An Interview with Travis Chaney

This week Literary Ashland interviews Scrabble expert Travis Chaney.

Travis Chaney grew up on the border of Oklahoma and Arkansas and began playing Scrabble in his early twenties. Since then he’s become the first player in history to attain expert ratings in Spanish and English Scrabble simultaneously. He competes nationally and internationally and also organized Scrabble tournaments.

EB: How did you get interested in Scrabble? Were you always someone who was interested in games?

TC: I started playing informally after I graduated from high school. I wasn’t a big board game player, but I realized that I had a knack for Scrabble, so I contacted Hasbro inquiring about competitive play. They directed me to the only club in Arkansas, about a four and half hour drive to Jonesboro. I played a session with them, liked it, returned a couple of a months later to Jonesboro to play in my first tournament, got hooked on the tournament scene, and have continued participating.

EB: How long did it take to become an expert player?

TC: It was a slow process for me. I attained a rating of 1600 (considered an “expert” rating) for the first in April of 2002, about 6 years after I played in my first tournament. It took another few years for me to attain what I call “world class” level of play. The tourney scene has evolved significantly since I first started playing. What was considered an expert back then is a mere intermediate level player nowadays.

EB: How do you study or train for tournaments?

TC: Most just studying word lists. I use a study program called Zyzzyva to generate special lists (for example, all the four letter words with a display of letters that can be hooked to the front or back; or all the seven-letter words in order of probability). I play online at Facebook with other top players. Additionally, I play and simulate games using Quackle, a Scrabble-like program developed by high-ranking Scrabblers.

EB: About how often do you complete?

TC: I like to play in about four or five tournaments per year. Since I’ve begun my master’s degree studies and have been training to play in Spanish-language tournaments, I haven’t been able to play in as many the last couple of years.

EB: You’ve studied some of the research on Scrabble. So let me ask, what does it take to be a strong Scrabble player?

TC: Many people have the idea that to be a good player, one must have a mastery of the English language, that someone like an English professor must have a natural propensity toward being an expert Scrabbler. This was well illustrated with a recent comical Xtranormal video online, entitled “So You Want to Be a Professional Scrabble Player?,” written by an actual tournament player. Quite to the contrary, many of the top tournament Scrabble players are great because they have great rote memorization, are able to find (unscramble) patterns in random letters and are mathematicians with understandings of probabilities. Some are not even English speakers at all (e.g., many players from Thailand, where English Scrabble is hugely popular). Even among those who do speak English natively, bystanders who watch a game will often comment: “That is a weird word. What does it mean?” to which the answer is quite frequently “I have no idea.”

EB: I wonder if, or how, tournament Scrabble players’ use of language by their study of the lexicon and of morphological and transpositional characteristics of words. What do you think about that?

TC: One very logical example of how tournament Scrabble might affect one aspect of one’s use of language would be to examine his/her writings. In 2001, Stefan Fatsis’ published Word Freak–Heartbreak, Triumph, Genius, and Obsession in the World of Competive Scrabble Players, a book which was an instant hit–not only among competitive Scrabble players. It is evident that the experience of playing Scrabble competitively (he eventually attained expert tournament rating status) affected his approach to language. For instance, he added an Appendix to his book which states:

    I wrote this book according to the rules of competitive Scrabble. Whenever I wondered whether a word was a word, I consulted the game’s bibles: Official Tournament and Club Word List and/or Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. As a result, almost every two- through fifteen-letter word in the text that isn’t capitalized, hyphenated, contracted, foreign, part of a multiword phrase, or marked with an asterisk is playable in Scrabble.

On the bottom half of the page, he goes on to list every single word in the book that is unacceptable in Scrabble, words like expertdom, experthood, industrywide, neurolinguistic, supergenius and windowless.

EB: So Scrabble expertise can prompt writers to access certain types of words or spellings.

TC: Yes. A few years later, Stefan Fatsis published the book A Few Seconds of Panic in which he documents his experience trying out as a placekicker for the Denver Broncos. As an experiment, I opened to a random page to find some evidence of Scrabble knowledge’s influence. I opened to page 307, where he uses metaphorically the word scimitar. It is quite possible that this word is greater in his awareness because he is likely aware that the word has an alternate spelling of scimetar (along with scimiter, semitar, semitaur, simitar, symitar and symitare if we include British dictionary entries) and that scimetar is in a group of anagrams that also includes ceramist, matrices and mistrace and that this anagram group is fairly high in the probability of eight-letter words (think of seven Scrabble tiles from, through or into another tile on the board), coming in at 4237 out of 40622 (based on computerized probability calculations). In an email correspondence, he mentioned specifically that he dropped the words tsktsks and tennistinto articles he had written for the Wall Street Journal.

