An amazing thing happened while I was working two jobs: I stopped watching TV. Well, not entirely. But I no longer go to the TV and turn it on to mindlessly tune out. If it’s on, and someone is watching, I may watch; it becomes a social activity. I may also watch something on DVD. (Recently, this has been the Avatar TV series.)

I had always been the one who loved commercials and asked people if they had seen them. Now, someone may reference a commercial, and I have no idea what they’re talking about. This feels good.

I feel as if I’ve broken some entrapping bond. I feel freer. I still love TV, but I don’t need it as a solo time-wasting activity. When I eat, I read or I just eat, instead of watching the TV. It’s amazing. When I get my own place, I don’t think I’ll even need cable TV. (This may depend on the roommate, but I’d now even prefer not having it.)

I’ve also broken another bond. I stopped obsessively reading political blogs. I was tired of the noise (as opposed to signal). Tired of obsessing over every minor kerfuffle that didn’t matter a week later. Although I have wanted to try this out for a while, I made no conscious decision to do this. It just kind of happened. I was working two jobs and didn’t have the energy for it. Again, this feels good. There’s a lot of garbage out there, and the bloggers I was reading didn’t help me filter the information. I was just stuck on the information treadmill. Too much noise.

I still look at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, and Glenn Greenwald’s blog, but not obsessively. I like them as writers. I like what they cover, but I don’t get as sucked into everything.

This doesn’t mean that I’ll ignore everything, but if something becomes important, I’m sure it’ll filter up to me.

Along the way, I also stopped reading the New York Times. After reading Fooled by Randomness, I’m suspicious of most journalism. If you can even call it that. I suppose it’s just noise too.

I’m currently reading Say Everything (thank you Lloyd!), and I find it interesting that a lot of the early bloggers considered themselves filters. The internet, even in its infancy, had so much, and they found the good stuff.

What strikes me is how the web has evolved. The web today is the thing you use to check facebook 20 times a day. It’s an addiction machine. Pull the lever, get rewarded with variable amounts of information. In fact, facebook is a good example of how the web has evolved. Do you remember life before The Stream?

Let’s look at facebook now: My homepage is a list of constant updates. Just tiny bits of text. Maybe people will like it or comment on it. It updates in realtime.

Before that, they gave me updates, but not in realtime. I wasn’t bombarded by everybody’s posts. The algorithm wasn’t great, but facebook showed me what it thought was most relevant. Can you fucking imagine that? It filtered by importance, rather than time.

Before that, I had a profile. I had a page devoted to displaying my personality. I had my own Wall, and to communicate, people had to post on my Wall. To talk back, I had to post on their Wall. Now, we don’t have to interact with each other; our comments kiss in the Stream. If you don’t want to comment, you can “like” something. You don’t have to make any effort to fucking find me. You just have to type something in the Stream.

This is all territory I’ve been over, but I’ll stop myself before I repeat my rants. I just want you to note that facebook evolved. It changed into what it is now. Now, it’s an addiction machine. The more addicted you are, the more pageviews facebook gets, and the more revenue flows into their pockets. Before, it was a clean alternative to MySpace.

One more thing: Everyone sees everything. Everything I say has shifted from being merely public to being broadcasted to everyone. Stevie told me she always feels as if she is performing when posting something on facebook. What happened to social networking? What happened to relationships? It’s just this mix of update soup. It doesn’t even taste good; none of the ingredients are filtered.

Goddamn, I used to be excited about the web. Web 2.0 is just noise and bloat.

Luckily, the web has evolved into what it is today. That means it can evolve into something else, right?

What creates the incentives for this kind of crap that creates noise is the metric of pageviews. So, I suppose releasing myself from this metric can partially release me from the dictates of noise.

I’m partially skeptical though. To extend this analogy to the breaking point: Evolution is adaptation to an environment. Part of this environment is the human mind. We get addicted to what the web dishes out. We’ve designed something to exploit our cognitive capabilities. Perhaps there’s no way out?

I’m even tired of e-mailing. But I suppose that’s partially how I use it. I’m tired of seeing everything all mashed in there. Subscriptions. Personal e-mails. Automated backups. I can’t really find what’s important.

As much as I’ve been hating on links, they’re still fucking amazing. Which is what makes me sad about reblogging. I feel like the web loses some of its conversational quality.

Anyway, I’m losing steam with what I’m saying. I want to end on a more positive note. That the web evolved into this shit-mess it is today (I’m over-generalizing), and I think it can be better. We can change the medium. It used to be exciting, and I’m working on projects that will make me excited about it again.

