NO, not the man who humped Jessica and Ashley into existence! NO not the motivational speaker and mountaineer we just found on Wikipedia. This Joe Simpson is an oil painter, who likes to paint indie god’s faces into portraits we’d like to hang in our hipster cabins to gaze at while we drink wormwood tea or something. Check out his website. (via Pitchfork)
it’s a snow day and a vague holiday so it means that me and a lot of other people aren’t at work and are instead at home watching “buffy the vampire slayer” and trying to figure out why our dog and cat are not boyfriend and girlfriend as originally planned.
"It’s interesting how many good writers have really good women surrounding them."
I was enjoying reading Esquire’s “What I’ve Learned” with Donald Sutherland but that line gave me this gross little chill that made me stop and say, “Huh?”
Not to be the feminist police or anything but he is implying that great writers are all men, or possibly lesbians (yeah, he’s not implying lesbians). The worst is that he thinks he is being charitable by crediting the women “surrounding them,” who must help them become awesome writers by having sexy sex they can write about and making them casseroles while they labor over a typewriter.
Plus, is that even true? Didn’t a lot of writers have insane women surrounding them, and that’s why their writing was so interesting? Look at Freud, for one.
I don’t get offended easily (yeah, I even like “99 Problems”) but that patronizing shit is annoying.
i shopped at target instead of rainbow today and the thoughts in my head were not the usual grocery shopping “this blows, get me outta here, this blows, wanna watch TV.” this surprised me. i thought that i had somehow morphed into a curmudgeony human that hated doing anything involving getting into my car, getting out and handing over my check card. i even bought myself some dresses that toe the line between “weekend-y,” “office appropriate” and “no more than $20.” (it’s maybe not a line being toed, but a 3-dimensional matrix. yeah, being a girl is complicated.)
i still wish there was an ultra store that sold frozen pizza, soda, alcohol, cigarettes and tampons. that would be amazing. those probably exist in Everywhere but Minnesota.
living in Minnesota is depressing. anyone who says otherwise has been infected with happy drugs from the st. paul tap water company. if there was a movie about my life, it would involve lots of shots of me, wearing a hat, driving my car in the snow and looking disenchanted in a way that is hopefully cool. the song could be fleet foxes or something and the preview could climax at a scene where i’m kicking ice off my tire and drinking Hot 100 from a small bottle.
tonight i am going to go to first ave and pregame in a Wave Rave party with my friends who run the philolzophy blog.
i haven’t been tumblring lately because i started a blog with them and jay gabler and jason zabel and katie sisneros and emily weiss called The Tangential. read it if you want something else to click on. i’ll write more about it later.
gawker commenters often make me like america. this is in response to a post showing twitter #rulesforgirls, which inspired some people to criticize the tweeters’ grammar.
I agree with the many comenters who’ve criticized the sexism of these posts - but the grammar criticisms are way off the mark.
Those rigid grammar rules beloved by the dictionary police only apply when you are writing in “Standard English” in a formal setting
So, grammar criticisms are relevant if we’re talking about a newspaper article, a resume or an essay for a college admissions application.
In the context of casual text message conversations, those “rules” are flat out irrelevant.
Also, there’s the race, culture and class issues here.
Twitter tends to skew heavily working class and African American in this country so a lot of tweets you read, especially the ones on trending topics, are written by low income Black young adults.
A lot of these folks primarily speak African American dialect, and that influences how they tweet.
Demanding that they write in “Standard English” (that is to say, English as spoken by upper class White people in the Northeastern US) is pretty offensive.
Believe it or not, most of these young men and women can code switch as needed.
However, in a casual forum like twitter, where nobody is getting graded, they can “speak easy and speak free” and write in their natural voice, in their home dialect.
Why exactly do you have a problem like that?
Don’t you speak and text casually with your friends, in the language and dialect that you use at home?
Why can’t they?
Or, is your home dialect the so called “Standard English” of the US upper classes, and you want to privilege the dialect you speak with your intimates over the lower status home dialect used by the average twitter user?
Kurt Vonnegut once said that millions of Americans have been taught that they have nothing important to say because they don’t speak like 19th century English noblemen.
To the dictionary police who have put forth their grammar criticisms here - think about that the next time you’re tempted to write a cheap shot “grammar” criticism of somebody who comes from a different background than you do.
Bottom line, you can’t fight male privilege with class, race and educational privilege.
This suggests that the act of reading observes a gradient of awareness. Familiar sentences printed in Helvetica and rendered on lucid e-ink screens are read quickly and effortlessly. Meanwhile, unusual sentences with complex clauses and smudged ink tend to require more conscious effort, which leads to more activation in the dorsal pathway. All the extra work – the slight cognitive frisson of having to decipher the words – wakes us up.
So here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult. Perhaps we need to alter the fonts, or reduce the contrast, or invert the monochrome color scheme. Our eyes will need to struggle, and we’ll certainly read slower, but that’s the point: Only then will we process the text a little less unconsciously, with less reliance on the ventral pathway. We won’t just scan the words – we will contemplate their meaning.
i used to work at a newspaper where i wrote criticism and it was unethical to write about my own friends. now it seems like mpls is becoming a culture where you aren’t allowed to criticize anything and you only write about your own friends.
i am not talking about lol-omg. they are not a newspaper. they’re a bunch of freelance writers with the upfront mission of writing a gossip blog. they spend a lot of their time creating community interaction without getting paid for it. same goes for all other informal blogs or creative writing ventures. literary journalism is a cool thing, and it often involves writing intimately about your life and the people in it.
nonetheless, we have to be allowed, as a city, to not like everything. we are entitled to have high standards.