EB: Do other Scrabble writers do this as well?

TC: Sure. Another example is from a book written by Scrabble expert Paul McCarthy, Letterati . Page 136 ends with this paragraph:

    The letterati take pride in their word knowledge. After a match it’s not uncommon for a kibbitzer to ask, “Why didn’t you play OCARINA in turn four?” Players also get more satisfaction from slapping down a word like RETIARII than RETAINS, even if they score the same number of points because it demonstrates prowess. It’s not unheard of for someone to play an unusual word when a more prosaic alternative is the strategically best play, because the unusual word is proof of a long-term study commitment.

Notice his use of the word kibbitzer. This is from kibbitz, meaning “to look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome, advice to others.” This word is not particularly common; my Google search of the similar word kibbutz yields 3.6 million hits versus just 513,000 for kibbitz. It can be assumed fairly straightforwardly, that kibbitz word would be of interest to a Scrabble player, since it is a seven-letter word–Scrabblers are particularly interested in using all seven of their tiles for a bonus play–and because it involves a number of mid- and high-value tiles, the K worth five points, the B’s three points each. and the Z ten points, creating a significant scoring potential (albeit quite unlikely). Interestingly, if kibbitz is typed in a Google search, it automatically brings up results with kibitz, apparently the more common spelling.

Also, notice that three words begin with the letters P-R-O in the paragraph from McCarthy: prowess, prosaic and proof. Could this also be influenced by the way a Scrabble player organizes like words and looks for common prefixes like pro-?

EB: So writers who are Scrabble experts have certain words or types of words primed for use in their writing.

TC: It seems so. Here’s another illustration. I compared three randomly selected pages from Letterati with three pages of from jazz critic Gary Giddins’ book Weather Bird: Jazz at the Dawn of Its Second Century to see if Scrabble word study influences the length of words used. Scrabble players rarely study words longer than 9 letters (because these words rarely ever come about on their 15 space by 15 space boards), so I counted the number of distinct instances of words of 10 letters or longer. On the pages selected, McCarthy’s book yielded 15, 6, and 8 long words, all of which were common except for expurgation. On the other hand, Giddins’ pages contained 15, 18 and 18, including significantly more erudite words like irascibility, masterworks, and suburbanite. I propose that this lesser concentration of polysyllabics, too, is a manifestation of the focus of a Scrabble players’ word study.

EB: What about the speech of Scrabble players?

TC: Written language is one thing; spoken is quite another. In general, it seems that word knowledge has less influence on the spoken part of language of Scrabble players than the written. Marlon Hill, one of the most highly rated Scrabble players in the United States, has an enormous knowledge of words and an extraordinary ability to anagram. Nevertheless, this clip from the documentary Word Wars shows that his manner of speaking and his choice of words is influenced more by his cultural surroundings. Other interviews by competitive Scrabble players also shows that in general they are not any more grandiloquent than their non-Scrabble-playing counterparts. In fact, the only player to have won two World Championships, Nigel Richards, considered to be the greatest player who ever lived, and who established his word knowledge not by reading lists but by reading the source dictionaries and memorizing them eidetically, is notoriously laconic when it comes to conversation and absolutely refuses interviews from the press. His acceptance speech after winning the 2011 championship was one word: “Nice!”

EB: Does the same hold true for Spanish-language players?

TC: As the sole expert tournament Scrabble player in the world who competes in both English and Spanish, I can say with some certainty that this also appears to be the case among the Spanish-language players: I rarely hear words that fall outside of the speech of normal persons conversing out on the street. Of course, it should be added that the microcosm of competitive Scrabble–like any other niche of aficionados–has its own little argot which means little to those outside the community. It is not uncommon to hear words and phrases like “stems” (groups of letters likely to produce bingos, e.g. AEINST), “triple-triple” (a word which touches two triple word score squares, increasing the word value nine-fold), “hooks” (letters that can be added to the front or back of a word to create another word, e.g. J to the front of NANA to create JNANA) and “outbingo” (to score more bingos, or bonus plays, than one’s opponent).

