On Perseverance

“I do the very best I can, I mean to keep going. If the end brings me out all right, then what is said against me won’t matter. If I’m wrong, ten angels swearing I was right won’t make a difference.”

Bits & Pieces, April 29, 1993, p. 15-16


-- Abraham Lincoln

Best Quotes From Great Gatsby

He smiled understandingly-much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced--or seemed to face--the whole eternal world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“I was within and without. Simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“There must have been moments even that afternoon when Daisy tumbled short of his dreams -- not through her own fault, but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion. It had gone beyond her, beyond everything. He had thrown himself into it with a creative passion, adding to it all the time, decking it out with every bright feather that drifted his way. No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“They’re a rotten crowd’, I shouted across the lawn. ‘You’re worth the whole damn bunch put together.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“His heart beat faster and faster as Daisy’s white face came up to his own. He knew that when he kissed this girl, and forever wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath, his mind would never romp again like the mind of God. So he waited, listening for a moment longer to the tuning fork that had been struck upon a star. Then he kissed her. At his lips’ touch she blossomed like a flower and the incarnation was complete.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

If personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promise of life, as if he were related to one of those intricate machines that register earthquakes ten thousand miles away. This responsiveness had nothing to do with that flabby impressionability which is dignified under the name of the 'creative temperament'--it was an extraordinary gift for hope, a romantic readiness such as I have never found in any other person and which it is not likely I shall ever find again. No--Gatsby turned out all right at the end; it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and short-winded elations of men.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“Then came the war, old sport. It was a great relief, and I tried very hard to die, but I seemed to bear an enchanted life.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“one of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty−one that everything afterward savors of anti−climax.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” 
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

The Virtuous Reader

Be exceedingly careful what you read.—Do not take up a book, paper, or periodical, that happens to fall in your way, because you have nothing else to read By so doing, you will expose yourself to great evils. But, though a book be not decidedly objectionable, it may not be worth reading. There are so many good books, at the present day, that it is not worth while to spend time over what is of little value; and it is better to read the Bible alone, than to spend time over a poor book.

Reading for amusement furnishes a constant temptation for reading what is injurious. It promotes, also, an unprofitable manner of reading. Reading in a hasty and cursory manner, without exercising your own thoughts upon what you read, induces a bad habit of mind. To profit by reading depends, not so much on the quantity which is read, as upon the manner in which it is read. You may read a great deal, in a gormandizing way, as the glutton consumes food, and yet be none the better, but the worse for what you read… 

If anyone should propose to you to associate with men and women of the lowest and most abandoned character, you would shrink from the thought—you would be indignant at the proposition. But it is not the mere bodily presence of such characters that makes their society dangerous. It is the communion which you have with their minds and hearts, in their conduct and conversation… literature of the day is written by such characters. By reading their writings, you come into communion with their minds and hearts, as much as if you were personally in their company. In their writings, the fancies which fill their corrupt minds, and the false and dangerous principles which dwell in their depraved hearts, are transferred to paper, to corrupt the unwary reader. Here are, likewise, glowing descriptions of evil conduct, more fascinating to the youthful heart than the example itself would be, because the mischief is artfully concealed behind the drapery of fine literary taste, and beautiful language… 

Think as you read.—Do not drink in the thoughts of others as you drink water; but examine them, and see whether they carry conviction to your own mind; and if they do, think them over, till they become incorporated with your own thoughts, part and parcel of your own mind. Lay up facts and principles in your memory. Let the beautiful thoughts and striking ideas that you discover be treasured up as so many gems and precious stones, to enrich and beautify your own mind. And let your heart be impressed and benefited by the practical thoughts you find addressed to it.

- Qtd., from Harvey Newcomb, How to Be a Man; How to Be a Lady: A Book for Children, Containing Useful Hints On the Formation of Character (Kindle Locations 1863-1866). Lulu. Kindle Edition.

Engaging Information

CWK

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

***

We're in school every day. We are surround by informers, and we are engaging information. Everyday, we are in school.

Learning, reading, listening to podcasts, streaming an MP3, attending lectures, these are all endeavors which require us to engage another person who is, on some level, attempting to instruct us.

This implies that public information dispensers, those who are "information informers" (writers, film-makers, teachers, politicians, entertainers, musicians) are all about the task of teaching. And so they are, whether we realize it or not. The books we read, the shows we watch, the movies we consume, these are all teaching us something. The authors of these words have something to say (or else they'd remain silent), and the authors of these words are accountable for their words (whether they like it or not), and we ourselves are being changed by the words we engage (whether we know it or not). 

