I think you're expecting a level of objectivity that is not practical. Not
the least bit realistic. This has nothing to do with maturity, Alex: it has
to do with the fact that you know us, and you cannot help but see how much
of the man or woman is peeking out from behind the verbiage at any given
time.
Here are a BUNCH of words on the subject--about 200% of what anyone else
would write, but still only 75% of what Joya would offer up, given a similar
prompt:
* David's book allowed me to immerse myself in the subject to an impressive
degree. This may reflect the fact that I see David in person enough to act
as a "nostalgia buffer." Also, David is funnier in person than in the book,
so I never felt that the book represented his "best material" on that level.
The complexity of the human brain also helps to distance his writing, in my
mind, from HIM. (Also, there's all this science stuff in it, so though I
love the book it can never be as interesting as David himself is.)
* Mike's material is so absorbing that while I never forget that it's his
work, I do achieve total immersion. Also, his writing style is remarkably
free of Mike-like idioms--it is very neutral. Almost aloof. There are nearly
no verbal tics that lead one to think, "ah, there you are, Mike." His
writing is perfectly workmanlike, and the style rarely intrudes upon the
subject. He is terribly disciplined as a writer.
In point of fact, one might say that the only Mike-tic is the lack of Mike
tics, as when he discusses a paranormal experience in a particular part of
California and how it sometimes messes up writers' cars. ("The same thing
happened to the author's own highly reliable automobile." Well, Mike--WHAT
KIND OF CAR WAS IT?--ya freakin' tease!)
* My husband's scripts and blog entries provide a medium level of immersion,
and a similar sense that "this guy is funnier in real life; text doesn't do
it justice." But I generally have my "editor's hat" on when I read these, so
I'm actively looking for discontinuities and the like. This cuts down on
objectivity.
* My husband's actual TV shows and sketches (while being performed) are very
alive, and very "him." I can, however, watch Freakazoid as a show without
worrying too much about which are his gags versus Paul Rugg's. Though I will
check my intuition later, and ask him if thus-and-such was his line, or
Paul's, if it was a choice one. And I sometimes get it wrong--that's how "in
sync" they were when they developed the show.
* My friend Kevin's blog seems to waver between him qua him and him as the
persona he projects over the web. As with my husband's blog, I'll sometimes
send Kevin a note if he comes up with a really good line.
* Paul Rugg's blog is VERY Paul. And funny in a Paul (Marvin E. Quaas Nicki
of KXLU) kind of way.
* Sandra Loh is the most interesting case by far, inasmuch as there seem to
be at least three Sandras: her essays from the old days (e.g., Depth Takes a
Holiday) seem like fairly weak tea, because they lack that "spark" that make
her plays so Sandra-ish, and so reliant on her sense of drama and style.
Reading those made me feel that Sandra's highest calling was as a
performance artist. But the Sandra who writes for the Atlantic is pretty
cerebral and polysyllabic; her witticisms are kept more in check, and
consequently I never feel like she's "trying too hard," or forcing the joke.
Naturally, I like the Sandra of the Atlantic if I'm going to READ her,
despite the cognitive dissonance of them being lower in humor. Otherwise I
prefer to see one of her plays--and when she stands on stage and recounts
some anecdote from her family with that Sandralike flair, I think of the
"Young Bureaucrats, Of Coarse," and kind of murmur to myself, "that's my
girl."
* With Paul's book there is next to no objectivity, and he is ever-present
in my mind--right down to the freckles on his forearms. When he gets
punctuation wrong, I'm generally okay--except for that time the parentheses
were off, and I thought, "It's a MATH book, Paul--how could you mess up a
thing like THAT?" (I forgave him, eventually. But it took a few days.)
It's also irritating when Keith Devlin states that Paul taught at the
university level, and THEN started instructing children. That led to "didn't
you tell him about St. Monica's, Buddy?" And an email, natch, in response to
which as you will imagine I got the equivalent of a shrug.
Finally, when one puts Paul's Lament down to make a sandwich or whatever,
one begins to remember how Paul was always attempting to intellectually
outflank one in the silliest ways. And then one wonders why he never washed
his hair in high school, and if the reasoning was similar to Keith's. After
all, I asked Keith. But never Paul.
* Janine's books are nicely done, but terribly labor-intensive to read:
there is a lot of description of fantasy worlds, and one is a bit tempted to
say, "we ought to pace ourselves a bit, here, Dear: let's make some tea. DO
remember that I'm having to mentally construct it as you provide the
description, and give a girl a break, okay?"
* Jan is very good. She's always been a better writer than I, and I'm not
sure I want to talk about it . . . I am impressed by her breadth, and of
course some of her technical abilities. She is also quite prolific! (Though
I am accused of that myself. I think one can only call me that if one is
adding up everything I do: fiction, blogging, articles, etc. I try not to do
that. I like my life nice and compartmentalized, when I can manage it.)
* As far as my blog is concerned, I recognize that it is extremely personal
and driven by who I am--probably several of me. But at the same time that I
throw little tidbits out about the rest of you and give you cute names, I'm
simultaneously in complete denial that any of you ever read me at ALL. As a
matter of fact, no matter how many times people of ANY STRIPE come up to me
and quote the blog, or allude to what is going on in my life, I steadfastly
refuse to acknowledge that anyone reads it whatsoever. I met a reader for
drinks last night in downtown Houston; I introduced him to other
bloggers--and the trip's sponsors--as one of my "readers," but I simply
cannot face that thought that any real person ever visits my site. Ever.
It might make me shy, you see.
My sponsor here tells me, "I can't believe some of the things you write."
"Well," I tell her, "It's like a standup routine, in a certain sense. There
is some self-exposure." And I think that's a big part of what I do, whether
I'm writing about politics, my mom, or driving on the Interstate 5. And I
enjoy it; I just wish people would send me more money.
It has certainly occurred to me to publish a chapbook, like Jan's,
but--whatever would I put in it? Essays? Poems? Snippets of dialogue? Like
Snoopy in Charles Schulz's Peanuts, the first thing I'd want to write would
be the price.
--J
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Alex Melnick <aemelnick_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, I started reading Paul's book over the weekend, and I'm mostly enjoying
> it so far (and yes, the non-math people around here should definitely check
> it out). But the thing is that there are times when I have to remind myself
> to take it seriously.
>
> What I mean to say is, if this book had been written by John Smith instead
> of that ex-Olive Paul Lockhart, I'd be paying more attention to the content
> and less to the author. But instead of thinking about the argument, I find
> myself thinking about the time that Paul did [insert your favorite Paul
> anecdote here].
>
> And it's not just this book--I've had similar reaction to David's, Mike's,
> and Janine's books, Joy's blog, and Sandra Loh's radio commentaries. I
> suspect that it says something about my refusal to accept that I'm a
> grown-up. After all, if the rest of you are serious, respected adults,
> surely I ought to be one, too?
>
> So, is it just me? And is it just the Olives, or do you think that [insert
> your favorite "serious" author]'s old school friends have the same type of
> reaction?
>
> aemelnick_at_yahoo.com <aemelnick%40yahoo.com> --
> http://www.geocities.com/alexm_94109
>
>
>
--
Joy M. McCann
Goddess of Ink and Paper
(But pixels obey me, too.)
Mistress of proofreading, fact-checking,
Line-editing, and copyediting
Copy Write Editorial Services
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Received on 2009-05-07 15:58:43