EB: It sounds like applied linguistics.

TC: Yes, despite their apathy toward learning the definitions to all the words in their heads, Scrabble players are remarkable in tune with morphology, even if they do not know what that means. They would refer to morphemes as “hooks” or “extensions.” They think a lot about how to increase the value of a word by adding morphemes like out-, mis-, -ation, -ment, etc. One classic example is a legendary play by Jim Geary, who played EXISTENT from the triple word score in the lower left hand corner of the board, only to extend it to EXISTENTIALISTS later in the game. Probably only a Scrabble player would think to front-hook TEMPORAL to create ATEMPORAL, front-extend SNORING to OUTSNORING or wrap letters around ALLERGEN to create ANTIALLERGENIC. (These sorts of plays rarely ever happen, but they happen in discussion and theory quite frequently.)

EB: Does the method of study differ from language to language?

TC: Spanish-language players focus a great deal of their study time on learning verbs. Since each verb has scores of inflections, learning one word means learning 40. Likewise most adjectives have feminine and masculine forms and plurals of each of those and frequently turn into adverbs with the addition of –mente. Therefore, even though they may never encounter the word SAINETEE in any text, they are quite familiar with the infinitive form SAINETEAR and would easily find the play through an existing letter on the board. Even those who do not speak the language, like many of the players from Thailand, must understand something about basic morphology in order to be effective at the world championship level. They must know that WIRELESS can be a verb, inflected to WIRELESSED, WIRELESSES and WIRELESSING, for instance, a fact that would not be intuitive even to a native speaker of English.

EB: Would it be fair to say that Scrabble players are only average at language and just better and word memorization and unscrambling obscure words?

TC: Not necessarily. A recent study by Diane Halpern of Claremont McKenna College and Jonathan Wai of Vanderbilt University, found that Scrabble experts performed better at certain verbal and visuospatial tasks and in lexical decision task than as compared to high-achieving college students. So, while Scrabble players may not use many more obscure words in their speech or writing, they are more likely to recognize these words, whether that involves mere salience or actually full comprehension.

EB: I wonder if Scrabble plays a role in the preservation of words that might otherwise be lost.

TC: It is not conclusive that Scrabble word knowledge profoundly affects evident, everyday verbal and written expressions, but there are indications that such knowledge influences in more subtle ways the persons’ use of words, especially with respect to written language, and their awareness of the technical aspects of language like morphology. If a player is proud to show of his lexical prowess on the board, why not occasionally in conversation with an interlocutor? While their use of sesquipedialians longer than the 15-letter words that fit on a board are likely no more frequent that someone who might have never played a game of Scrabble, it is inevitable that the vastly greater numbers of words in their brain are more probable to appear from time to time in conversation, even if they know a lower proportion of definitions to words. As words boom and sizzle in the evolution of language, Scrabble players surely play a role as preservers and presenters of the arcane and antiquated, even if those words they place on the board are never uttered from their lips.

EB: Thanks for talking with me about this.

TC: You’re very welcome.

The Ashland Scrabble Club meets Sundays at noon at the Boulevard Café in the Stratford Inn.

Posted in Interviews, Language | Comments Off on An Interview with Travis Chaney

Meg Null, or Like…Brag: an Exploration of Language in M.T. Anderson’s Feed — A guest post by Anne Bryan

A guest post by Anne Bryan

Feed: a. an internet chip implanted in the brain at birth. b. a science-fiction novel by M. T. Anderson that addresses the repercussions of implanting internal feeds. His futuristic saga recounts the tale of Titus, an ordinary hip teenager, who meets a counterculture, innovative, feed-resisting girl named Violet. In this American dystopia of consumerism, corporation, and technology-inspired globalization (or rather, solar system-ization), language has adjusted to complement the status quo. In addition to advanced technology and startling societal values, language is one of the primary ways M.T. Anderson shapes this world. He alludes to this important aspect in the book cover biography, explaining that for inspiration: “I listened to cell phone conversations in malls. People tend to shout. Where else could you get lines like ‘Dude, the truffle is totally undervalued?” Beyond raising cultural questions, Feed highlights interesting characteristics of language; though fictional, it reveals the continual fluctuation, and immediacy of language.


