We went for a New Year’s Eve walk in my little town. Things were pretty bleak at the cove:
A little less bleak here:
Cold, but a little cheerful:
This is about as cheerful as it got:
Have a warm new year!
It seems as if I’ve been seeing a lot of writers portrayed in movies lately. Here I mentioned the difficulty of portraying the writing life on film: it’s just too boring. But that doesn’t keep screenwriters from trying. Screenwriters should at least get the details right, but those details generally seem to escape them as well.
Let’s start with Love Actually, which features Colin Firth as a hack novelist falling in love with his Portuguese house cleaner. (This comes in eighth out of the nine plot lines in the movie, according to this post; I’d rate it a little higher.) In the plot, very little is made out of his being a writer — it just seems to be there to set up the scene in which a gust of wind blows his manuscript pages into a pond, forcing him and the maid to strip to their underwear and hop into the pond to rescue them. This of course makes them fall in love.
Fair enough — the maid looks pretty good in her underwear. But the setup is stupid. I suppose we can believe that a hack writer in 2003 wouldn’t be using a computer. But apparently we’re also supposed to believe that he wouldn’t be making daily copies of his manuscript pages, in an era of cheap home photocopiers. And that’s just idiotic beyond words. This isn’t something he’s doing for creative expression; it’s his job. I haven’t seen anyone remark on this scene; Love Actually offers far easier targets for criticism. But this one never fails to irk me when I’m forced to endure our annual holiday viewing.
The Atlantic reports on the latest outrage: Google recognizes that literally is often used to mean figuratively in informal speech.
In August, the outcry began. “Have we literally broken the English language?” asked The Guardian. The Web site io9 announced “literally the greatest lexicographical travesty of our time,” while The Week bemoaned “the most unforgivable thing dictionaries have ever done.” The offense? Google’s second definition of the word literally, which had been posted on Reddit: “Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.”
Here’s the offending entry. You actually have to click the “more” down arrow to view the Informal definition.
I hadn’t realized that Google now includes a use-over-time graph, previously available only via their Ngram Viewer. What a great idea! The graph shows the problem: our use of the word keeps increasing, which means “incorrect” uses are increasing as well. Which annoys the language snoots. We like literally!
The article includes a good quote from Steven Pinker:
“There’s probably also a feeling of anxiety when a shared standard appears to be threatened,” explains Steven Pinker, a language expert and psychology professor at Harvard. “Human cooperation depends on common knowledge of arbitrary norms, which can suddenly unravel. If the norms of language were truly regulated by an authority, this would be a concern. In fact, they emerge by a self-adjusting consensus.”
These arbitrary norms persist as what Wilson Follett called “shibboleths” — norms or principles that are useful only in distinguishing the “insiders” from the “outsiders”. We know the real meaning of literally, even if you unwashed peasants persist in misusing it.
Because no one is better at enforcing Peace on Earth than Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse!
In this excerpt from my novel Dover Beach, the bookish would-be private eye Walter Sands spends Christmas Eve alone in a grim London hotel room, where he is haunted by memories of Christmases past. Things have not always gone well for him in the bleak post-apocalyptic world he inhabits.
The e-book of Dover Beach is still free on Amazon, for some reason. Which is a pretty good deal, when you come to think of it. It is ranked #21 among technothrillers, for some reason. It is not a technothriller; technothrillers don’t quote Dickens, at least not this liberally:
I took a bath. I reread the newspaper. I reread the Gideon Bible. I stared out the frosted window of my dreary room and gazed at the ruddy faces passing by in the dark, alien world. And I waited for a visitor.
It was the Ghost of Christmas Past. I knew he would come. He always came, so why should he make an exception now that I was in London, in his hometown?
“Rise, and walk with me!”
There was no refusing him, of course. Some nights, perhaps, but not on Christmas Eve.
Through the window, across the frigid London sky, over the fierce, churning ocean—to the awful abode of memories, still alive, still waiting to claim me…
“Why, it’s old Fezziwig!”
Not likely. It was a solemn, gaunt man—too gaunt, far too
solemn—his bony hand resting on my shoulder, light as a leaf. I was warm—the wood stove was kept well filled. But I was hungry. Always hungry. The man’s eyes glittered, reflecting the oil lamp’s flickering flame. “Tomorrow is Christmas,” the man said. “Least, Mrs. Simpkins says so. I’ve kinda lost track myself. Thing is, well, there’s nuthin’ to give you. I’ve tried—you’ve seen how I’ve tried, haven’t you? But everything’s gone. The entire world is gone. Oh, I’m so sorry.”