This is who’s producing Larry Whitman: Data Entry Maverick:

Oh wow! Larry Whitman: Data Entry Maverick is almost done! Richard and I finished all the video editing today. The only thing left is to add some music. (Oh, and the “production company” credits, haha.)

Time to start party planning!

I’m taking 3 days off from work this week. I shouldn’t have told everyone because I do need to make sure I save some time for myself, and I often have problems saying no to friends.

I updated my comic tonight. I suppose life has re-acquired a sense of normalcy. Oh wait, my sister moved out today. I’ve been looking at apartments too. Normal? I don’t even know what that means anymore.

This week, at work, has been torture. When I was working two jobs, I never thought it would be the case that the week after would be the hardest. (Although I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they took away half my cubicle.)

Apart from work, though, life feels good. During the two jobs period, I still saw my close friends at least every week. However, those friends outside my circle I didn’t see as much. I’m reconnecting with them now.

I still have some grading to finish up, but I’m not so stressed about it. Last night, Stevie and I graded with the Arcade Fire concert on youtube in the background. Sometimes I marvel at modern life. I’ve had meetings with squirrels and graded while watching a concert.

This weekend I’ll be apartment hunting. I’m not going to dilly-dally with this. I’ll find a place that satisfies me, and then get it. It may be on the pricey end, but I’ll pay for a good location, a good room, and I’ll be able to afford it since I won’t own a car.

By the way, I’m on the hunt for programming jobs. I’m mostly a web programmer. I know PHP, Java, C++, and I’m learning Ruby. I also know HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (jQuery).

If you, dear reader, know of a job, or know of anyone who wants a web site done, you know where to find me. =)

I love Friday.

(Also to-do: Write something to Lloyd)

I’m trying to figure out what makes a Good Book so good. For some books, I think they’re good because they change the way you think. That means you’re not just finding facts and adding them to your repertoire of knowledge. No, it means that the book also destroys knowledge. Things that you thought were true are no longer true. Now, I don’t mean this in a superficial “this goes against conventional wisdom! / too-clever journalist” kind of way. The destruction of knowledge should be highly personal. It should not be “Oh, people usually think this is true, but now I know better.” One should not feel clever, but instead more aware of one’s ignorance.

Anyway, this is how I feel after I’ve finished Fooled By Randomness. Whole classes of knowledge are being destroyed.

This doesn’t apply to all books.

On music…

When I’m in a certain mood, I can listen to Arcade Fire’s Crown of Love five times in a row.

On summer…

The idea of summer once felt absurd. It was a leftover from agricultural times. How inefficient!

Of course, our industrial culture is just as abnormal, if not more abnormal. Children should get the staggered long breaks of year-long school, plus the entire summer.

On Party Hats…

Just getting my thoughts out there:

I’m building a simple web app I’ve codenamed Party Hats. I’m calling it a conversation tool, I guess. No anonymity. Everyone must be approved to join the conversation. Each day is a separate conversation (to preserve ephemerality). Users should have the option to customize their posts in some fashion (like colors). It’ll have links on one side, so you can link to people’s blogs and stuff. All the links will be on the main page, not in an individual profile. In fact, there are no profiles.

(Basically, I saw metaverse and wanted to build some type of Ruby on Rails clone.)

On the Oldness of the Web…

Currently reading Scott Rosenberg’s Say Everything, which is a history of blogging. I’m reading the first chapter and what strikes me is the newness of the web when it first came out. Publishing was made easy. It was revolutionary.

I remember being excited about the web before too. Now, though, I’m hostile towards the web. I’m an addicted man pulling the lever of a slot machine (check e-mail, check twitter). I’m just looking for the next hit and the variable rewards keep me addicted. The web is rewiring my brain into a superficial mess. It’s all rather depressing.

More unorganized thoughts:

My next tool after Party Hats will be an anti-CMS. I don’t want to manage content. I want to fucking write. Some tools have gotten out of hand; they’re too feature-laden, too complicated. I’m glad Tumblr is easy enough.

On reblogging and blockquotes:

Blockquotes bug me. I noticed it when I wrote that blog post with the links at the bottom. I get extremely annoyed when students quote something and don’t explain it. Yet on the web, that’s what I’m doing all the time. When I didn’t have the crutch of the link, I had to provide context for what I wrote. It makes for less sloppy thinking. Without context, the reader can infer what he wants to infer. There is no communication. So it’s just rant + disconnected blockquote. It’s bad writing.

