‘Fictitious Dishes’ Captures the Essence of Classic Books Through Food Photography

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/fictitious-dishes-food-literature_n_1587276.html

Above is the link for an article which I came across in the Huffington Post recently.

Basically, the article discusses how Dinah Fried’s new photography series, Fictitious Dishes, “embraces food as a means of transportation to the fictional worlds of some very delicious novels.” Each photograph does not represent the mean exactly as it is described in the novel, but rather “aims to capture the essence of each novel.”

The first picture in the slide show depicts a scene from J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” in which Holden Caulfield stops at a drug store and orders a cheese sandwich and a malted after a very bad date. This photo is simplistic, a little rustic, and very Holdenish. I really recommend you go to the website and look at the rest of the slideshow, it is a really beautiful compilation.

I love when fields of intersect intersect like this.  I think it’s an amazing way to introduce classic literature in a new and modern way. I think it’s what helps the classic survive, this constant revisiting and reinvention. Photographs such as these help bring literature to life.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on ‘Fictitious Dishes’ Captures the Essence of Classic Books Through Food Photography

On Being a Fraud (Like Me LOL :) )

I suppose there are moments in everyone’s life where we feel like frauds. It might be because we don’t feel we’re working hard enough. It might be because we feel like we don’t belong in the place or crowd we spend most of our time in. It might be because we told a small lie or impersonated someone we weren’t. It might be because we stole something from a store or deceived a friend There are so many ways to be fraudulent that Dante Alghieri devoted the entire eighth circle of hell to the various methods we can use to deceive others.

For me, this class is one of those times, and my lack of contribution to these blogs shows it. Not that I don’t enjoy it immensely. Writing is something I’ve felt a tremendous amount of passion for. Story ideas are constantly floating around in my head, and almost anytime I decide to sit down and read, I feel this tremendous urge to start writing fiction again. There are plenty of documents on my computer that are the start of story ideas that I want desperately to finish. The problem–outside of a few psychological disorders–is that writing isn’t my only passion, nor is it my primary passion. That honor belongs to my beloved gaming habit. Ever since I was six years old and got my first video game system, I’ve been so entranced by the idea of controlling things on a TV screen. Over the years, I’ve developed an even deeper appreciation for the worlds we can craft in this newest of all art forms. Not to say we can’t be just as creative in books; only that the control gives a dimension to the worlds of video games that just appeals to me more.

This brings me to an interesting phenomenon I’ve had as a student and writer: I keep getting consistent praise for what I write. And as an extension of Erin McDowell’s post on getting too much praise in elementary school, I think this is a problem.

I’ve been struggling for the last three terms to keep up with my schoolwork. Often, when I write, I don’t have much time to edit. Granted, this is partially because I compulsively edit as I go, but it’s also just because I procrastinate a lot. A couple of years ago, I wrote out a ton of personal reflections about my psychlogy class, turned it in for extra credit at (roughly) the last minute, and got back the comment, “You’re a great writer!” at the top. Okay fine, you might say, but what about actual ENGLISH professors? Well, Dr. Terry DeHay, whose class I effectively bombed–and by bombed I mean turned in almost everything at the last possible second, only did half the work, and had to finish an incomplete right up to the end, earning only a B when I’m capable of an A–told me I was a really good writer as well. This is a woman who is rather old-fashioned in her adherence to deadlines and classroom etiquette–though simultaneously a very nice, understanding woman–and she said that I was good at this, “though I could benefit from editing my prose more.”

So apparently I’m good at this, right? Well, I’m someone who has difficulty processing reality for psychological reasons, and our world has become so afraid of hurting children and providing necessary criticism that I can never tell when I’m getting honest feedback and when I’m getting the “politically correct” commentary. As an individual who relies on a lot of outside info to determine what his personal reality is, dishonesty–whether well-intentioned or not–seriously handicaps my ability to do things correctly. For all I know, I’m just an average writer–I refuse to believe I’m bad at this, cause I’m not–who has received inaccurate feedback about his abilities.

