Skip to main content

everything is a critic

i have to say that i've been very good the last week about paying attention to writing projects and trying to organise them in such a way that they seem manageable, which makes me feel like there is a purpose to me continuing to write and to live in general. after forcing myself to inspect everything that i had in my writing folder and making discoveries like at least one of the fictional posts i've made on this blog is nowhere to be found in my personal files [where did it come from? where did it go?], i've finally managed to make some plans as to what i want to do with them. some of them.

reading some of these things has been surprisingly difficult, because it has reinforced all those high school girl voices in my head; the ones who look at me strangely and mutter that i'm hopeless, because man, a lot of what i've written really sucks. that isn't a surprise, except that some of the stuff that sucks the most is stuff that i'd previously thought was pretty good. how long exactly does a piece of writing have to marinate before you're able to judge if it's worth bottling and selling or if you just need to flush it down the creative toilet?

amidst my state of confusion, as i was making edits to what i felt could be saved and making notes about that which might just have to be laid to rest, its organs harvested for other, healthier projects, i looked up to see this as i was saving a file:


could that be bitchier? it's like this inanimate object is telling me that what i'm doing is too awful to consider saving. because i don't have enough problems with insecurity and crippling self-doubt without the hardware getting in on the act.

i mean, when i say a piece of writing is weak, or needs work, that's one thing, but where the hell does something that isn't even programmed to appreciate art and beauty and craftsmanship get off with a flat "hell no you ain't savin that on me, biatch"? oh yeah? what's you're favourite book then? 01101010110001? yeah, that was totally a nobel prize winner there. a real coup for jake the freelance code writer.

this continues for a while and then i realise that i'm arguing with my computer, which can't even respond, unlike my phone, who can at least talk to me and who doesn't judge my writing, or at least my notes about writing, which is all she gets to see. [incidentally, you need to ask siri to open the pod bay doors. it's apparently the computer equivalent of blackface.]

anyway, i did manage to persuade the computer to accept the file, with the promise that i would go back and edit it.

this is my life now, arguing with the technology. and losing.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …