong. Schools like Sudbury Valley School in Framingham, Massachusetts have demonstrated that kids can handle it. Sudbury school governance comes in the form of a weekly school meeting, modeled after New England town meetings. The 35-year-old Sudbury has been so influential, other democratic schools identify themselves as "Sudbury schools," even though no formal designation or affiliation exists. Most democratic schools are private, but public schools are getting into game, too. Check out the Liberty School in Maine.The core beliefs behind the Sudbury school:The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility [emphasis mine].At democratic schools, students learn to handle freedom responsibly by being free and experiencing the responsibility that comes with it. They learn from both the good and not-so-good decisions they make.In the view of democratic schools, you can't expect students to be responsible for themselves, their community (school or the greater one around them), or their own learning if someone else--no matter how well intentioned--dictates everything for them. And you can't expect children, adolescents, or young adults to handle freedom if they've never had any.To that I'd add that you can't expect them to suddenly believe in and participate in a democracy if they never experienced it before, just because they've passed the magical 18th birthday.What better way to learn to live responsibly is there? What better way to "teach" democracy than to let children live in a real one from a very early age? That said, I don't believe that all children thrive in the same educational setting. In fact, that's public school's fatal flaw: sameness for everyone. So I'm not advocating that all our schools become democratic schools. (Disclaimer: neither of my kids goes to one, but I haven't ruled it out.) But what if every school district offered at least one democratic school for its families to choose if they wanted to? Would enough parents let their kids choose one of those schools? Would you?

