A couple months ago my friend Megan and I were in Barnes & Nobles. In particular, we were perusing over novels and works by famous and acclaimed authors. When I picked up a complication of Herman Melville’s other works aside from Moby Dick, Megan said, “You know, I wonder if the specific book we know and study by an author is the one that the author actually thought was his or her best work.” I thought that to be a really interesting point. Like, what if Herman Melville thought Moby Dick stunk, or Lewis Caroll thought he wrote much better novels than Alice in Wonderland? What were the favorite books each respective author has written and is each the same as the one we revere so much?
Lo, I’m currently reading Tender is the Night by, and its funny I even have to say his name, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Everyone knows The Great Gatsby, and most know This Side of Paradise, but neither one according to his testimony was his greatest work. Not even close. Fitzgerald thought Tender is the Night was by far, the best novel he had written. However, as it’s strikingly evident was not as well received by the media and critics alike. Most said it wasn’t very good and it steady declined in sales after selling only 12,000 copies in the first couple months after its release, tapering off to nothing. For that reason, the book is generally unknown to the public eye.
I found this so intriguing but also somewhat dismaying. I guess the concept is just plain weird, but finding an example that exactly corresponded with that conversation I felt obligated to elaborate on it and share my findings.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Cage Match, Round 2
I should post these more often. The occasions where I wonder what the difference between two very similar words are, happens more frequently that one might think.
Saving a spurious explanation, I'll cut straight to the point and let the words speak for themselves. (Get it? ...speak for themsel--Humor me!)
This weeks cage match: Collage versus Montage. I think through some research I've come to a minimal understanding of their differences, but any additional examples to assist in better defining them, would be welcomed.
Saving a spurious explanation, I'll cut straight to the point and let the words speak for themselves. (Get it? ...speak for themsel--Humor me!)
This weeks cage match: Collage versus Montage. I think through some research I've come to a minimal understanding of their differences, but any additional examples to assist in better defining them, would be welcomed.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Bio
For Sieve and the Sand, I had to create a "bio" for myself. Translated, that means make up complete, laughable nonsense. I did, but it's not posted up there yet, so I decided to post it here cause I thought it was a decent attempt a humor.
After a brief stint with a traveling troupe of gypsies known as “The Lollygaggers” across many regions of Russia and Greenland, BeigHartman thought it best to obtain a formal education. His studies at Tulane lasted three months before tree nymphs obligated him to pursue other aspirations in the Wyoming wilderness. Armed with a dreidel and taxidermy of his pet hamster, BeigHartman taught himself to read and write. Through careful study of geysers, he conceived what is commonly known as “The Harlem Shake” and “Crip Walk”. Shortly thereafter, BeigHartman exiled himself to Columbia, but due to extended litigations with international customs, left upon discovering that Columbia coffee has multifaceted usages. Some scholars as well as many prestigious quantum physicists have posited that BeigHartman lives to write, but this is blatantly false. In fact, the only reason he writes is because he procrastinates far too much to do anything else. To reach BeigHartman write to BeigHartman at sieveandsand.com
After a brief stint with a traveling troupe of gypsies known as “The Lollygaggers” across many regions of Russia and Greenland, BeigHartman thought it best to obtain a formal education. His studies at Tulane lasted three months before tree nymphs obligated him to pursue other aspirations in the Wyoming wilderness. Armed with a dreidel and taxidermy of his pet hamster, BeigHartman taught himself to read and write. Through careful study of geysers, he conceived what is commonly known as “The Harlem Shake” and “Crip Walk”. Shortly thereafter, BeigHartman exiled himself to Columbia, but due to extended litigations with international customs, left upon discovering that Columbia coffee has multifaceted usages. Some scholars as well as many prestigious quantum physicists have posited that BeigHartman lives to write, but this is blatantly false. In fact, the only reason he writes is because he procrastinates far too much to do anything else. To reach BeigHartman write to BeigHartman at sieveandsand.com
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Famous... Again.
I know I haven't updated in forever, as usual. Many topics I could have posted, but you know how that goes--and even if you don't, too bad. The point is, once again, I am famous.
For those of you who don't know who Joe Flacco is, look up the Baltimore Ravens starting QB. Yeah, he's a millionaire. Yeah, he went to Audubon. Yeah, I hung out with him this afternoon. Eat it.
So, as it was with Kirsten Dunst and the Transitive Property, Joe Flacco's fame, too transfers to me by association. Take that chemistry! (Or any other science/math)
I'm frickin' famous. The end.