In a recent interview, The Avett Brothers spoke of the impact of their popularity: they realized they need to be careful with the message of their music because a large audience attended their every lyric; with greater influence, and a wider audience, they accepted greater responsibility. 

But, what about us, the "informed." How should we engage the "informers" all around us.

I want to mention two extremes of engaging information.

The first extreme: accepting everything.

The second extreme: rejecting everything.

In the first, we assign to our "teacher" absolute authority; we do not think it possible they could be mistaken about anything. If they say it, it must be right. Many college students take this posture before their professors. I once did, and I had an instinct toward "submitting my mind" to these great scholars. I assumed what I heard in class was true. I assumed these men/women knew everything they were supposed to know, and were right. How wrong I was.

I'll never forget when the reality of the fallibility of my college prof's struck me like lightning. I took a final exam for one of my sociology classes, and to my surprise, made a B on the exam. In my mind, to the best I knew, I had answered every single question according to the information in the text book: the very information the professor had pointed us to. So, when I got my test back, I compared every question on the exam with the section of the book it covered. Guess what? According to the book, I was right. Every single answer my Prof marked wrong was, at least according to the book, correct. The Prof had marked the correct answers on my test, and I started looking up his answers. Guess what? About 70 percent of the time, what he said was the right answer was simply wrong, or at least not as correct as the answers I had supplied. 

Then, I realized: this professor does not even know the answers to the questions on his final exam. This was a major even in my life because it was so odd, so contradictory to my perception of "omniscient professors."

Then again, we might swing to the other extreme: Approaching information and "informers" with a totally critical bent, and rejecting any and every idea from authority figures and teachers. This disposition is often the consequence of prideful know-it-all attitude, and it cuts us off from engaging in beneficial ways with others who may know much more than we do.

Right before I was to begin my PhD studies in the UK, I sat down with a Prof who'd mentored me throughout grad school and explained to him a particular anxiety. I was concerned about my upcoming PhD research because one of my supervisors was known to be unfriendly to many things in Christianity, and a purveyor of false teaching. I foresaw a never ending war with this supervisor, and dreaded having to sit under them, and try to avoid contention. I was also afraid that this experience my impact me negatively; what if I started adopting some of these views? What if my faith started failing me? What if I was intimidated into avowing positions I detested?

Then, my mentor advised me, "Try to learn what you can from this supervisor." I expected he'd say the opposite, something like, "Reject everything this madman says." But he didn't, and what he did say was worth the price of all the education I'd received before. He communicated me, in one sweet sentence, enough wisdom to fill a book: 

-Be Humble, but also Wise

-Approach the situation as a person who wants to learn

-You know you are going to disagree, so be confident in your positions. They are true...

-But don't let disagreements get in the way of profiting from someone who has something to teach you.

His counsel set me free, not only agree with this supervisor, but also to disagree. If I'd gone in with the "accept nothing," view I would've started making a straw man of his arguments: I would have had the sort of negativity that ensured I would misunderstand him. All this would have only made me more weak in my own positions, while also ensuring that I had no real knowledge of my supervisors positions. 

Instead, my mentor sent me into this situation with the best possible defense against false teaching: a desire to learn and know the truth.

Limits and Limitations

This I have to say to polyamory, postmodernism, those who think form doesn't matter in poetry or art, and to anyone who might be wondering, "Is God's law GOOD for me? It sounds sorta restrictive." Or, to anyone who might think, "If I accept the Christian creed, with all of its definite statement, it will limit my freedom of mind." Or, to anyone who believes gender roles are necessarily constrictive. Or, to anyone who believes that real freedom means freedom from all limits...

This is say: Da Vinci painted within the lines. Shakespeare used the form of the Sonnet. Far from stifling creativity, and free expression, form and order, and set limits, brought full blossom to the genius of these men.

This also I say, or rather, this is what someone else said that I agree with: limits are not the same as limitations. Limits provide an environment, the only possible environment, for playfulness.

***

But to “play with words” within the traditions of theology and liturgy is not to strive for innovation. The theologian or liturgist, as Stanley has also taught us, is not charged with the task of originality, but with that of fidelity to a living tradition that has some parameters, to a language with rules of speech. There are things we know we can’t say—like, for instance, “that majestic mountain over there is God”—but such limits are not limitations. Rather, they are, as Wendell Berry observes, “inducements to formal elaboration and elegance, to fullness of relationship and meaning.”