One Simple Rule for Improving Your Writing

Lori Mortimer — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:09:27 EST

Don't do everything blogger/columnist/book author John Scalzi says.In response to a reader's query, Scalzi posted ten suggestions for nonprofessional writers who'd like to "write better." He offers a few good tips, such as "when in doubt, simplify" and "learn to friggin' spell," which really means "use the friggin' spell checker."But he leaves out a couple of key guidelines, and his grammar and punctuation suggestions will create more chaos than they'll clear up.What he forgetsScalzi omits one absolutely vital guideline rule: Use the active voice. Instead of saying, "The running back was tackled by the linebacker," say, "The linebacker tackled the running back." The passive voice moves the actor (subject) away from the action (verb) and makes it seem like the whole world sits around waiting for something to happen.More tips:Use simple, strong verbs (not simple, weak ones, like "use"). For example, instead of saying, "The linebacker tackled the running back," say, "The linebacker torpedoed the running back," or say, "The linebacker flattened the running back." Vivid verbs appeal to the reader's senses and help make sentences more memorable. (A little alliteration doesn't hurt, either.)Sleep on it. In these days of blogging, breaking news, and instant gratification, it's hard to give our writing what it probably needs the most: time. Before you publish, try to put your piece down and come back to it a day or two later. You'll end up thinking about the piece while you're away from it, and when you come back, you'll look at it with a fresh eye.Get feedback from at least two people. One, a member of your target audience and the other, a more experienced writer than you. Unless you're Emily Dickinson, you shouldn't write in a vacuum. During the drafting stage, a reader's impressions or another writer's advice can help you shape your piece or even take it in a new direction. Post-publish comments on your blog may provide some insight, but when people know you're looking for help while you're still writing, their feedback tends to be far more constructive.What he nails When he says:Front-load your point: If you make people wade through seven paragraphs of unrelated anecdotes before you get to what you're really trying to say, you've lost....Now, sometimes people write to find out what their point is; I think that's fine because I do that myself. But most of the time after I've figured out my point, I'll go back and re-write.That's like the old rule of thumb that recommends writing your article and then, when you think it's finished, deleting the first paragraph.I also like Scalzi's point about writing as a thinking or discovery process. Writing is thinking, after all (where else would gems like this post come from?). I can think things through more clearly if I'm putting words down somewhere, and I eventually figure out what I really want to say. So the endings of my early drafts often become the openings of later ones.With that in mind, I would just switch the order in Scalzi's advice. I'd say: Write to figure out what you want to say, and then edit to make sure you're quickly getting to the point.What he gets wrong Aw, hell, nobody's perfect, and Scalzi's imperfections show when he gives punctuation and grammar help. Go ahead and follow his rules for the colon and exclamation point, but venture not into the land of the period, comma, semicolon, or grammar. For these, he offers some seriously bad advice.Mistakes in grammar and punctuation are usually, as Mina Shaughnessey said, errors of thinking by people who don't know the rules. They guess or make up their own rules based on some vague memory of the actual rules. They can tell you why they put that comma, semicolon, or period there -- because they honestly thought about it -- but they're usually wrong.Scalzi is a professional writer, so he probably knows the rules but doesn't have the time or inclination to write a handbook in a blog post. Or maybe he's a porno-grammarian, someone who can't define a proper sentence but who knows one when he sees it. Either way, he's made up his own rules for other people to follow, and they simply won't work. Periods Scalzi says: "When you're writing down a thought and you're at the end of that thought, put a period."Scalzi could mean one of two things here. He could be repeating the layman's definition of a sentence as a complete thought, in which case Scalzi is telling us what a sentence is and where it ends. But contrary to popular belief, a sentence is not "a thought." Like Homer Simpson, for example, I have lots of thoughts that aren't sentences. Plus, a sentence can contain more than one thought, and if you put a period after the first thought, you may actually say something other than what you intended.Or Scalzi could be saying that we shouldn't worry about whether or not we have a complete sentence. When we're done with that idea, we can just plop down a period because sometimes a thought should stand alone. Even if it's not a "legal" sentence. If that's his meaning, then he's right, but it's bad advice for budding writers.When you know that you're breaking a rule and why you're breaking a rule, you can do it effectively. But writers who don't know the rules break them accidentally and poorly, especially when they're applying a nebulous guideline like "just put a period at the end of a thought." It causes all sorts of chaos for the reader: choppy sentences, fragments, and syntax oddities appear everywhere instead of only where they're most effective (if a syntax oddity can ever be effective). So the rule for developing writers should be: When you're writing down a sentence and you're at the end of that sentence, put a period. Now, what the hell is a sentence? That's the problem, isn't it?A sentence is a structure, rather than a series of words. The most basic grammatical sentence is the one-word imperative ("Go!"). But most sentences have at least a subject and a predicate ("Jesus wept."). Once we get past those two simple structures, the trouble begins. Writers need to learn all the pieces available for constructing sentences. If we can't identify them, we're going to have a very hard time figuring out if we even have a sentence, never mind if we've punctuated it correctly.The only way to know where to put a period is to know where a sentence ends. And the only way to know where a sentence ends is to learn the parts of speech, usage, and sentence construction.Semicolons Scalzi says: "Put these in your writing in the place where, in conversation, you'd arch your eyebrow or make some other sort of physical gesture signalling that you want to emphasize a point."No. Not at all. That explanation has absolutely nothing to do with reality. It's completely made up and entirely wrong. There's just no other way to say it. In fact, it's so far off the mark that I read it through a couple of times to make sure I wasn't misreading.Semicolon rules are very simple, which makes Scalzi's explanation even more perplexing. Why make up your own rule when the real rule is, for once, very straight forward?The real rule: Semicolons are like periods. You use them at the end of sentences (complete, grammatically correct ones). The distinction between when to use a semicolon instead of a period: When the next sentence is very closely related to the one you're finishing and you want to illustrate that relationship with your punctuation.Example: You can put a period or semicolon here; it's really up to you.Notice what's on the left and right of the semicolon: complete sentences. That's because (repeat after me) semicolons are like periods. They go at the end of sentences. In order to use a semicolon, you put it at the end of a sentence and then begin another sentence right after it. The only weirdness is that you use a lowercase letter to start the sentence after the semi-colon. Other than that, when you use a semicolon, you have nothing more than two complete sentences separated by a semi-colon instead of a period.Now do you see why it's important to really know what a sentence is? Once you do, you'll know exactly when and where to use periods AND semicolons.If you're still not sure where semicolons should and shouldn't go, then don't use them. You could live your whole life without using a semicolon, and you'd never be wrong. (Unless you needed one to set off a series, but that's another ball of wax.)Commas Scalzi says: "When you're writing down a thought and you want to take a breath, whether mental or physical, put in a comma."This is how we get comma splices (commas placed where periods or semicolons should go), sentences dripping with gratuitous commas, or sentences with commas missing from important places.First, what in the world is a "mental breath"? And second, if you have to concentrate so much on your breathing, please see a respiratory specialist. But whatever you do, don't stick commas in your sentences to coincide with your breathing patterns. In fact, ignore your breathing as you write. (Luckily for asthmatics and their readers, English grammar books say nothing about commas and breathing.)The real rule: Use commas only where they must go or can go and no place else. If you want to breathe, breathe some life into your prose with the active voice and some daring verbs, but resist, resist, resist the urge to sprinkle commas in your writing as you would oregano in a saucepan. "Need a little more flavor here, need a little pause there" doesn't work. It confuses the reader.If you want to learn how to use commas correctly, you have to learn the rules and keep a grammar reference nearby. You'll understand the rules best when you understand sentence structure. (Is the horse dead yet?)And yes, we have a lot of comma rules. Sorry.Grammar Scalzi says: "Grammar matters, but not as much as anal grammar Nazis think it does."If he's reading this, Scalzi probably thinks I'm a grammar Nazi. But give this post a close proofreading, and you'll see otherwise. First and foremost, I believe writers must figure out what they want to say and then organize their ideas in a logical way. Then they can worry about checking grammar and punctuation and revising for style. But I think I think grammar is more important than Scalzi thinks it is. (Ya think?)Scalzi also says: "The problem with grammar is that here in the US at least, schools do such a horrible job of teaching the subject that most people are entirely out to sea regarding correct usage."Okay, now we're talking the same language. But Scalzi seemingly believes that new vague guidelines will help writers better understand the old vague guidelines they "learned" in school. They won't.As I've tried to illustrate, punctuation and grammar are intertwined. Once you learn the parts of speech and sentence structure, it's much easier to learn punctuation rules. The shortcuts don't work, unfortunately. You have to do the time and learn the rules.(Finding an editor doesn't hurt, either.)If that makes me a grammar Nazi in some people's eyes, so be it. But I'm really not. I'm not even a grammar zealot. Seriously, I'm sure someone will find a mistake or two in this post. I just don't think writers should muddy the waters for aspiring writers or imply that the real rules are too difficult or not important enough to even try to learn. After all, look where not learning the rules has gotten us in the U.S.So when it comes to improving your grammar and punctuation, and therefore your writing style and readability, there's really only one rule: Sit down and suck it up, people.-------- Also posted at Educated Doubt.

