September 2006 Archives

I stumbled upon a link to the art of Peter Callesen and I think it's amazing stuff. Check it out, and make sure to look at the "A4 Papercut" page because I think that's the most impressive work.

This is more of a philosophical treatise than a comic. But sometimes I am overcome with the fragmented nature of beauty. Or maybe it's the beautiful fragmentation of nature. Or perhaps the natural beauty of fragments.

Read this for my literature seminar with Jeffery Allen. It's Chekhov, so it's good. These are his stories from the period of 1892-1895 and you can see him playing with the conventional structure of the short story, even at a time when the conventional short story was still a new thing. He likes ambiguous endings, he has epiphanies that are not quite epiphanies, and he does weird things with omniscent narrators.

An interesting side note about this book. Barnes & Nobles includes this in their line of "cheap classics," but, quite infuriatingly, they choose to include DIFFERENT short stories in the collection. So they are publishing a book called of Chekhov stories called "Ward No. 6 and Other Stories" yet it only has two stories in common with the classic book of the same name that has been around for a hundred years. That is a lame move by B&N.

A new idiomatic tic of the English language has made it into my sights. What do people mean when they use the phrase "single greatest" to describe something? How does "single greatest" differ from "greatest"? You know what I'm talking about: "That's my single greatest fear," or "What do you consider your single greatest strength?" Doesn't the word "greatest" already imply some kind of singular position in a list of other potentially-but-not-quite-as-great things? Take, for example, the following comparison: "Of the hundred foods I like, all 100 are the greatest." That doesn't make any sense! Why? Because only one thing can be the greatest. Greatest implies single. Does "single greatest" mean that not only is this thing being described the greatest of other potentials on the list, but it is the ONLY thing on the list? I don't think so, because that would rid the significance of being the greatest. If your greatest strength is also your only strength, then it is also your weakest strength, etc. I suppose the word is merely serving as a grammatical intensifier (like "very" or "really"), putting emphasis on the phrase but not actually changing the meaning in any way. And, I admit, I sometimes use words like "very" or "really" so it's hard for me to fight against the totality of redundant intensification. But my problem is that "very" and "really" are intentionally purposeless adverbs, they are recognized as doing a specific non-functional job. "Single" is usually a valuable player in the word community, it contributes to the meaning of a sentence - in fact, it oft serves a pivotal and irreplaceable role - and I dislike this blatant disregard for the otherwise important meaning "single" adds to the English language.

In just about every bad television show or movie where a hostage negotiator is negotiating with somebody who has taken hostages, at some point the hostage negotiator says something to the effect of "Why don't you let the hostages go and take me instead?" All the police/FBI/etc are always shocked and upset, though I don't know why this move should come as a surprise to them - haven't they seen every other bad television show and movie with hostage negotiations?

I understand from a dramatic point of view why this works for a show. Instead of random pedestrians at risk (difficult for the audience to care), suddenly the protagonist is put into the dangerous situation (due to an act of self-sacrifice no less). It's such a standard move in bad (and some good) plot-lines that I have to ask the question: DOES THIS EVER HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE? In an actual hostage situation, does the hostage negotiator ever say, "Why don't you let the hostages go and take me instead?" Ever?

In theory, hostage negotiators have also watched movies and television shows, so they at least understand the concept. Yet for some reason I doubt they do it. In fact, I suspect on the first day of "Hostage Negotiating 101" the very first thing they tell you is, "Do not, under any circumstances, offer to swap yourself for the hostages."

One more point: If I ever find myself having taken hostages and the hostage negotiator suggests that I make this trade, I'm going to say "no."