From, “And God Said . . .”: Creation, Word-Care, and the Care of the World, Debra Dean Murphy.

***

Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.

Chesterton, "Authority and the Adventurer," Orthodoxy.



***

All next day at Beacon House there was a crazy sense that it was everybody's birthday. It is the fashion to talk of institutions as cold and cramping things. The truth is that when people are in exceptionally high spirits, really wild with freedom and invention, they always must, and they always do, create institutions. When men are weary they fall into anarchy; but while they are gay and vigorous they invariably make rules. This, which is true of all the churches and republics of history, is also true of the most trivial parlour game or the most unsophisticated meadow romp. We are never free until some institution frees us; and liberty cannot exist till it is declared by authority. Even the wild authority of the harlequin Smith was still authority, because it produced everywhere a crop of crazy regulations and conditions. He filled every one with his own half-lunatic life; but it was not expressed in destruction, but rather in a dizzy and toppling construction. Each person with a hobby found it turning into an institution. Rosamund's songs seemed to coalesce into a kind of opera; Michael's jests and paragraphs into a magazine. His pipe and her mandoline seemed between them to make a sort of smoking concert.
The bashful and bewildered Arthur Inglewood almost struggled against his own growing importance. He felt as if, in spite of him, his photographs were turning into a picture gallery, and his bicycle into a gymkhana. But no one had any time to criticize these impromptu estates and offices, for they followed each other in wild succession like the topics of a rambling talker.

Chesterton, Manalive, Chapter III, "The Banner of Beacon."

Reading With Heart, Mind, Soul - And Yes, Body

From Andrew Piper, Out Of Touch:

Amid the seemingly endless debates today about the future of reading, there remains one salient, yet often overlooked fact: Reading isn’t only a matter of our brains; it’s something that we do with our bodies. Reading is an integral part of our lived experience, our sense of being in the world, even if at times this can mean feeling intensely apart from it. How we hold our reading materials, how we look at them, navigate them, take notes on them, share them, play with them, even where we read them—these are the categories that have mattered most to us as readers throughout the long and varied history of reading. They will no doubt continue to do so into the future.

Understanding reading at this most elementary level—at the level of person, habit, and gesture—will be essential as we continue to make choices about the kind of reading we care about and the kind of technologies that will best embody those values. To think about the future of reading means, then, to think about the long history of how touch has shaped reading and, by extension, our sense of ourselves while we read.

***

The significance of the tactility of reading could begin with St. Augustine. In the eighth book of his Confessions, Augustine describes the moment of his conversion to becoming a Christian:

In my misery I kept crying, “How long shall I go on saying, ‘tomorrow, tomorrow?’ ” Why not now? Why not make an end of my ugly sins at this very moment? I was asking myself these questions when all at once I heard the singing voice of a child in a nearby house. Whether it was the voice of a boy or girl I cannot say, but again and again it repeated the refrain, “Take it and read, take it read.”

Why We Love Novels

People wonder why the novel is the most popular form of literature; people wonder why it is read more than books of science or books of metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is more true than they are. Life may sometimes legitimately appear as a book of science. Life may sometimes appear, and with a much greater legitimacy, as a book of metaphysics. But life is always a novel. Our existence may cease to be a song; it may cease even to be a beautiful lament. Our existence may not be an intelligible justice, or even a recognizable wrong. But our existence is still a story. If we have sufficient intellect, we can finish a philosophical and exact deduction, and be certain that we are finishing it right. With the adequate brain-power we could finish any scientific discovery, and be certain that we were finishing it right. But not with the most gigantic intellect could we finish the simplest or silliest story, and be certain that we were finishing it right. That is because a story has behind it, not merely intellect which is partly mechanical, but will, which is in its essence divine.

Chesterton, Heretics.

Understanding Poetry

by CWK

1. Read the poem/poems aloud.

Poetry revels in sounds. Thus, you need to hear it with your ears. Also, many poems are built on rhythmic patterns, and this rhythm will more likely come alive for you when you hear it. You may need to read the poem aloud a few times before you can get a feel for the rhythym. However, keep reading. Read like you are auditioning for a role in a play -- with poetic emphasis!