Richard Thompson: He's Missing the Stew

Lori Mortimer — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 05:13:20 EST

On our way to my son's preschool one day last week, the boy asked me to turn some music on. So I punched the stereo power, and out blared the Richard Thompson CD I'd been listening to a day earlier, Action Packed: The Best of the Capitol Years. The song was "Cooksferry Queen," an upbeat tune with a snare drum and bass line that drive the song's rhythm. The song kicked in at about the middle, just before the musical break, during which my son shouted: Mommy, you know what? This music is is making my heart dance!I knew exactly what he meant. Between the drum and bass, my crappy/buzzing minivan speakers, and the volume, my heart was dancing in my chest, too. At the preschool, we sat in the car and listened until the song's abrupt downbeat end, at which point the poor kid groaned.I've played the tune for him every day since then. About a year ago, my daughter, then six, had a different response. I my sucked my daughter in the first time with "The Goldilocks Song," more appropriately known as "The Uninhabited Man." The refrain: Who's been sleeping in my bed? Who's been sitting in my chair? Who's been sipping my bowl? She liked it! Then we listened to more songs, and she ultimately came to favor "I Feel So Good," a song about a recently released inmate who's on the prowl.Perhaps that's not the most appropriate theme for a six-year-old, but sometimes you just have to live on the edge. Of course, living on the edge meant living in fear that she'd one day sing a verse along with Thompson: Now I've got a suitcase full of fifty pound notes, And a half-naked woman with her tongue down my throat. I feeeeeel so good. I fee-eeeel so good. Over time and on many a car ride, my daughter had a chance to hear the album a few times. One night, she had laser focus and asked a lot of questions about the lyrics, mostly because she was hearing different words than Thompson was singing. Her: Why is he missing the stew? Me: He's not saying, "I'm missing the stew." He's saying, "I misunderstood."So as my daughter asked questions, I'd explain what Thompson was singing about. If you're not familiar with this collection, let's just say it's not the happiest set of songs you'll ever hear. But the songs are great, nonetheless.I told her that "1952 Vincent Black Lightening" was about a young miscreant who was shot in the chest by police and who gave his motorcycle to his girlfriend as he died. And that "Waltzing's For Dreamers" was about a lonely man asking a lonely woman to dance with him. Then of course I had to explain about the stew and what it was Thompson misunderstood ("I thought she was saying good luck, she was saying goodbye"). Finally, during "I Can't Wake Up to Save My Life," I explained that Thompson really was singing about a nightmare he couldn't wake up from. That was apparently the last straw for my girl, who exclaimed: ...why does this guy have a problem in every song???Excellent question. So I thought the songwriter deserved a chance to answer it. I posted it to his Web site, and he eventually did respond: Dear Lori and Daughter, You can't write a Country song if you don't have a problem, but you can write a Julie Andrews song. I'm normally somewhere in between, but the Capitol compilation obviously highlights my troubled side, something I should have been rather more vigilant about. Yo, Richard, is that the best you could do?I guess I should be happy Thompson answered the question at all, but I'll admit I was hoping for some of his humor in the reply. The Julie Andrews comment has me wondering if he was taking a swipe at my (obviously brilliant) kid, as if she asked her question because all she knows of music is "A Spoonful of Sugar" or some other Mary Poppins-like tunes.I'll have Thompson and you know that my daughter is perfectly happy to listen to some depressing adult music, thank you very much.Maybe Thompson just had an off day when he answered my daughter's question. Or maybe he just missed the stew.