The man’s glittering eyes turned liquid and overflowed, wetting his leathery skin, his gray beard. His hand moved down onto my back and pulled me toward him. He held me against his chest, and I heard the ka-thump ka-thump of his heart beneath the frayed flannel shirt. The intensity of the sound scared me. The sudden strength of the hand scared me. I stayed there, listening, and eventually the hand loosened its grip, and I stepped back. The man looked at me—looking (I know now) for forgiveness, and if not forgiveness, at least some sort of understanding. But he was looking for something I was far too young to offer.
“Daddy,” I said, “what’s Christmas?”
“These are but shadows of things that have been,” said the Ghost.
“That’s swell,” I said. “That’s really swell.”
The Spirit pulled me along.
And I was chopping wood outside a familiar, broken-down barn. I was sweating, despite the cold, and my arms ached. A woman came out of the barn, carrying a scrawny chicken she had just killed. Her face was lined and wind-burned, her body shapeless under a heavy coat. She stopped and looked at me, and I kept on chopping. “Walter,” she said, “things is tough.”
“Yes, ma’am,” I said. I kept on chopping.
“Mr. Simpkins says we’ll have to leave here pretty soon if things don’t get better. I don’t know what we’ll do if we leave, where we’ll go, but there’s got to be someplace better.”
“I expect,” I said. I put another log on the block.
“But we’ll take care of you, Walter. We made a promise, and no matter how hard things get, we keep our promises. You understand?”
“Yes, ma’am. Thank you, ma’am.”
The woman nodded, satisfied. “Christmas is coming, but I’m afraid there won’t be any gifts. We can have a tree, though. You like them old ornaments, right? We can make the place real festive. Won’t that be nice?”
I split the log neatly. “Very nice,” I said. “Much obliged.”
The woman nodded some more. Chicken blood dripped onto the snow. “It’s the spirit that counts, that’s what I always say. We don’t have much in the way of things anymore, but we still have the spirit, don’t we, Walter?”
“Yes, ma’am. We still have the spirit.”
The woman smiled and went inside. I picked up another log and put it on the block.
“Spirit,” I said, “show me no more! Conduct me home. Why do you delight to torture me?”
“One shadow more!” exclaimed the Ghost.
“No more!” I cried. “No more. I don’t wish to see it. Show me no more!”
But the relentless Ghost pinioned me in both his arms, and forced me to observe what happened next.
The three of us were sitting in the parlor that first year together, and Stretch was expounding. “If we’re going to preserve our civilization, we have to preserve its rituals. Rituals are what bind us together. They shelter us from the terror of loneliness and death. They give life meaning and shape.”
“Christmas sucks,” I said.
Gwen smiled.
“It isn’t Christmas that sucks,” Stretch explained earnestly, “it’s your experience of Christmas. That’s why it’s so important to create our own experiences—to overcome those other experiences, to connect with the best of the old civilization, to keep us alive. Don’t you see?”
Yeah, I saw.
And then it was Christmas Eve. The pine boughs had been strewn, the popcorn strung, the fire roared wastefully; and at midnight we all kissed and exchanged presents that we couldn’t afford.
I gave Gwen a typewriter I had bought at the Salvage Market.
Gwen gave me a book from Art’s special stock. It was called The Maltese Falcon.
“See?” Stretch said. “Isn’t this good? Isn’t this the way life should be lived?”
And then later, lying upstairs in each other’s arms. “What do you think of Christmas?” I asked Gwen. “Is Stretch right?”
“I think,” she said, “that I have never been happier in my life.”
“Spirit,” I said, in a broken voice, “remove me from this place.”
“I told you these were shadows of the things that have been,” said the Ghost. “That they are what they are, do not blame me!”
“Remove me!” I exclaimed. “I cannot bear it!”
He let me go finally—back to my bleak hotel room, back to my guilt, back to this present that I had so longed for all my life—while he went off, presumably, to torture some other undeserving soul. No other ghosts came to call—I didn’t expect any—and eventually I drifted off to a tense and restless sleep.
When I awoke it was Christmas Day.
The DVD has been placed next to the DVD player. I have been informed that the annual event will take place Sunday or Monday evening. I can’t wait to experience yet again what has been called “the apex of cynically vacant faux-motional cash-grab garbage cinema”. (I don’t know what faux-motional means, but it sure doesn’t sound good.)