Reblogging bugs me even more. Why think when you can just post something someone else wrote? Sorry if you, dear reader, feel as if I’m attacking you. I don’t think reblogging is all terrible. It’s just that it circumvents what I find exciting about the internet: There’s no creation going on. If there’s intent and purpose, it can be okay to consciously remix items via reblogging. Okay, what’s really bugging me is that we had one student who seemed super excited about blogging, but I never see her thoughts, just her haphazard reblogging. (I doubt she’s reading this now, but if you are, I would love to see your thoughts in text. [bad grammarz don’t care])

On being raw…

I’ve had a tendency to complain that my writing on my blog isn’t polished enough. I want to go in the completely opposite direction. I want to write when I’m inspired and just post it here. Who cares who sees it? Who cares how bad it is? I just want to write it all down first. Even if I don’t rewrite a particular post, I still revisit the ideas a million times anyway. It’ll all get polished somehow, I think.

Certainly, this approach is more exciting to me. It will be a nice experiment.

I’m currently reading Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. After I found his philosophical notebook Opacity, I thought, “I should buy his books.” But I had so much else to read! The thought, though, kept gnawing and gnawing at me. I had to buy one of his books. It called to my soul.

So, I bought it. And I’m enjoying it very much. I like a lot of what this guy says. Perhaps it’s not so much his ideas that attract me (they do!), but his contempt for the same types of people I despise.

[I don’t feel like doing much more than shallow thinking for this particular blog post.]

This is my first Monday in 6 weeks at work instead of teaching. *sigh*

I need to look for something new.

Like a week long. Or longer. I have a feeling that all of that work is going to catch up to me mentally.

I have a desire to make things. I have all sorts of ideas. I’m not going to describe them here in detail because I feel like that will siphon some energy from the act of actual creation. For now, I think my first project will be some type of cool chat thing in Ruby. Whoo. (Basically a clone of something some of you have seen before.)

I also want to send e-mails to some of my students.

Hm, I guess it’s a toss up between George Orwell and your mom. Orwell writes with a lot of conviction, but can be wordy. Your mom was really concise last night. And she was energetic. Orwell can be rather energetic in his political convictions.

As for what style exercises are for, I can’t say it any better than Stevie did, so I’m republishing it here:

I often hear people say things like, “I’m not good at writing.” Quite simply, the point of style exercises is to remind yourself that that is ridiculous.

When you say something like that, you are often comparing yourself to this writer or that writer whose style is mysteriously able to move your or inform you or make you laugh. A style exercise takes the mystery out of good writing. Well, it takes the mystery out of any writing. You learn through imitating different writing styles, first ridiculous and then more subtle, that you can choose to use longer sentences to make your writing sound more grandiose or choose simple words to make it playful. You can also choose not to do these things. When you see patterns in other people’s word choice, sentence structure punctuation, and point of view, you get to know very well what makes a piece sound epic or silly or biting or intense. You also get to know that all writing has rhythm.

It’s all about control. Once you can play dress-up in someone else’s style, you can learn to control your own. Then, you decide what kind of a writer you want to be and how you want to make your readers feel.

I wish it was my other job that was ending, and not ATDP. I want more time with my awesome students and awesome co-instructor. Boo.

From Emily:

Okay so this subject has been bothering me for a while now. I’ve been hearing so many people talk about how Obama hasn’t been doing anything and he’s all talk. Uhm, hello? Bush came in for 8 years and created all this crap and everyone expects Obama to fix it in less than 2 years? It doesn’t make any sense. I’m not saying that Obama is the answer to all our problems or that he’s going to fix everything during his term but I’m just saying that people need to give him a chance. I mean really, does everyone expect him to fix the economy, the war, and this country in less than half a term? So, please if you’re one of those people who are saying, “Obama is all talk” or “Obama doesn’t do shit”, I seriously need you to think about what I’m saying. OBAMA CAN’T FIX EVERYTHING IN 1 1/2 YEARS! I just needed to get this off my mind, that I tried to do something about this problem, and if you don’t disagree with me, I don’t mind, but you should really think about how long it takes to fix 8 years worth of damage.

This is a good reminder — one I even need myself — for our hyper-fast times.

Another amazing year. Yes.

3 steps:
1) Read something by David Foster Wallace that has footnotes
2) Write a paragraph of your own thoughts on this thing that you read
3) Write a paragraph about how DFW uses footnotes

Have fun with your essays! I’m going rafting!