Coretta Scott King and I

Lori Mortimer — Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:48:33 EST

In the late '80s, I shared the stage with Coretta Scott King. For about seven seconds. She spoke at my college graduation ceremony, and if I remember correctly, she stood near the school president as I collected my diploma from him.It was a brief and somewhat embarrassing brush with greatness.When I first learned King was to be our speaker, I was tickled that someone of her historical stature (she did everything her husband did, but backwards and in high heels, right?) was even visiting our small school. But then she started talking, and the more she talked, the more I squirmed in my seat.Smart, educated lass that I now was, it dawned on me pretty quickly that King was speaking to an almost entirely white audience. And she didn't mince any words, either. My graduating class of about 400 had ONE black student. King talked about the racial inequities that still existed in our country, in particular in education, and our white, middle-to-upper-middle-class audience had to look at ourselves and our school and wonder why almost no people of color--and I'm not just talking about African Americans--were among us that day.As King spoke in her distinctive tone, I wondered, why the hell did she agree to speak here, a tiny, elite-wannabe liberal arts college in Pennsylvania? Of course, Muhlenberg College was the perfect place for her to speak, a Lutheran school that a) had become so religiously integrated that non-Lutherans outnumbered Lutherans 2:1 but that b) hadn't figured out how to cultivate a racially balanced student body.Many years later, the same basic religious distribution remains intact: Catholic (33%), Jewish (28%), and Protestant (25%). But what about racial diversity? Has the school succeeded in attracting candidates from different cultural backgrounds? Or has it remained a haven for average-to-privileged suburban white kids?You do the math: According to the Muhlenberg web site, "between 7% and 9% of Muhlenberg students are of African-American, Asian, Hispanic or Native American descent." That's it; less than ten percent. Unfortunately, in a region of the country where, on average, 15-25% of the population isn't white, Muhlenberg hasn't been able to bring its own minority population in line with the overall regional population.Muhlenberg College Student Body Geographic Distribution New Jersey 36% Pennsylvania 21% New York 21% New England 14% Del./Md./Va./D.C. 5% Other States/Foreign 3%As the figures above illustrate, Muhlenberg draws its student body from the surrounding states. The three states that provide the school almost 80% of its students have a minority population far larger than 7-9%, as the following census figures indicate:New Jersey White: 72.6% Black/African American: 13.6% Asian: 5.7% Hispanic or Latino: 13.3%New York White: 67.9% Black/African American: 15.9% Asian: 5.5% Hispanic or Latino: 15.1%Pennsylvania White: 85.4 Black/African American: 10.0% Asian: 1.8% Hispanic or Latino: 3.2%I'm not trying to slam my old school. To be fair, it looks like the college has made a concerted effort to attract more minority students. The problem, of course, is not unique to my alma mater but common among small, private, suburban-esque colleges. How do they attract minority students to campuses where those kids will be in an even smaller minority than they were in their hometowns? What's in it for the students?At King's memorial service Monday, Oprah Winfrey said that King "leaves us all a better America than the America of her childhood." Certainly true. And yet we still have much more work to do when it comes to integrating certain areas of our society, especially higher education.