Last year I had my say about Love Actually, and this year everyone seems to be piling on. The film critic of The Atlantic calls the idea of watching the movie every years as a holiday tradition “utterly insane” and goes on at novella length about how anti-romantic it is. He has good things to say about a couple of the subplots, but then:
As for the rest of the film—which is to say, the bulk of the film—I think it offers up at least three disturbing lessons about love. First, that love is overwhelmingly a product of physical attraction and requires virtually no verbal communication or intellectual/emotional affinity of any kind. Second, that the principal barrier to consummating a relationship is mustering the nerve to say “I love you”—preferably with some grand gesture—and that once you manage that, you’re basically on the fast track to nuptial bliss. And third, that any actual obstacle to romantic fulfillment, however surmountable, is not worth the effort it would require to overcome.
All of which is undoubtedly true, but geez, it’s also true of just about any romantic comedy that comes out of Hollywood. At least in Love Actually some of the romances actually fail.
Which is to say that I’m beginning to feel a bit of sympathy for the movie, even if I’m not exactly looking forward to seeing Liam Neeson’s kid running endlessly through Heathrow to say goodbye to his ten-year-old beloved. There’s always Hugh Grant dancing, and Emma Thompson crying, and Keira Knightley looking pretty, and Bill Nighy being Bill Nighy.
In a recent Boston Globe readers poll, Love Actually came in fifth on the list of favorite Christmas movies, tops among modern films except for the sublime Elf. Is it possible the readers know something the critics don’t?
First, real photography: frost crystals by Tom Whelan:
Now, something from me, looking out my front door during tonight’s snow:
In his comment on the previous post, Jeff Carver pointed me to this article from a couple of years ago about an Amazon seller that charged $23 million dollars for an obscure academic book.
Eisen watched the robot price war from April 8 to 18 and calculated that two booksellers were automatically adjusting their prices against each other.
One equation kept setting the price of the first book at 1.27059 times the price of the second book, according to Eisen’s analysis, which is posted in detail on his blog.
The other equation automatically set its price at 0.9983 times the price of the other book. So the prices of the two books escalated in tandem into the millions, with the second book always selling for slightly less than the first. (Not that that matters much when you’re selling a book about flies for millions of dollars).
The incident highlights a little-known fact about e-commerce sites such as Amazon: Often, people don’t create and update prices; computer algorithms do.
I haven’t paid much attention to this sort of thing, since my old books are out of print, and I don’t get any royalties from their sales. But this got me to take a look at their current prices, and it turns out that you can pick up what’s described as a new hardcover copy of my novel Senator for a mere $2425.70. I love the extra 70 cents tacked on at the end. (The book described in the CNN article currently tops out at $9899.00.)
But the “robot price war” explanation for the $23,000,000 book about insect development can’t explain the weird price for Senator, or the equally absurd price I spotted yesterday for The Portal. In both cases, there were no competitive prices — no other “new” hardcovers of Senator, no other used copies of The Portal. So there has to be something else going on — either bad software, or stupid humans. Or, I suppose, both.
Ordered a carton of The Portal from my publisher last Saturday. Lightning Source (the POD vendor) shipped the books on Wednesday. They arrived on Friday. Now they’re clogging up my kid’s empty bedroom while he’s off in the snowy Middle East.
There are now six vendors (besides Amazon) offering it for sale on the Amazon site. They’re all undercutting Amazon’s price of $14.10, but they all charge $3.99 for shipping/handling; you get free shipping from Amazon if you’re a Prime member. One vendor is offering a used copy, in good condition, for $999.11. I wrote the book, and even I think that’s a bit excessive.
If you want one of mine, let me know.
Here’s a linguistic development that so far seems to be confined to the Internet: the evolution of the word “because” into a preposition, typically used ironically. The Atlantic has a nice article about the phenomenon. The article refers to it as “explanation by way of Internet—explanation that maximizes efficiency and irony in equal measure.”
I’m late because YouTube. You’re reading this because procrastination. As the language writer Stan Carey delightfully sums it up: “‘Because’ has become a preposition, because grammar.”
The article notes that the usage conveys “a certain universality”:
When I say, for example, “The talks broke down because politics,” I’m not just describing a circumstance. I’m also describing a category. I’m making grand and yet ironized claims, announcing a situation and commenting on that situation at the same time. I’m offering an explanation and rolling my eyes—and I’m able to do it with one little word. Because variety. Because Internet. Because language.
This is a usage that currently feels too specialized to appear in everyday language or formal writing. But it’s wonderful in the right context.