I enjoyed reading Opacity: What We Do Not See, A Philosophical Notebook, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

And this:

I’ll just tell you what a kiss SHOULD be like. Well, nobody wants a hella dramatic twilight kiss. Like, what the hell, Edward looks constipated. “I LOVE YOU SO MUCH IT HURTS.” No.

—Kathy

This is what I meant when I said capitalism was very efficient at producing massive amounts of shit that we don’t need:

It’s a well known industry secret that Nokia was not at all happy that their 6310 model lasted for years and years. People loved that phone. Hung on to it for ages. Nokia fired the man who made it. Their average handset is engineered to last for two years. Based on my own experience, the iPhone is not much better.
.
Now, 1.2 billion phones were sold last year. If I’m to believe what I see in the grey market in Africa, that number is even higher. About half of those went to first-time buyers. The other half, replacements.
.
I want you to take a few seconds and picture the heap of junk that 600 million mobile phones are going to create.
.
Landfill, anyone?

The curse of the innovation age

(via Umair Haque on twitter)

(Note: Nothing I say is original; it’s mostly me summarizing/synthesizing what I’ve lately been obsessively reading.)

Dear Jenna,

I wasn’t able to justify my love of Machiavelli properly last night. Allow me to do so here. I love The Prince because it is as subversive as The Art of War.

The Art of War is a Taoist book. This feels contradictory because Taoism is all about peace. Yet the book, despite talking about war, is actually anti-war. The best victories are those that come without fighting. Protracted war is the worst. Moreover, it defends this anti-war position by using the language of the belligerent. It is a smart, subversive book.

The Prince is also a subversive book. It’s written to a jerk and couched in amoral language. However, he warns princes not to isolate themselves from the people. It’s in their best interests (amorally) to be supported by the people. One can’t get this from merely reading the Prince, although if one reads it with the right frame of mind, one can feel its subversive nature. Those who have ever read The Prince and laughed aloud know what I’m talking about. The evidence comes from The Discourses, where he makes clear his love for Republican government. The next evidence comes from his life. Machiavelli despised mercenaries and tried to build a citizen army. He spent his latter years in exile, spending most of his time reading the ancients. Through his reading, he conversed with men such as Cicero, no doubt. These people were obsessed with virtue and freedom. Machiavelli was also a fun person, constantly playing practical jokes. This leads me to believe that he’d have the necessary mindset to write a subversive text. He did not take himself too seriously, so I wonder why the rest of us do.

I think people also make the same mistake with Plato and Ben Franklin. There is an intellectual tradition of not taking one’s self too seriously, and I believe Machiavelli is a part of it.

Sure, an asshole businessman can read The Art of War, and maybe get something out of it, but he won’t understand the message behind the book. The same applies to The Prince.

Perhaps one day, I’ll back this up with all the necessary textual evidence. For now, I thought it important to defend my thoughts, no matter how poor that defense was.

As always,
Shawn

… is so close… =)

I was almost asleep, but now my mind is aflame with reasons why I hate capitalism. I just sent a bunch of texts to Evernote. I will synthesize this when I have more time.

For now, snark: Capitalism is very efficient… at raping the planet. Capitalism is very efficient… at producing massive amounts of shit we don’t need.

I’ve been obsessing over the concept that if I live with less, I don’t have to make as much money. I’ve been looking at how much it would cost to rent a place and then slashing expenses for everything else.

TV: I always thought I couldn’t live without TV, but I’ve done a pretty good job ever since I got two jobs. This, combined with a lack of good summer programming, means I have hardly watched any TV at all. I can purchase what I want on the internet or on DVD. If I want to watch a sports event, such as football, I can go to a bar or restaurant and enjoy it with other people. I’ve always wanted to do this anyway, so it’d be worth it to trade ESPN for the chance to watch sports with a crowd. Maybe I’ll meet some new people. I might get a cheap TV on Craigslist, but this would pretty much only be more social events.

Food: After hearing that someone actually pulled off living on a dollar a day for food, and after hearing that Stevie’s friend Jenny lived on one dollar per meal, I’m inspired to think that with some smart shopping, I could live on less too!

Car: I don’t want a car. Sure, I’ll have to walk, but then I don’t have to go to the gym. I also get time alone for thinking. Win.

Air conditioning: I already live in a house without air conditioning!

Clothes: Okay, I need nice clothes. Not changing that.

So my super secret plan is to eventually stop working a real job. I’d do contract work, but the amount I need to live isn’t really that much. It’s so doable. I don’t need to be rich to get time; I just have to be willing to live with less.