2. Clarify or define unclear words/ concepts.

Many people are discouraged by the word choice (diction) of poetry. My guess is that most people are wary of poetry because they fear they won't understand it. And, why do they think they won't understand it? Because they come across unfamiliar words. So, keep a dictionary handy. You will learn a few new words. Also, an author may make an illusion to another work, and if you haven't read it, you are lost. So, simply go and check the reference. 

3. Try to discern the artistic features of a poem.

Here are some important features to look for:

-repetition: words/ phrases repeated (key words are usually repeated)

-patterns: rhyme patterns, sound patterns

-genre: what kind of poem is this? (Sonnet, Ode, Epic, Free Verse, etc.

4. Look into the historical background of the poem/poet.

Who was the author? What do we know about him/her?

When did they live?

What is the occasion for the poem?

Who was the poem written to/for?

What were the historical circumstances of the poem?

Why did the poet write this poem? Do they give a reason in the poem?

5. Meditate on metaphors.

What are the metaphors (A IS B) and similes (A IS LIKE B), and what is the point of comparison (How A is B, or is like B)?

Our lack of emotional benefit in regards to poetry comes at this point exactly -- we fail to sufficiently ponder the point of comparison.

The Simple Way To Become A Genius (Insert Anything Here)

CWK

So, you have a vague dream of being a ''great' writer? A great doctor? A great leader? A great musician? You want to compose masterpieces?

You've come to the right place. I shall, in due season, relate to you the simple formula for becoming a master. You will be surprised how simple it is.

First, read these words from Vince Lombardi:

The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor. 

We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible. The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will.

Success demands singleness of purpose.

Leaders aren't born; they are made. And they are made just like anything else: through hard work. And that's the price we'll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal.

The Dictionary is the only place where success comes before work. Hard work is the price we must pay for success. I think you can accomplish anything if you're willing to pay the price.

The price of success is hard work, dedication to the job at hand, and the determination that whether we win or lose, we have applied the best of ourselves to the task at hand.

Next, consider this interchange between an older General Jackson (who wanted to learn Ancient Greek), and a doubtful soldier

"I intend to learn Greek," said General Jackson.

He was, by then, fairly advanced in years. His childhood education was below average. He had struggled with academics at West Point, and his grades showed it.

The soldier answered, "It will be very difficult. You are probably too old to learn a new language."

Jackson replied, "You're wrong. If I set my mind to it, I will do it."

***

So, you have a vague dream of being a ''great' writer, and churning out masterpieces?

I have good news. You can do it. You can be a master of the English language; you can write works of fiction/prose that last forever. I have no doubt that anyone reading this right now has the ability right now to write like a master. No doubt. You can do it. That's the good news.

I have some other news. If you want to be a master, it's gonna cost you something. Namely, about 10,000 hours.

A new study carried out by the British scientists revealed that it takes a person 10,000 hours of practice to become ace in a certain discipline. Researchers suggest that the time spent for practicing makes the difference between a person who is good and the one that is brilliant. They carried out their study at Berlin's Academy of Music by observing violin students who began playing at the age of five. These students started practicing for 2 or 3 hours a week and as they grew so increased the time they spent for practicing. Top performers, by the time they celebrated their 20th birthday, reached 10,000 hours of practice

As I said, I have no doubt that anyone reading this right now has the ability right now to write like a master -- right now! -- but not right away, and not without the right amount of effort. By right amount of effort, I mean 10,000 hours.

At 20 hours a week, it would only take you 10 years to reach the 10,000 hours mark.

And, not just any 10,000 hours. Rather 10,000 hours of focused perfect practice.

"(H)ow I spend my practice time remains more important than how much time I spend practicing."
- Noa Kageyama

"Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."
- Vince Lombardi

10,000 hours: becoming a master really is that simple (I said simple, not easy). So simple: It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you need focused effort over a prolonged period of time to achieve mastery; it doesn't take a genius to know this. Simple. It does take, or rather make, a genius to do this. Not easy.

Not easy: this involves determination, striving, frustration, hard work, and resolve. Achieving mastery is more an issue of will than skill. The problem is not that we lack potential to arrive at grand goals. The problem is that we lack the requisite determination: we don't have the heart for taxing pursuits. Why? Because we don't have the heart. We lack  the kind of heart JFK possessed when he said, "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade, and do the other hard things: not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Note: vaguely dreaming about being 'great,' and the corollary exercise of 'just believing in yourself' will not in any way help you toward your goal of mastery. You should believe in your potential, but don't believe in yourself; believe in practice. I wonder if 'believing in ourselves' is not a great hindrance to mastery. After all, if I believe in myself, and affirm my genius no matter what -- no matter the evidence; no matter what other's say -- well then, I don't need to practice, nor will I even be able to see the need to practice.

