Constant blogging.

I've mentioned before I have another blog. I truly underestimated the work it takes to maintain a blog. I was under the assumption that posts would come easy to me and that I'd have interesting things to write about every day.

This is not the case. I spend a lot of time reading about how to write a successful blog but the one thing I should have been doing was going back and proofreading my entries.

The thing about blogs is that yes, you want something exciting and fresh to attract readers but you can't always assume the reader is going to go back and read older posts. This doesn't mean a a blog writer you shouldn't go back and read your posts because in the even you do attract an audience and your entires are compelling enough to start from the beginning you don't want the reader to think you're an idiot.

Editing should be done before you even hit the publish button but in the event, for whatever reason, a type slips past you it's important to go back and fix it.

Wordplay a la crosswords

Among yesterday's NY Times crossword puzzle clues like:


59. Nadya Suleman, mother of 14 familiarly (Octomom)


15. Procter & Gamble deodorizer (Febreze)


I noticed a shout out, if you will, to the host of my second favourite comedic news program (I prefer the Colbert Report). 


46. Stewart of "The Daily Show"


The answer was of course Jon (Stewart).


In 2006, IFC released a documentary called Wordplay that is all about the New York Times crossword puzzle. And who better to interview than the man who makes the puzzle happen, Will Shortz. Jon Stewart was among the many interviews with crossword puzzle fans. How flattering of Shortz to use Stewart as a clue in yesterday's puzzle. I'm thinking it's because Shortz has a good sense of humour and can appreciate that Stewart thinks Shortz can "best him in a physical joust." 


I recommend checking out, if not the film, the trailer. 


Editing, be it an article, short story, novel or even a crossword puzzle requires a well rounded knowledge of the thing being edited.  


The Tuesday crossword puzzle makes me feel almost as brilliant as I do when I complete the Monday crossword. One day, with out help or cheating I will finish a Sunday NY Times crossword but for nowI'm still trying to figure out 62-down: Suffix with pay or plug. Three letter word starting with an 'o'.


Oh wait, I got it. "Ola." 

Editing to not get in trouble.

Is omission the same as lying? 

I write another blog about being a server and living off my tips. There are somethings I don't write about in case my employer reads it. The goal is not to complain about my job and get fired but rather write about the restaurant industry in Winnipeg. 

There are other things I don't mention in my blog strictly based on the fact that my mom reads it. There have been a couple swears peppered in here and there which, as I've mentioned before, my mom doesn't like. 


I don't talk about the amount I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke because even though my mom already knows these things, she's an "out of sight out of mind" kinda lady. 


Take for example my tattoos. My mother knows about my tattoos and she has seen all three of them but the memories of such have been repressed. She caught a glimpse when I was getting into the shower on a visit to my folks' place in Newfoundland.


Last fall my best friend Lisa got married and I was her Maid-of-Honour. The dresses were strapless which meant the tattoo that caps my shoulder was out for everyone to see. Upon seeing the pictures my mom had a bird! The conversation went as follows:


Mom: When did you get another tattoo Heather?!


Me: I've had it for 5 years Mom. You know this. 


Mom: I think you're lying to me.


Me: Nope. You've seen it. 


Mom: Well I can't show your father these pictures. He will have a bird! 


Sure that doesn't seem so bad but there's nothing worse than my mom being angry with me so I omit some of the details when I write. At 26 I'm still afraid of getting into trouble. 


Is that lying? Or is it self preservation? 


George Orwell said it best: "For a creative writer possession of the "truth" is less important than emotional sincerity."

Sgt. Pepper's Paradise City

For years artists have taken bit of older songs and reusing those bits to create new music. Take for instance Ice Ice Baby by Vanilla Ice, Vanilla, er... Mr. Ice? Vanilla Ice samples the intro from Queen and  David Bowie's collaboration Under Pressure. 

**Side Note**

When David Bowie played the old Winnipeg Arena in 2004 he did Under Pressure and his bass player covered Freddie Mercury's part. It was unreal. Still give me chills to this day. 