To broaden this past personal experience, what exactly is the solution to this problem our society has with honesty if it hurts someone? Is it to be brutally honest and hard on potential writers to weed out those that won’t be able to cut it or handle the heat? I don’t know, but here’s what I do know. A study was conducted by Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck that gave surprising insight into what motivates children. In the study, one group of children was told they were smart every time they succeeded in a given test, and a second group was just told they did a good job. As the study was conducted, Dweck started out with easy things and gradually moved up to areas that the grade levels of the studies children wouldn’t know anything about and would most likely fail at. What she found was that the children told they were smart with the easier stuff were more likely to quit when the harder stuff showed up and they inevitably failed. The children not given the extra compliment were more anxious to keep trying new things. The conclusion drawn from this was that being told they were smart encouraged them to fall back on that instead of putting forth effort, which is what is really needed to succeed at things.

I have a personal anecdote that reflects this phenomenon. When I began playing the piano around the age of 7 or 8, I was told I had natural talent for it. Though it bored me to tears to spend time practicin each day, I was encouraged–sometimes pressured–to stick with it. I remember my mom sayin she never knew of anyone who could turn his eyes away from the piano and continue playing with so few mistakes. Then I had to change teachers because my original instructor retired, and though I wouldn’t describe her as ruthless in any sense of the word, she was a stickler for making me do things correctly. I received more criticism from her on how to play pieces than I ever did from my first instructor, and gradually my mind began to think she was not overly impressed with my abilities. Then, in the final year of my piano syllabus–roughly five years after I started taking lessons with my new teacher–I caught wind from someone that my teacher was bragging to the other piano teachers because I was her student. Given how much time I’d spent listening to her critique what I was playing and how much time I had to grind my teeth in frustration during lessons, I found this extremely surprising. In retrospect, it’s not so surprising: if she’d let me know that she was proud to have me for a student, that I was extremely talented, I’d have given up easier. And the funny thing is, though there are plenty of other reasons why, I actually don’t play piano much anymore.

The ideas of “talent” and “intelligence” are not made up. Some of us are smarter than others and some of us are more talented than others. But intelligence and talent don’t make someone good at anything. I especially think this is true of talent, a completely intangible quality that is mostly subjective in our views of it. Some will see talent where others will see nothing, and determining who gets a “job” or a shot at “show business” or anything else based on such a vague idea just doesn’t seem fair to me. What should really count is effort, and what we seem to be discovering is that failure is better at encouraging effort than success is. What I’ve personally come to believe is that when we tell people they have “talent,” we are essentially saying, “You’re already good enough at this,” and telling someone the work they do is good enough is not conducive to making them work harder.

In the early 2000s, I received an audiobook by Stephen King titled On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. It’s an excellent book that provides some good advice on being a writer. Among the advice it provides is that one should avoid the passive voice, limit adverbs, study the market–and get a copy of the Writer’s Market, our textbook–and, unsurprisingly, turn off the TV and read. Stephen King is absolutely blunt and unrelenting on this last point: you have to be well read if you want to be a good writer, and you have to write a lot. In other words, you can have all the talent you want, but what really counts is hard work and effort. That’s where my whole problem comes from. I do plenty of reading in magazines and online, but I’m not a fiction aficionado. I have limited knowledge of what has and has not been written in the realm of storytelling, and I don’t write enough to be able to make a career out of it. At least, not yet.

So I suppose in a sense I am a fraud, but it’s only because I haven’t put forth the necessary effort this term, and the ironic thing is that sitting here writing about my “being a fraud” in and of itself shows that I’m not. What I am is a victim of what I call the “talent paradigm,” as well as a student who just needs to work harder and try to lose his severe perfectionistic tendencies.

I’ll be sure to get right on that…as soon as EVO 2012 is over… 🙂

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on On Being a Fraud (Like Me LOL :) )

How Do Fans Affect The Writing of Games’ Rulebooks?