I want more time to wander, more time to think, more time to create, more time to walk. And more time for civic engagement.

Two bags. Wallet. Keys. Phone. Jacket. Hat. Two jobs. Too tired.

Exceeded working memory. Forgot my glasses. Ugh.

Never have I ever… lost a pair of sun/glasses. Scratch that.

I’m not sure what “the system” is, but I don’t like it. I think, for me, it stands for the usual way of doing things, or the way we’re supposed to be doing things. It’s buy a car, buy a house, be in debt, keep buying more, work 40 hours a week, etc. It’s the American consumerist lifestyle. It’s a lifestyle that demands that the economy grows while the planet burns.

Sometimes, I feel trapped. Like, I have to get a car so that I can get a job, and I need this job to buy all sorts of things that I don’t need. As long as I do all these things, how do I stop destroying the planet and exploiting people? Our way of life is so entrenched. How could I possibly destroy the system?

I have another idea. Opt-out. Don’t destroy the system, just don’t buy into it. Literally.

The “economy” wants to grow, but it needs us to feed it. Government and corporations work together to keep getting money, but they need consumers to prop the system up. That’s why Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11. Let’s not go shopping.

Let’s not keep the “economy” buoyant. Because the economy is what’s fucking up the planet. Instead, let’s opt-out of the system and build something new. Let’s build something together that keeps us all afloat. Forget about the economy. Focus on community.

So what is one way that I could opt-out? I think I should make the decision to not buy a car. One small, radical choice. Right now it sounds crazy, but I know if I commit myself to it, then I’ll make it work. I still want to move out, but if I do this without a car, I have enough of a buffer to support myself for several months, even if I lose my job tomorrow.

I’ll opt-out of the fossil fuel extraction that has devastated the Gulf. I’ll opt-out of the carbon pollution that’s heating up the planet. I’ll opt-out of the financial system that encourages people to be in debt. Well, I won’t opt out of these completely, but it’ll be a good step in not making the planet worse.

I think maybe a good project would be to find all these people who opt-out in some tiny (or big) way and then write about them. After seeing these examples, maybe others would opt-out too.

Item 1…

I am exhausted and cranky today. I’m working two jobs, so my side projects are suffering and I don’t get enough time to spend with all my friends!

If you work 2 jobs, and still manage to raise a family, you are a GOD. Seriously, I don’t know how you do it. You are amazing.

Item 2…

My student from Writing for College, Nina, asks:

I have a question for you guys. Not important enough to e-mail, but worthy enough to be asked on a blog. What is hard about grading? What is your grading process? Is it something that you procrastinate Is it easier than actually writing the assignment? Faster?

I will answer these questions out of order.

#3.

I always procrastinate. So yes.

#2.

I measure papers against an ideal and against each other. I hate curves because I know how to game them. You put in just enough effort to be better than a large number of your classmates, and no more. It doesn’t encourage learning or leading. It often discourages cooperation! Still, I grade papers against each other because there needs to be some amount of consistency in grading. The ideal prevents me from assigning the best paper an automatic A+. (FYI: I rarely award an A+; this is a result of my academic background.) The ideal varies from paper to paper, but mostly, I’m looking for a paper that can make me say, “Yes! You understand the concept!”

Notice the word “understand.” This is probably my most important criterion when grading. And let me give you a hint for school-work: Effort and time put in are not equivalent to understanding. There’s a difference between mindless practice and deliberate practice. Mindless practice is reading pages over and over. Deliberate practice is prioritizing what you do understand and what you don’t understand and focusing on what you don’t understand; it’s also about figuring out what information is important and what information isn’t important. Playing an instrument or sport provides one of the best analogies. Since I play piano, I’ll use that. Mindless practice is playing the piece over and over, glossing over the hard parts, and making the same mistakes over and over. Deliberate practice is zeroing in on the part that gives you trouble and playing that over and over until you get it right. Deliberate practice is also about focusing on what’s important and working on things in the proper order. Let’s say a passage gives you trouble and it contains a trill. You can’t get any of it right. First, you practice without the trill. It doesn’t make sense to practice with the trill if you can’t even get the rhythm right. Then, you add the trill back in. It’s up to you to determine what’s important, but you can get help if you need it.