Back on track now. Sampling is now a thing of the past. Well, that's not true. New artists will still continue to sample established artists (e.g Nikki Minaj sampling Annie Lennox.) but now, songs are getting slapped together to create a whole new monster: the Mashup. 


A Mashup is generally when the vocal track of one song is put over the instrumental track of another. I'll give you a for instance: take the instrumental track of Guns N' Roses song Paradise City and the vocal track of the far superior Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles and VOILA! you get this:



Now prepare yourself for some colourful language. 


It seems as if everyone is not on board with mashups, particularly this one:


bigfootman2332 "guns and roses are rythem steeling mother fuckers"


At least he got a couple words right. Thankfully, flyboy9961v was able to explain:


It's called editing man, GnR didn't steal anything. I took a listen to Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and this version sounds like it was made a little faster to keep up with Paradise City form the sound of it. Even if that is not the case, it has to be purely coincidental that this fits so well. Don't jump to conclusions man. 


And it is a coincidence. That's what's so great about mashups. Two songs that you wouldn't think about in the same context, squished together to make a new version. It's brilliant. 


Now mashups, for me, can never replace original tracks but they are little bits of edited ear candy that are my musical guilty pleasures. 

Monkey farming snakes

Have you ever found yourself watching a movie on TV only to notice that all the foul language has been dubbed with family friendly phrases instead? What I am I thinking? Of course you have.

Take for instance the major motion picture Problem Child Two starring John Ritter and child actor Michael Oliver.

In one scene all of the single ladies in the neighborhood keep bringing Ritter's character Ben and his adopted son Junior baked goods and casseroles as a "friendly gesture." When one of the women comes back to get her pie dish Junior says to her "Your pie gave us the runs." In the TV edit the line is changed to "Your pie gave us the gas."

Gotta love censorship! Here are some other fun edits for TV:

Movie trailers.

Editing happens in more than just the writing medium. Take for instance a movie trailer.

The recently released movie Catfish is a documentary about a photographer Nev and a relationship he develops with a family over Facebook. One day an 8-year old girl (Abby) sends Nev painting of one of his photographs and the two begin sending messages back an forth via Facebook.

Nev eventually begins to "meet" Abby's family and begins an online romance with Abby's 19 year old sister Megan. Nev starts noticing some inconsistencies in his communication with Abby, Megan and the rest of the family. He and his friends (who are filming the budding phone/internet relationship) drive cross country to meet Megan.

***Spoiler Alert***

Not everything is as it seems.

When I initially watched the trailer I felt as if this documentary suddenly warped into a psychological thriller or perhaps a horror movie. I don't want to give away the ending but I will say the trailer gave me expectations of what the film is only to have it turn out to be something else.

That said, what is the point of a movie trailer? Is it to give the potential viewer an idea of what happens in the movie, attract him or her to the theatre because it looks like something they want to watch for a couple hours? Is it fair to mislead them into thinking it is something different than what it truly is?

When is it ok?

I have always been apprehensive in using profanity... in writing. The same doesn't apply for verbal communication. 


There are times I find that using profanity is, well, profane. Swearing for the sake of swearing. 


David Keuck said it best: "Profanity is the crutch of the conversational cripple."


But, there are times that it just feels so necessary like there are no other words in the English language to convey my emotion. 


Mark Twain: "Profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."


I write another blog about living off of my tips as a server. My mom reads it and tells me everyday that I need to clean up my language. Ever since I was a child she's told me, as her mother has told her, the only appropriate time to swear is when you stub your toe. 


I told my mom that I use profanity in place of writing about my intervenes drug use and unprotected sex. She didn't think that was as funny as I did. 


So when is swearing ok? I think it is up to the discretion of the writer and the editor. 


In news stories, swearing is permitted in quotes but "not wanted in the news report," according to the CP Stylebook. The obscenity has to have a purpose. "Always consider other ways of getting across this element of the story before resorting to the use of obscenities."(CP Stylebook)

Is it or isn't it?