Q: How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
A: Practice, practice, practice.

On '10,000 Hours,' From Infoniac:

A new study carried out by the British scientists revealed that it takes a person 10,000 hours of practice to become ace in a certain discipline. They say that top musicians, sportsmen and chess players were all able to become masters in their field by achieving the level where their time of practice reached 10,000 hours.

Top performers, by the time they celebrated their 20th birthday, reached 10,000 hours of practice, but those who simply showed good results achieved the amount of 8,000 hours.
"It seems it takes the brain this long to assimilate all it needs to know to achieve true mastery," explained neurologist Daniel Levitin to Focus, a BBC science magazine, which published The Story of Success. 

... (in) Outliers Malcolm Gladwell wrote that The Story of Success may explain why The Beatles became so popular. While in Hamburg... the band played about 8 hours a night, seven days a week... (by the time they) became popular the Fab Four had already performed about 1,200 live concerts, more than many young bands play during their (whole) career.

***

What constitutes effective practice?
Excerpts from Noa Kageyama's A Better Way To Practice:

...We often waste lots of time because nobody ever taught us the most effective and efficient way to practice. Whether it's learning how to code, improving your writing skills, or playing a musical instrument, practicing the right way can mean the difference between good and great.

"Practice with your fingers and you need all day. Practice with your mind and you will do as much in 1 1/2 hours."

...Dr. Ericsson is perhaps the world's leading authority. His research is the basis for the "10,000-hour rule" which suggests that it requires at least ten years and/or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve an expert level of performance in any given domain...

Those are some pretty big numbers. So large, that at first I missed the most important factor in the equation.

Deliberate practice...there is a specific type of practice that facilitates the attainment of an elite level of performance. And then there's the other kind of practice that most of us are more familiar with.

(On Mindless Practice)

Have you ever observed a musician (or athlete, actor, trial attorney) engage in practice? You'll notice that most practice resembles one of the following distinct patterns.

1. Broken record method: This is where we simply repeat the same thing over and over... simply mindless repetition.

2. Autopilot method: This is where we activate our autopilot system and coast.

Unfortunately, there are...problems with practicing this way.

...It's a waste of time: Why? For one, very little productive learning takes place when we practice this way. This is why you can "practice" something for hours, days, or weeks, and still not improve all that much. Even worse, you are actually digging yourself a hole, because what this model of practicing does is strengthen undesirable habits and errors, increasing the likelihood of more consistently inconsistent performances... Real on-stage confidence comes from (a) being able to nail it consistently, (b) knowing that this isn't a coincidence but that you can do it the correct way on demand...

(Bad practice) is mind-numbingly dull: Practicing mindlessly is a chore. We've all had well-meaning parents and teachers tell us to go home and practice a certain passage x number of times, or to practice x number of hours, right? But why are we measuring success in units of practice time? What we need are more specific results-oriented outcome goals...

Deliberate Practice... or mindful practice is a systematic and highly structured activity, that is, for lack of a better word, more scientific. Instead of mindless trial and error, it is an active and thoughtful process of hypothesis testing where we relentlessly seek solutions to clearly defined problems... Deliberate practice is often slow, and involves repetition of small and very specific sections of a skill instead of just playing through.

... If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. Which might explain why few take the time to practice this way. To stop, analyze what went wrong, why it happened, and how they can produce different results the next time.

...how I spend my practice time remains more important than how much time I spend practicing.

...Focus is everything: 
Keep practice sessions limited to a duration that allows you to stay focused...

...When you stumble onto a new insight or discover a solution to a problem, write it down! As you practice more mindfully, you'll began making so many micro-discoveries that you will need written reminders to remember them all.

Smarter, not harder... Instead of stubbornly persisting with a strategy that clearly wasn't working, I forced myself to stop. I brainstormed solutions to the problem for a day or two, and wrote down ideas as they occurred to me. When I had a list of some promising solutions, I started experimenting.

