Elizabeth Gilbert's fine fiction.

City of Girls is great, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. Nevertheless, I am such a push-over for narrators--reliable or unreliable--that I like the main character / narrator even though I might have second thoughts about her in real life. And she wouldn't care a pin about my opinion in real life either. So that's me sorted!

I was given a free ebook version in exchange for an honest review. I liked it so much that I bought the audiobook from Audible.

But this book is worth your time and your book credit. The narrator is lively and contrary and full of life, both in spite of and because of choices that she makes. The people she knows and comes into contact with are interesting and convincing. Even though some of the issues addressed in  the book are informed by a current mindset philosophy, I find them convincing because it's happening in pre- and post WWII New York theater environment. So things that might seem unconvincing happening among residents of Levittown, PA, seem more than plausible in New York at the time.

Vivian Morris (in her 90s) receives a letter from a young woman, asking her what Vivian was to her father. Thus, the reader is hooked into discovering what Vivian was / is to the young woman of the letter and her father. All the rest of the adventures and descriptions--most of which have nothing directly to do with the mysterious father--are shared in answer to that letter. On the one hand, that's a writing gimmick. In this case, it works well and doesn't feel as artificial as it sounds.
Through story events Vivian shares her developing philosophy of life, love, and human existence: convincing without seeming didactic or preachy. This book is worth your time and pays off in hours of enjoyment.

I Should have saved this for November, but I found it now

This is a post I wrote on another blog, back in 2009. I just liked it (a clue that it may have better remained lost...). Anyway, let me know if you think it's helpful.

   How do we start this novel thing? In the Danny Kaye movie (historical reference, ignore and move on…) about Hans Christian Anderson, when asked about his stories, Anderson says that he tells the stories to see what happens next. This suggests that his story-making style was to start with a character in a situation but not have the plot already outlined ahead of time. Another art that makes use of this technique is improv—actors are given a situation and who their characters are and have to make up a scene on the fly.

   In that vein, who are your main characters? This is one way to begin writing. Write down the things you know about two or three of them (the main character and the other character that is most involved with the main character). In technical terms these would be called protagonist(s) and antagonist(s), but you know what you mean. Name is a good start, but if for some reason that causes you to stop while looking for the perfect name or the name that “best fits” your character(s), just use a place-filler (like Bob or Kathy) and move on.

   Then write things you know about them—age, sex, what do they want? How do they look? What do they think about things that matter in their home, hangout, or habitat? How much do they care about what others think or about what others think about them? Do they spend time imagining cars or colleens? Dolls or danger boys? Something completely different?

   Once you have the two opposing characters put them down somewhere with something they want or don’t want the other to have or do and see what happens. Write down what you see. Rinse and repeat.

Missing Simile

Why doesn't anyone ever say "Cute as a zipper"?

Rhyming dictionary websites

Only two I will mention. There are others.

First of all, I get distracted by words like shiny objects or the exclamation, "Squirrel!" I was walking along and I saw the phrase, "100 years ..." and then I was past it.

Although I confess, I have not read the book, the first thing that came to me as I thought on the flashed phrase was "100 Years of Solitude." Then I thought of plays on that title--100 Years of Attitude, 100 Years of Certitude, etc.

So I looked for a rhyming dictionary online to help me come up with other amusing word mash-ups to see what meanings might result. RhymeZone rhyming dictionary at http://www.rhymezone.com/ is woefully inadequate. I'll just say it. Even if you ask it to search for near rhymes, if finds fewer words that I can think of off the top of my head.

The WriteExpress Online Rhyming Dictionary at http://www.writeexpress.com/online2.html works much better and came up with words I was expecting to see, including one syllable words that you could add to a phrase as well as the three syllable words that fit exactly into stress and rhyme pattern of solitude.

Oh. And another spoof title thought up by a colleague: 100 Years of Running Nude.

A Song for Closing

Sometimes, one must change up the routine to get the attention of perfectly fine, but busy people when the time comes to empty the building. One method for this is my "Poorman's Al Yankovik" Fair Use parody of some helpless, innocent song.

I submit for your consideration, "I Think We Are Closed, Now," wrenched from Tommy James and the Shondells' "I Think We're Alone Now," also covered in the 80's by Tiffany.

Print files or save!
That's what we say when we are closing
And don't let's delay
Let's close like we planned
And so we're checking out as fast as we can...
Giving to you a helping hand
Trying to get away into the night
And then you gather up your items and you wander to the door
And then we say, "I think we are closed, now
There doesn't seem to be anyone around.
"I think we are closed now,
The beating of our hearts is the only sound."

The song ends there, because when you're making closing motions, people really don't want a two or three minute radio ditty. About a minute is enough inflict on people without rousing their annoyance beyond having been interrupted in their task and being asked to leave in the first place.

I'm Just Saying.

I won't bother to reprint one of the latest little pop
science news stories making the meme rounds.

Let me imagine that the following is suitable for any debate using behavior of animals in nature to support any advocated human behavior in society. I'm not getting all caveman flame by any means. However, I do wonder does this mean anything that shows up in nature is appropriate for some analogous behavior in human society, or only ones that seem sensible to the people looking at it? How is that different from the majority or the most vocal doing what is right in their own eyes? If we get to claim support from this natural phenomenon, does not anyone else get to claim support from any other natural phenomena they find that support their opinion on some issue? To be entirely fair, I do think God should be credited and charged with the saves and the losses in natural disasters: I just don't think it is rhetorically useful to cherry pick part of an evidence while discounting similar evidence that doesn't fit the position. At that point, just say you're right and events in nature don't justify nor condemn anything in human society.