Month: November 2014

Literary Links

Once upon a time, in a land unimaginable today, writers could actually make a living by writing stories: a fascinating look at F. Scott Fitzgerald’s finances

Clifford Garstang’s Pushcart Prize ranking for 2015 is up.

Charles May reviews Best American Short Stories 2014.  I really like his critical reviews–he is a discerning reader, unafraid to either confirm or deny prevailing tastes.

An argument against National Novel Writing Month: Do a reading challenge instead.

This was an interesting New York Times article on Elizabeth Gilbert.  Reputations are so fickle.  I didn’t even realize she wrote “literary” fiction before Eat, Pray, Love.

I’m not on Twitter, and yet somehow even I have heard of the hilarious @GuyInYourMFA.  Monkeybicycle interviewed him.

Also, a thought: No sane writer trying to publish today can wait 3 months for one magazine to reply, with acceptance rates hovering around 1-2%.  You have to simultaneously submit, you simply have to.  I wonder if the few remaining lit mags that don’t accept simultaneous submissions have sentenced themselves to irrelevancy.

Here’s some energetic music for getting through Wednesday: Beethoven’s 8th Symphony, conducted by Herbert von Karajan.  Happy Thanksgiving!

Library excursion

Super excited to read:

A Map of Betrayal–Ha Jin’s new book

The Fault in Our Stars–Finally

Best American Short Stories 2014

The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton

My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki

Work-Life Balance

Here are two interesting readings on work-life balance.  Both of them point out that American jobs still assume an ideal worker who is a (male) breadwinner with 24/7 devotion to the office and no caregiving responsibilities.  This ends up hurting both women and men.  Younger men now want to take on a more equal role in caring for children, but are prevented from doing so by social pressure and, occasionally, blatant discrimination on the part of their employer.

It is unacceptable that most American employers expect both male and female workers never to care for children.  What kind of society dares to assume that people don’t have families, when obviously most people do?

Why Women Still Can’t Have it All by Anne-Marie Slaughter

The Evolution of “FReD”: Family Responsibilities Discrimination and Developments in the Law of Stereotyping and Implicit Bias

“It seems illogical in an era in which the vast majority of workers have family caregiving responsibilities to continue to design the most desireable jobs for the breadwinner/homemaker household of the 1950s.  An even more basic problem…is that this formulation fails to tap into the American commitment to gender equality, which is understood as equal opportunity–a level playing field for all.”
“Many women who were not seen through a gender lens at work before having children…find that motherhood makes their gender salient, so that, after having children, they are seen primarily as mothers…when compared to nonmothers, similarly qualified mothers were 79% less likely to be promoted, and offered an average of $11,000 less in salary for the same position…Fathers who had even a short work absence due to family caregiving were recommended for fewer rewards and had lower performance ratings than similarly-situated women.”

A sculpture, and other things

Recently I saw this sculpture by the shore of Lake Michigan.  From afar, I was delighted to spot a piece of artwork that referenced Moby-Dick.  It seemed to function as a display of local pride, implying that Lake Michigan was its own ocean, worthy of a creature such as the white whale.Whale sculpture

Up close, the sculpture took on additional resonance.  It turned out that the white plastic giving the whale its color was made of disposable water bottles strung together.  The wire skin of the whale held camouflaged words: PVC, carcinogen, dioxin, toxic.  Although we’re no longer killing whales in such dramatic ways as harpooning them and waiting for them to bleed to death, this sculpture was an unsettling reminder that we are authoring their demise in other ways.  It is all the more insidious in that, removed from direct violence, we consider ourselves blameless.

Other thoughts:

Online reading — Although I have thus far refused to get a Kindle/Nook/e-reader of any sort, I have taken to reading periodicals online.  It has gotten to the point where I enjoy reading the comments as much as reading the article itself–and when reading the same periodicals in print, I find myself missing the comments section.

Emotional manipulation — Recently, I was at Shaw’s and they had an event where you could get a free peeler if you watched a promotional presentation.  The salesman demonstrated a tool I had never seen before, a mandoline.  Although I had no intention of purchasing one, I was taken in by the presentation, and found myself thinking that it would be quite a useful tool.  Toward the end, the salesman started talking about what a low price it was and how it could not be found elsewhere.  Even though I knew it probably wasn’t true, I felt my heart beating faster.  I was excited.  I resisted the temptation to buy, but despite the rational knowledge that I could probably buy cheaper on Amazon (which turned out to be true), I had still responded emotionally and physiologically to the excitement of the salesman’s pitch.

This is worryingly evident when I consume news and media.  Even though I know each day’s harbinger of our demise is probably overhyped, it’s hard not to get upset.  This Onion headline was characteristically funny, but troubling in its closeness to truth.

Nuclear terrorism — Interestingly, though, this is one thing you don’t see in the news, mostly because it hasn’t happened yet: the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack.  The possibility–and terrorists’ motivation for doing so–is frighteningly real.  Graham Allison argues that we choose not to think about it because it is too terrifying; we are motivated to interpret it as impossible for a terrorist to pull off.  But that is the sort of head-in-the-sand reasoning that made us vulnerable to 9/11.

Climate change — Recently The New Yorker had an article titled “Do Voters Care About the Environment?”  The article was about how Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager, has spent fifty-eight million dollars supporting candidates whom he deems environmentally friendly.  The money was donated through Steyer’s PAC, NextGen Climate Action Committee, which “focusse[s] its appeals on climate change.”  The article’s arch tone implies that voters do not care because they are lazy/stupid/uneducated.

This is not true.  Voters do not care because climate change is not affecting them.  And if it is not affecting them, why should they make the considerable changes in lifestyle that climate change activists demand?

It bothers me that people conflate caring about climate change with caring about the environment.  From what I have seen, the general public does not feel all that threatened by the temperature rising 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.  Although the list of supposed effects is severe, most are not things people care about (such as coral reef destruction– –yes, it is unfortunate, but people just don’t care).  The rest (more “severe weather,” erosion, etc.) can be attributed to natural causes, and their link to human activity seems nebulous at best.  Show as many graphs as you want, but climate change is simply not scaring people into selling their SUVs.  I’ve actually heard jokes to the effect that climate change will be great for New England, as we could use a few extra degrees around here.

I wish the environmental movement would focus on specific problems that might actually convince people to change their behavior.  Things like pollution, that can be shown easily through photographs.  (Another problem with climate change–it’s all in the graphs.  You can’t show someone a picture of what is happening).  Things like the very real possibility of running out of water and food.

Getting people to care about the environment, like any other cause, requires a publicity effort.  People need an emotional connection with the cause, one that is strong enough to persuade them to change their habits.  Vegetarians have realized this and used it to their advantage, creating brochures that show graphic images of animal slaughter.  Environmentalism needs to focus on problems that can actually create a clear story, give individuals incentives to change, and provide clear options.*

Saint John’s College — On a lighter subject, this college seems really cool.  In today’s data- and money- obsessed world, it is nice to see that some people still value reading, writing, and thinking–in short, the study of humanities.
*So should environmentalists play the game described above, just like the salesman and the media?  Probably.  All of us, environmentalists included, are competing for bandwidth in this media-saturated age.

Jane Austen: Reality TV-Worthy Quotes

“She was not a woman of many words; for, unlike people in general, she proportioned them to the number of her ideas.”

“Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.”

“Mrs. Allen was one of that numerous class of females, whose society can raise no other emotion than surprise at there being any man in the world who could like them well enough to marry them.”