***

Benjamin Franklin, on how George Whitfield's sermons improved with practice:

By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between Sermons newly compos’d, and those which he had often preach’d in the Course of his Travels. His Delivery of the latter was so improv’d by frequent Repetitions that every Accent, every Emphasis, every Modulation of Voice, was so perfectly well turn’d and well plac’d, that without being interested in the Subject, one could not help being pleas’d with the Discourse, a Pleasure of much the same kind with that receiv’d from an excellent Piece of Music. This is an Advantage itinerant Preachers have over those who are stationary: as the latter cannot well improve their Delivery of a Sermon by so many Rehearsals.

***

On Activity

But anything made for use will suffer injury to lie still. The human body, especially, if suffered to remain inactive, becomes useless. Activity strengthens the parts. If you would have more strength, you must use what you have, and it will increase. The right use of your members, also, must be learned by practice. Much practice is necessary, for instance, to train the fingers to the various uses in which they are to be employed, so as, (to use a homely phrase,) to make them handy. The body, likewise, needs exercise, to keep it in a healthy state. The various parts of its machinery have a great work to do, every day, in turning your food into blood, and sending it a great many thousand times, in a vast number of little streams, to every part of the body. But this machinery will not work, if the body is all the time inactive. It requires motion, to give it power. There is nothing, therefore, so bad for it as laziness. It is like a dead calm to a windmill, which stops all its machinery.

-- Harvey Newcomb, How to Be a Man; How to Be a Lady: A Book for Children, Containing Useful Hints On the Formation of Character (Kindle Locations 1232-1239). Lulu. Kindle Edition.

Write Naturally

Great advice from Truman Capote:

Since each story presents its own technical problems, obviously one can't generalize about them on a two-times-two-equals-four basis. Finding the right form for your story is simply to realize the most natural way of telling the story. The test of whether or not a writer has divined the natural shape of his story is just this: after reading it, can you imagine it differently, or does it silence your imagination and seem to you absolute and final? As an orange is final. As an orange is something nature has made just right.

And Buck Owens made a similar point, with a good deal more humor:

They're gonna put me in the movies

They're gonna make a big star out of me

We'll make a film about a man that's sad and lonely

And all I gotta do is act naturally

Well, I'll bet you I'm gonna be a big star

Might win an Oscar you can never tell

The movies gonna make me a big star

'Cause I can play the part so well

Well I hope you come and see me in the movies

Then I’ll know that you will plainly see

The biggest fool that ever hit the big time

And all I gotta do is act naturally

We'll make the scene about a man that's sad and lonely

And beggin down upon his bended knee

I'll play the part but I won't need rehearsin’

All I have to do is act naturally

Pun Intended

Ever read the book of Micah? Ok. Every noticed that the book of Micah is filled with creative puns? Credit to Al Maxey's Intro to Micah for pointing out these quotes:

The latter part of the 1st chapter (1:10-16) reveals the prophet's skill as a communicator. He uses a play on words, showing that he is as clever a punster as he is a strikingly gifted poet."

- Stuart Briscoe

In Micah, we have, "the longest series of sustained puns in the OT..."

- Jack P. Lewis


Imagine an American preacher saying, 'Living in Pittsburgh is the pits,' or 'Los Angeles is not a city of angels,' or 'Wisconsin should only be pronounced Wiscon-sin.' That would get the people's attention. Micah was having a problem getting his message across to the people so he chose this dramatic vehicle to reach them

- Briscoe


EXAMPLES:

Gath (1:10) sounds like the Hebrew word for tell, so it's as if he were saying, "Tell it not in Tell City." Also, in 1:10 Micah writes, "In Beth-le-aphrah (house of dust) roll yourself in the dust." Zaanan (1:11) means "going out," so he is saying, "Those of you in 'Go Out City' will not go out." 

- Al Maxey

The Genius of Eminem As An Artist (Continued)

Eminem was the best selling artist of the 2000's. Let that sink in for a moment. Between 2000-2010, he sold more records than Usher, more than Mariah Carey, more than Coldplay -- more than anyone. He's won 13 Grammys: 13 out of the 14 he was nominated for. He's the only rapper to achieve two diamond certified records. After a hiatus from music, and -- by his own admission -- a so-so comeback on Relapse, he managed a true recovery with the album Recovery. He's been known to shock, but just as the world was yawning, he shocked us again with the video for the single "Space Bound." Many rappers have ascended into the sky, like fireworks, exploded, and impressed us ( if briefly) with their glory. Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, 50 Cent, etc. were great for an albulm or two; they sparkled for a year or two. Eminem has been great for more than a decade. He's no firework; he's not even a shooting comet. He hangs perpetually in the sky like a star -- a real star. Every now and then you think his star is dimming. Then, you realize the dimness was the affect of momentary cloud cover. You can't hide a star for long. I'm reminded of some words written about him over a decade ago: "he dazzles with sick brilliance." And dazzles. And dazzles. And dazzles. Like a real star.