So, what does this have to do with grading papers? I focus on understanding. If you try to put a trill in, and even play the trill beautifully, but don’t get the rhythm right, that’s worse than ignoring the trill and playing the part correctly. If your essay contains flashes of brilliance, but is an incoherent mess, you’ll get a worse grade than someone whose essay is more boring but is better focused and organized. Similarly, with the style exercises, if you occasional put some good lines in, but were inconsistent, that’s worse than having a lot of mediocre lines, but a more consistent tone. The latter indicates a better understanding of the material. To be even more specific, if you inserted a line in the Official Letter addressing someone, but then your narrator drifts in and out of the story, that tells me you don’t understand what you’re doing because the story doesn’t make sense. If you didn’t insert a greeting or even have a strong narrator, but the tone is consistently official and the diction is consistently complex, that actually indicates a better understanding. It tells me you can imitate a style. The former tells me you can copy isolated pieces, but you can’t tell a coherent story in a coherent style. Thus, as a student, you can’t say, “I did this! I should get a better grade than the person who didn’t do this!” There’s a holistic element to grading.

I’ve used the word “boring,” which I don’t want to do. I don’t want to give the impression that one shouldn’t take risks. This is writing, though! You take risks and then you edit the damn thing! And if you don’t get it, then you ask someone else to read your work and help you.

There are lots of rules that you get for writing, but are actually okay to break. For example, you aren’t supposed to use fragment. But they’re okay. The thing is that you have to use them intentionally. You have to know what a fragment is and why it could be bad before you can go breaking the rules. With poetry, learn rhythm and rhyme before writing free-verse. Otherwise, you’ll use unpoetic language.

#1.

Consistency. I have so many pet peeves that it’s hard to stay objective.

#4/5.

I can’t really compare them to each other. It’s like asking if it’s harder to learn Rondo alla Turca on piano, or to design a website. Different things completely.

Item 3…

I am loving Poderosa. I saw a coworker using it, and so I decided to download it and try it out. With one blow, I’ve replaced Console, PuTTy, and HyperTerminal. SSH worked with no help; no more PuTTy. I added the Cygwin bin to my path, and then cygwin worked. There went Console. Then, I got a plugin for serial port support, and so HyperTerminal is no more. Sometimes, the more powerful, feature-laden option is the most minimalist option. The only thing that would make my life perfect was if I could get it to replace the Windows command line too.

Over halfway through ATDP. In three short weeks, I will no longer be working 2 jobs. But life will not be any less hectic.

[to fill in later with story about the time I procrastinated doing my essay by studying for a final]

I don’t have one Watcher; I have many. My Watchers are a pantheon of demons that tell me different things. I’m not sure what all of them look like, or what their names are. I haven’t studied them all that closely. Although I could list the things they say, I’m not sure which ones say what. There is one that I am familiar with enough to write about.

He sits in a hard, wooden chair just in front of the gates. The gates are black, iron, ornate. There is no accompanying fence; there is only the gate surrounded by white void. Up, down, left, right — the void continues in all directions.

This Watcher looks very much like me. He wears a pristine suit, but no hat. He is “perfect.” He is always calm. He never struggles and never has inner turmoil. He is emotionless and governed by pure reason. When he speaks, he speaks fluidly, at a measured pace, never stutters, never makes a mistake, and pauses only slightly. He always knows what to say and says it with devastating flair.

He sits in his chair and criticizes me.

I don’t think he has a name, but I will nickname him Napoleon. This is not because he is some sort of war hero. (Far from it! Since he has no emotions, he is no coward, but he also does not know courage. However, he is a strategic genius, and he can beat me in any game.) I call him this because Napoleon is one of Hegel’s World-historical individuals. He is always thinking that I should alter the course of history. (Arrogant, huh?)

Whenever I write something, he is constantly concerned with whether it has proper weight. “Is this thing that you are writing important, or is it frivolous?” he asks. He is also greatly concerned with the quality of my work. He tells me, “What will people 100 years from now think of this? Will they be impressed? How about people who would read this now? Will this work hit them with enough force?” He is very displeased when ideas are not perfectly-formed. He disapproves of works-in-progress. He demands that every assertion must be true and backed up with well-researched data.

Sometimes, he’s not there at the gates, so I don’t have to deal with him. However, his chair is always there, in the same place. In fact, his chair is empty right now. I will leave him a note.

Dear “Napoleon,”

You have no idea what it means to be an artist. I have opened these gates while you are gone and let imperfection run rampant. It was rather satisfying.

As always,
Shawn

Unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one who was instantly repulsed by Comic Sans: Cavs owner’s letter mocked for Comic Sans font.

I found this news article because Comic Sans is a twitter trend. I love the internets.