Do you ever find yourself cringing when someone uses the the phrase "I seen..." as in "I seen that on TV." Or, how about when someone says "dethawed" as in "I took the meat out of the freezer to dethaw it."


Nails on a chalkboard right? If you don't think so, then you're probably the person who says those things.


I seen? Nope. I saw or I have seen.


Dethawed? Nope. Just thawed.


There is one word that gets me every time. One word I find particularly annoying:


Irregardless.


Irregardless? Nope. Regardless.


For the longest time I thought it wasn't even a word but then I got confused when I came across the website www.irregardless.org.


The site that claims 'your teacher lied to you' says there is, in fact, a word.


What?


I needed to investigate further.


Dictionary.com says it is a nonstandard word as does Merriam-webster.com. So does this mean irregular is a word?


Spellcheck says no. Caps and Spelling says no. And my trusty hardcover Gage Canadian Dictionary I've had since 1995 says no.


I say no. 

Interro-what?

In the early 1960s advertising executive and magazine editor Martin K. Speckter invented what he had hoped would be the punctuation mark to end all exclamatory rhetorical questions; the interrobang. 

The interrobang combines the exclamation point and the question mark: 

? + ! = ‽

Dictonary.com defines the interrobang as

in·ter·ro·bang

  [in-ter-uh-bang] 

–noun

a printed punctuation mark (‽), available only in some typefaces,designed to combine the question mark (?) and the exclamationpoint (!), indicating a mixture of query and interjection, as after arhetorical question.

Origin: 

1965–70, Americanism ; interro(gation point)  + bang¹ ,  printers'slang for an exclamation point

Since its invention the interrobang has been reduced to that as a fad and been replaced simply by the punctuation marks that make it (?!).

Who knew?  

Would it kill you to use some punctuation?

Rarely will I participate in online forums or make a comment in an alloted section because I don't care enough to spend my time on doing so. I do however like to read the comments left by others. 


On one of my daily ventures to perezhilton.com I came across a blog post about a journalism student and her quest to get some information from Apple CEO Steve Jobs. 


From what I can tell, the aspiring journalist had an assignment due and had tried to contact Apple's media relations department to no avail. She then took it upon herself to go to the top. 


The story was picked up by Good Morning America (GMA) and can be seen here.


The GMA story neglects to tell how long the student had to write the article and whether or not she tried a different means (phone calls?) to get ahold of the media relations department. 


Now whichever side of the argument you find yourself on (assuming you have watched the video) all I ask if you're going to make a comment, like poster mariosfat, please take the time to use some grammar: 




"what a loser bitch asking for a note get to work u lazy fat pig"

Is music the exception?

Song lyrics can be a notorious breeding ground of poor grammar. Take for instance Every Little Thing She Does is Magic by the Police from the album Synchronicity. 


Sting sings:


"Every little thing she does is magic, everything she do just turns me on"


Such a glaring error is like listening to nails on a chalkboard or worse, the sound of someone eating a banana in a quiet room. 


But are the grammatical errors that pop up in music the same as ones that pop up in  written word? 


Even AC/DC has blatant disregard for grammar in the song Let There be Rock from Back in Black:


"Let there be drums, and there was drums"  


With that said, is it ok for musicians to use their artistic license to butcher the English language? Contributers on the site www.amiright.com don't seem to think so. 


Bands from Aerosmith to Black Sabbath, from Nancy Sinatra to Cypress Hill have errors in their lyrics but who am I to argue with millions of album sales. 

You have poor grammar, i.e., you don't know what you're doing...

There is nothing worse (note the exaggeration) than blatant misuse of the English language. 


When someone writes "your" but really means "you're" makes me cringe. I equate it to an adult who can't properly use a knife and fork. 


Imagine my surprise when a friend who often writes "then" when she really means "than" pointed out my improper use of the Latin abbreviations i.e. and e.g.. 


I.e. or id est means that is (to say) while e.g. or exempli gratia means for example. 


Thankfully theoatmeal.com has taught me never to misuse these abbreviations ever again: 

Lesson learned.