Excerpt From Wikipedia:

In the book How to Rap, Guerilla Black notes that Eminem studied other MCs to create his rapping technique: "Eminem listened to everything and that's what made him one of the greats".^[142] In the same book, Eminem is praised for various aspects of his rapping technique by numerous other MCs; these techniques include his varied and humorous subject matter,^[143] connecting with his audience,^[144] carrying a concept over a series of albums,^[145] complex rhyme schemes,^[146] his ability to bend words so that they rhyme,^[147] his use of multisyllabic rhymes,^[140] fitting many rhymes in each bar,^[148] complex rhythms,^[149] clear enunciation,^[150] use of melody,^[151] and syncopation.^[152] He is also known to write the majority of his lyrics down on paper, as documented in his book The Way I Am, as well as taking a few days or a week to craft lyrics,^[153] being a "workaholic",^[154] and "stacking" vocals.^[155]

Wasting Words

by CWK

Over the years this advice from William Strunk has haunted me, in the good way:

Strunk: “Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.”

Many expressions in common use are space wasters. They add nothing to sentences. Here's my list of the most common needless space wasters:

apparently

the question as to whether/ better: whether (or the question whether)

there is no doubt but that/ better: no doubt (or doubtless)

used for fuel purposes/ better: used for fuel

he is a man who/ better: he

in a hasty manner/ better: hastily

this is a subject which/ better: this subject

His story is a strange one/ better: His story is strange.

Note: the expression “the fact that” should be purged from every sentence.

owing to the fact that/ better to say: since (because)

in spite of the fact that/ better to say: though (although)

call your attention to the fact that: better to say: remind you (notify you)

I was unaware of the fact that/ better to say: I did not know

Who is, which was, and the like are often superfluous.

His brother, who is a member of the same firm

His brother, a member of the same firm

Trafalgar, which was Nelson's last battle

Trafalgar, Nelson's last battle

A Good Read(er)

by CWK

Here's a selection of quotes on how to read aloud for others. I'm indebted to Bryan Chapell's article, "The Incarnate Voice," for pointing out the quotes, and shaping my ideas on this subject.

So, what makes for a good reader? See the quotes below for the long answer. Here's the short answer: A good public reader is one who reads with comprehension in their own unique voice in way faithful to the author's voice.

-----------------------

"To read well is a rare accomplishment.  It is much more common to excel in singing or in public speaking.  Good preachers are numerous compared with good readers.  The requisites to good reading are several.  First, one must have great quickness of apprehension . . . ."

-- John A. Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, rev. ed. Jesse B. Weatherspoon (Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 360.

---

"The reader needs to understand that it is not he that is speaking, but the selection... 

"It is not the reader's task to alter or embellish the selection but rather to restrict himself to the content of the selection as it is actually expressed.”

-- Harold A. Brack, Effective Oral Interpretation for Religious Leaders (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 16. 

---

They write, "The ideal of the interpreter should be to do what the writer would do if he were a competent speaker and could meet face to face in conversation those who are to read what he writes."

-- C. H. Woolbert and S.E. Nelson, The Art of Interpretive Speech (New York : F.S. Crofts, 1929), 19. 

---

It is not, indeed, desirable that in reading the Bible, for example, or anything which is not intended to appear as his [i.e., the reader's] own composition, he should deliver what are, avowedly, another's sentiments in the same style, as if they were such as arose in his own mind; but it is desirable that he should deliver them as if he were reporting another's sentiments, which were both fully understood, and felt in all their force by the reporter . . . .

-- Harold A. Brack, Effective Oral Interpretation for Religious Leaders (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 16. 

---

Do not strive to impersonate the author . . . . As a reader you are an interpreter speaking the thoughts of the author and recreating his moods; but you speak as yourself, with your own identity, just as you sing music that some other person has composed ... Your interpretation of the passage may be different from that of someone else . . . .  You even have the privilege of interpreting the same material differently at different times . . . provided you do not distort the intended meaning of the author. 

-- Lantz

Check out the article that inspired this post:

Bryan Chapell, The Incarnate Voice: An Exhortation for Excellence in the Oral Reading of Scripture. Presbyterion 14: 42-57 (1988).