For those of you who don't know who Joe Flacco is, look up the Baltimore Ravens starting QB. Yeah, he's a millionaire. Yeah, he went to Audubon. Yeah, I hung out with him this afternoon. Eat it.
So, as it was with Kirsten Dunst and the Transitive Property, Joe Flacco's fame, too transfers to me by association. Take that chemistry! (Or any other science/math)
I'm frickin' famous. The end.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Happy May 10th
“Happy awkward-exchange-between-a-woman-who-looks-like-you-think-she-should-be-married-with-kids-and-as-such-a-mother-but-it-turns-out-she-isn’t-and-then-you-feel-like-a-jerk-for-pointing-out-that-out Day!”
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Men
Stereotypes are only stereotypes because that have some truth to them right? I'm positive of it, even if it means throwing "my kind" under the bus.
I was at CVS purchasing a card for Mother's Day. Walking in, another couple was right behind me and we all ended up in the card aisle together. When we reached the Mother's Day section, I'm assuming the wife, turned to her husband and said, "We need to get her something with flowers, see anything with flowers on it?" It would be natural to guess they were referring to her mother or another close relative. Well, after about 15 seconds she picks up her first card with a flower on it. Glancing at it for a moment she holds it up to her husband's face and asks, "How's this?" Proving once and for all the epitome of the male race, the man said in a boisterous, enthusiastic and yet monotone voice, "Perfect!" Turned, and proceeded to walk to the checkout.
Luckily, I was able to withhold my laughter until I could move further down the aisle, but the example remains stride and true: Most men really are insensitive, uncaring, and unsympathetic morons. Gosh I love being a guy.
I was at CVS purchasing a card for Mother's Day. Walking in, another couple was right behind me and we all ended up in the card aisle together. When we reached the Mother's Day section, I'm assuming the wife, turned to her husband and said, "We need to get her something with flowers, see anything with flowers on it?" It would be natural to guess they were referring to her mother or another close relative. Well, after about 15 seconds she picks up her first card with a flower on it. Glancing at it for a moment she holds it up to her husband's face and asks, "How's this?" Proving once and for all the epitome of the male race, the man said in a boisterous, enthusiastic and yet monotone voice, "Perfect!" Turned, and proceeded to walk to the checkout.
Luckily, I was able to withhold my laughter until I could move further down the aisle, but the example remains stride and true: Most men really are insensitive, uncaring, and unsympathetic morons. Gosh I love being a guy.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Cage Match
Tonight's highly anticipated battle is upon us! The fight for the ages: Resemblance vs. Semblance!
Yeah. Seriously. This has been bothering me. What's the difference between Resemblance and Semblance? Anyone, anyone? I use them interchangeably in my speech and writing and haven't had any issues doing so. The "re-" prefix is the only visual difference and yet it still doesn't appear to have any effect on differentiating the words. I've conducted minor research, AKA, looking up the definitions, which still hasn't helped. I need someone who's well versed in language and etymologies. The only sliver of variation I can find is that semblance would indicate "a return to what originally was" whereas resemblance indicates "a likeness to something independent of that which is being compared" HOWEVER note that I used a RE-turn in my definition of semblance, which is essentially adding the re- prefix onto semblance anyhow! Maybe I'm wrong and the definitions are the exact opposite, but I'm back tracking again to say it would suggest redundancy to say "return to resemblance".
It's fair to suppose I'm in a state of lunacy that I would be concerned with a trivial matter such as this, but nevertheless(also redundant but that's a topic for another time) now you have some insight into the current quagmire I find myself. Help! Anyone help?
Yeah. Seriously. This has been bothering me. What's the difference between Resemblance and Semblance? Anyone, anyone? I use them interchangeably in my speech and writing and haven't had any issues doing so. The "re-" prefix is the only visual difference and yet it still doesn't appear to have any effect on differentiating the words. I've conducted minor research, AKA, looking up the definitions, which still hasn't helped. I need someone who's well versed in language and etymologies. The only sliver of variation I can find is that semblance would indicate "a return to what originally was" whereas resemblance indicates "a likeness to something independent of that which is being compared" HOWEVER note that I used a RE-turn in my definition of semblance, which is essentially adding the re- prefix onto semblance anyhow! Maybe I'm wrong and the definitions are the exact opposite, but I'm back tracking again to say it would suggest redundancy to say "return to resemblance".
It's fair to suppose I'm in a state of lunacy that I would be concerned with a trivial matter such as this, but nevertheless(also redundant but that's a topic for another time) now you have some insight into the current quagmire I find myself. Help! Anyone help?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
