Strunk & White Book

I don't care if you love Strunk & White or hate them - read this book. It delivers exactly what the subtitle promises: "A writer's guide to punchier, more engaging language and style."

Arthur Plotnik doesn't just tell you how to be spunky and punchy, he shows you on every last page. Not only do fun, familiar examples of juiced-up writing by contemporary authors litter each chapter, Plotnik himself has written the surrounding how-to text with exactly the sort of literary ka-pow he's advocating. In other words, the bugger's just plain fun to read.

Fans of The Elements of Style need not worry - despite the obvious spoof of the title, this book is not by any means a bash-a-thon of Strunk and White. Matter of fact, Spunk and Bite is an excellent counterpoint to that old standby. Sure, Plotnik challenges his readers to stretch, bend, and break those tried and true (and sometimes stale) rules laid down nearly 90 years ago, but he also shows the pitfalls of going overboard. Rules without merit don't tend to last the better part of a century, after all.

Critics

Professional critics. What are they for? What do they do? Seriously, I’m asking, because I’m getting a little bit fed up with them. As far as I can see, most criticism nowadays isn’t about the actual creative content that the writer is supposedly assessing. No. It seems it’s more to do with making the journalist look good with his smug and witty remarks, and being scathing or dismissive of whatever material it may be (TV show/film). They offer no insight or valid argument, and instead simply pass breezy judgement (or biting remarks about the leading celebrity) as they get on to the next preview. More worryingly, a lot of these so-called critics show no core understanding of the medium they’re reviewing, which leads to ill-informed remarks and maligned opinion.

What’s the difference between a TV/film reviewer and a TV/film critic anyway? I started out writing film reviews, and even appeared on Irish telly (must try to upload a clip - embarrassing! - ah, so young) dishing out the dirt. But I never thought of myself as a “critic”. I think those who justifiably call themselves “critic” are journalists who review their specialised subject across a wide-range of media: print, radio, TV. However, for this kind of workload, these journalists (Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode for example) get to call themselves “broadcasters”, an even further lofty title (I once heard James King, Radio 1 film reviewer/critic, being called a ‘broadcaster’, which I thought was a bit generous. He’s perfectly fine by the way, he has a more enthused point-of-view than most jaded critics but you or I could share the same thoughts).

And don’t get me wrong here. We, the audience, are just as bad, especially once we sign up to Blogger and start sharing our opinions or want to bash someone on an internet forum (witness the recent media storm over poor Max Gogarty and the reaction to his ill-advised travel blog). Anonymous bloggers are worse than the laziest of TV/film critics. They get to savagely attack someone’s work, safe that their identity will never be revealed or protecting themselves from harsh judgement should their character be known for whatever scripts they’re trying to ‘get out there’. But really, who cares about a blogger’s review, anonymous or otherwise?

Naturally, there are a few exceptions here but if you’re an aspiring writer and you offer a review on your blog that’s dry, bland or relaying just what the other 10,000 blog critcs are saying, then why even bother? There’s a certain irony to my frustration (having a screenwriting blog in an over-crowded market) but I’m not bashing other people’s work just for the sake of a quick sound byte or a handy Google reference. That’s what mainstream TV/film critics seem to be doing. Grabbing attention to themselves, and to their publication/network, building a reputation, helping them to look good.

The good critics share the same key qualities: they write with a clear voice, they have a strong point-of-view, they have a passion for their chosen medium, they are willing to champion quality content and when they have to get nasty, they’re able to qualify their opinion with sound and decent argument. Critics/broadcasters like Charlie Brooker, Mark Lawson, Mark Kermode and Andrew Collins. Basically, I dislike one-sided reviews where it’s all bile and criticism. If you can’t say anything nice, or find the smallest of merit in someone’s work (or understand why it was developed/produced) then something is seriously wrong. As a script reader, I grew tired of bashing other people’s scripts and taking a superior position, so I tried to balance my reports into the good and the bad, and be as constructive as possible, so that my heart didn’t freeze over.

Perhaps someone should start a blog/column that reviews the critics, and comments on their style and whether the review was useful or just more evidence of an ego out of control. I detect a certain envy in some reviews, as if the journalist would dearly love to be in the writer/director's position themselves or maybe they think that they could do better and so get on their high horse to moan about the system instead. Bah, boo. No more I tell you. I'm done. Critics, I don't care what you think. Don't lose sleep now.

Reading the Past

The LA Times Book Review section is terrific once again:

Here is a great review from Jonathan Kirsch of Jack Beatty's deeply intriguing and thought-provoking book about the rise of the monied elite in the late 19th Century--and what that history tells us about this latest Gilded Age, or Age of Betrayal, in which we are currently living.

And this review by Phillip Lopate, about the riot in the New York City theater district in 1849, over whether an American-born or English-born Shakespearean actor was most faithful to the Bard, presents an amazing cultural history that I had completely missed, but tells us much about where we as a culture have degenerated and where we have improved our civilized ways.

And, here is a fascinating look at John Donne, who went from writing ribald and erotic poems to becoming a leading Protestant minister in the last years of his life. What struck me is how often our lives are conflicted and how often our personal commitments to our families play a role in how we lead our lives. I am also struck by the intersection between religion and sex (see, incidentally, this reivew about the cult of virginity in today's Washington Post Book World) and the way in which "class" in the economic sense and "class" in the cultural sense can sometimes merge.

Speaking of the LA Times, the newspaper's owners have made a rare good decision: Hiring Jim Newton as the new opinion-editorial editor. Newton is a veteran LA area reporter who has written a wonderful and great biography of Chief Justice Earl Warren (I just finished it recently, with only one quibble about Newton's surprisingly shallow view of the Warren Commission report on the murder of JFK). He understands California politics and history and has a sensible view of the world such that I expect, or hope for a dramatic improvement in the op-ed section of the paper, which suffered under his two predecessors.

From Tech to Teaching

The Associated Press published a story about Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's bet of using experienced scientists and engineers nearing the end of the professional careers to help ease the shortage of math and science teachers in California.

The $12 million initiative, part of his 2007-08 budget proposal, would be a small step toward addressing the state's acute teacher shortage.

Better trained math and science students will strengthen the California labor pool and businesses that rely on sophisticated math and science employees.

He wants to encourage retirees to contribute their experience to their replacements. IBM and six other companies already have signed on to the venture, dubbed EnCorps. Its goal is to recruit 2,000 would-be teachers during the first two years after the program is funded. Their companies will provide up to $15,000 per teacher candidate, with no limit on the number of participants. Candidates will collect their retirement benefits along with their teachers' salaries.

Participants in the new program must have a bachelor's degree, allowing them to earn a teaching credential in one year. They would be required to pass the same tests as other teachers.

Now, let's support them with infrastructurre so they will bring their Tablet PCs, UMPCs, and other mobile PCs into classrooms.

Teacher Prep at High Tech High

Erik W. Robelen reports that The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing has approved High Tech High to certify teachers in mathematics, science, English, history/social studies, Spanish, Mandarin, and art through its Teacher Intern Program.

High Tech High leaders say establishing formal programs for educators was a natural outgrowth of a school climate that by design fosters adult learning.

“We already have lots of contexts within the teacher’s day where teachers reflect on their practice and do planning together,” said Robert C. Riordan, High Tech High’s director of instructional support.

The program will have distinguished visiting faculty members, including Mr. Vander Ark (former official of the Bill and Milenda Gates Foundation), who is now the executive director of the X Prize Foundation in Santa Monica, Calif., and Theodore R. Sizer, the founder of the Oakland, Calif.-based Coalition of Essential Schools and a former dean of the Harvard education school.