As a recent convert to the almost-religion of tabletop gaming, I have been watching the recent development of the metagame (a term coined by the community to represent the community’s own dialogue regarding the rules and how the game company should have done them differently).

There is a main rulebook for the game that remains unchanged throughout an edition, which usually last for 4-6 years, and there are sixteen sub-rulebooks called codices that list the specific rules for each army. I joined at a time when there was an army that had waited for more than 11 years for its new codex (most get an update during each edition, and a wait of more than 5 or 6 years is almost unheard of), and everyone was extremely excited to see what changes the new codex would hold.

At that point, everyone was incredibly frustrated with the most recent codex (only a few months old), claiming that they were overpowered and unfair, and that they should be reduced in power to be a better match with all the other armies. Naturally, the company that makes the games heard all of this, endlessly, and as with most large companies, they didn’t care at all, because we were still buying their products, and therefore there was no reason to change.

Then the new codex rolled around, and the once-underpowered army became the most overpowered, even better than the previously released army. Half of the player-base was incensed that another unfair army had entered the scene, and the other half was just glad to watch the previously unfair army get tromped on a regular basis. Just after the new army had come out, there was a massive annual tournament, the attendance of which was dominated by players who played the two newest armies, and a player that played the newest army won first place. Shortly thereafter, so many people complained about losing the tournament (I’m not sure what they expected, it was a 1st-3rd place with 500+ people in attendance, so more than 480 people “lost”) that they canceled the tournament altogether, probably just to get people to shut up and stop whining.

This kind of hammer and eggshell game development makes very little sense for a game’s livelihood, because people will get more and more frustrated that their old stuff is never as good at the new stuff. From a publishing perspective, however, it makes sense to develop games this way, because making people want to buy the newest rulebook and associated army will make you large bursts of money each time a new book drops.

Though all in all, it seems like kind of a dick move.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on How Do Fans Affect The Writing of Games’ Rulebooks?

Pride and Prejudice…and ignorance

Since it’s now finals time, obviously I’ve been watching a lot of YouTube (thanks to my newly developed super power, procrastination). Normally, this wouldn’t warrant a blog post to Literary Ashland, but some of the videos I’ve been watching are The Lizzie Bennet Diaries—a vlog-based retelling of Pride and Prejudice. I find it rather enjoyable, but you’re probably still wondering why I’m blogging about it here.

Well, as I was watching, I came across this comment on episode seven:

“I’m sorry to have spent three minutes listening to some girl talk about her uninteresting problems. Why would I want to listen to her talk about a wedding she went to? How do you think her family feels about her complaining about them to the entire world? Do people really enjoy this? If you do, keep on enjoying. Don’t let my comment upset you. I’m leaving now.”

Obviously this comment didn’t upset me for the reason this person expected or intended, but I did have a moment when I stared at the comment before demanding of no one who could hear me “HOW ON EARTH DO PEOPLE NOT KNOW THAT THIS IS BASED ON PRIDE AND PREJUDICE?!”

Now, if this was a vlog-based retelling of, say, Homer, I might understand. Slightly more obscure for the average viewer. But when you people don’t even know Pride and Prejudice, despite the numerous remakes and zombified adaptations, I lose a little bit of faith in society. This comment is the argument in a nutshell of why it’s a good idea to teach the classics—so people don’t look like idiots.

As someone who’s always loved books, this comment reminded me that most people don’t. And with the at least the American education system the way it is, it’s doubtful they ever will. But relating back to these videos, I think projects like The Lizzie Bennet Diaries might work in getting students interested in reading again, whether because teachers use these videos as teaching tools or because they let their students create similar projects, thus motivating them to read the book and reenact the parts they think are important or amusing.

While as of this moment this project serves as a reminder that booklovers are in the minority, I think it could spark new interest in reading (though apparently not just yet).

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | 1 Comment