DAMN was it hot. I hear it was hotter for mine just two short years ago but I think that's bullshit. Kel was nice enough to go with me and I really enjoyed Kurt Vonnegut's speach. It was concordant with the thoughts and emotions I had anticipated after reading Slaughterhouse-V and having read an article or two about the man in the last few days. I bet he's a cool guy to hang out with. Believe it or not, we share a lot of fundamental ideas about the world and it feels somewhat comforting knowing that someone MUCH older than I has lived the majority of his life in this oft-tragic and depressing world and can STILL feel the way he does about life. I can only pray that I share some of that positivity when I'm his age.
Posted by languorous at May 24, 2004 05:17 PMEnlighten us already... what are the similar emotions and thoughts?
Posted by: sister extraordinare at May 25, 2004 07:37 AMdo not post as my sister. if you'd like to post, pick a cool nickname or something. if I felt like sharing specifics, I would have :-)
Posted by: languorous at May 25, 2004 11:16 AMYour sister makes a decent point. What thoughts? I don't handle abstractions very well. :-)
Posted by: Robb at May 25, 2004 01:21 PMDo not yell at your sister you hurt her feelings!!!!:-( I have a question for Robb, What do you handle well?
Posted by: Yossarian 16 at May 25, 2004 08:13 PMTo Mike: I can handle concrete statements-- that is, things that I can respond to or at have some emotional/gut reaction.
Good writing relates the author's thoughts, feelings, convictions, etc. to the reader. If written well, the reader can process what the writer says and do with it what he pleases.
If the writer speaks in abstractions, the reader can never understand what the writer is trying to say, nor can he connect to the author.
Does that help? :-)
Posted by: Robb at May 26, 2004 12:12 AMVonnegut's specific thoughts and emotions are immaterial. The reader should infer from my post that Vonnegut is still a positive guy after a life of gruesome experiences. (My intention was to possibly motivate the reader to go out and read Vonnegut's work if I piqued his or her curiosity.) It's that simple. The reader was not inundated with details because the focus was not how or why he's positve, simply that he IS positive.
If "good writing" ever appears in a comment again, all English majors will be banned with possible reinstatement occurring only after providing proof of publication and legitimate industry credentials :-)
Posted by: languorous at May 26, 2004 11:49 AMBecoming defensive in response to a criticism is the sure mark of an amateur. :-)
My earlier post was not meant to insult anyone-- it was merely a response to Mike's question. Also, it was a comment about my dislike (and probably most readers' dislike) for unjustified abstractions.
Abstractions operate soley on a vague, intellectual level. When discussing generalizations, large concepts, or "truths," I think the writer should show more and tell less.
That is, just writing that you agree with someone's attitudes/thoughts does not tell the audience anything, really. It's too vauge. But if you entice the reader through specific details you may be able to get them "hooked," and that is when they can truly appreciate/respond to the commentary.
That is the English lesson for the day. My office hours are Monday, Tuesday, Wedensday from 10 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. :-)
Posted by: Robb at May 26, 2004 04:45 PMLooks like Robb didn't go all the way through college for nothing; now he can present very logical, sophisticated, pedagogical arguments!
Posted by: Garrett at May 26, 2004 10:00 PMWow, this blog's been up for less than a month and we've got flamewars in the comments box ALREADY. Sweet!
Posted by: Jason at May 27, 2004 06:55 PM