Narrated by Titus, the novel unfolds in the current teenage vernacular, not unlike high school-speak of today. Phrases such as “like whatev” (10) and “it’s sometimes like—whoa, really—whoa” (82) embellish the dialogue. When Titus asks Violet to help test-drive his new upcar, he exclaims, “both she and me were really excited by the whole thing” (99). This kind of informal language usage, especially in the written form, makes persnickety English teachers, grammarians, and a large portion of the general public, wince. However, linguists are adamant in the assertion that language change is natural, normal, and not the exasperating process naysayers shake their heads over.

John McWhorter in his The Word on the Street: Fact and Fiction about American English feels the general populace is not aware of the descriptive, rather than prescriptive attitude linguists hold towards language change. He believes people are concerned about speech ‘errors’ because overall language change, and acceptance, “can be difficult to perceive within the context and span of a single lifetime… [and are] large-scale phenomena that are barely perceptible within our daily experience. They only become clear through comparison, inductions, and trips into the past” (2). To his statement, I add that language evolution can also be demonstrated by a trip into a perceived future, like the one in the novel. Perhaps these subtle language differences can best be observed in Feed by a closer look at the lexicon.

In the linguistic tradition of A Clockwork Orange (with perhaps a satirical wink), Anderson fills with Feed with initially unfamiliar terminology or word uses. Anthony Burgess stated that as A Clockwork Orange was “supposed to be about brainwashing, it was appropriate that the text itself should be a brainwashing device,” and he initially did not want to include a glossary so that it would be “an exercise in linguistic programming, with the exoticisms gradually clarified by context” (Craik 51). Unlike A Clockwork Orange, Feed actually was published without a glossary, and readers can easily deduce the meaning from the larger context.

One can also discern the meaning and function of unfamiliar words with knowledge of semantics, syntax, and word formation. Most of the noteworthy lexicon is slang, and while there are many ways to define slang, or provide a criteria, I turn to the words of Antonio Lillo, from his examination of Covert Puns as a Source of Slang Words in English: “Slang is the one domain of the lexicon where the speaker, freed from the restraining influence of the standard, plays around with all the potentialities of word-formation, thereby imbuing communication with creative zest and a sense of humour.” He goes on to clarify that only “rarely does it yield new forms, for more often than not the creativity of slang lies precisely in the attachment of new meanings to old lexical materials” (319). Null is a word that displays this idea.

Current speakers are familiar with the word null, its connotation covering the realm of empty, vacant, possessing no information. In Feed, null means bored, or boring. It has undergone a form of pejoration, moving from stating the fact of emptiness, to indicating that the lack of information necessarily implies a lack in entertainment value. At the onset of the story, Titus and his buddies are making plans, and we are informed, “everything at home was boring. Link Arwalker was like, ‘I’m so null,’ and Marty was all, ‘I’m null too, unit,’ but I mean, we were all pretty null” (3).

Even if we were not given such obvious implications, with the word boring preceding their declarations, we could still tell several things about the word. For example, on what was portrayed as a fruitless shopping adventure, one of the guys “ordered this really null shirt. He said it was so null it was like ordering nothing” (24). Null modifies the word shirt, which is a noun, so we glean that null must be an adjective. With this information, combined with the lack of enthusiasm towards the shopping trip, and the comparing of the shirt to ‘buying nothing,’ it would be easy to arrive at the appropriate meaning of null. Titus also uses the term when he preps for spring break, admitting, “I didn’t want to be null for the unettes on the moon, at the hotel, if any of them were youch,” (4).

The final term in the sentence is also illustrative of the language of Feed. Youch is a blend of the two words yikes and ouch, and is used nowadays as an exclamation, in situations of pain, or jokingly, after a verbal insult. Pain is a reaction. Youch, in this newer situation, is still a reaction, though it has experienced amelioration, and is used only by the male characters in the story to describe attractive females. It replaces the adjective hot of this era. As an example of language change, each decade has words to describe levels of attractiveness. Note the 1910’s Peacherino, 1920’s Biscuit, 1940’s Rare Dish (Ostler 15, 30, 87), and in Feed we have the futuristic Youch. When Titus first meets Violet, he describes her as “meg youch” (16).

In addition to youch, he uses the quantifier meg, which is dominant in the language of the novel. This is a clipping of the word mega (large/extreme) we are used to, and has become a primary degree word in this futuristic world. Titus continually says things like, “that was meg yesterday” (64), and she was “meg blushing” (50), which was “meg pretty” (118), and became “this whole meg thing” (137). Throughout the entire book, the myriad uses of meg could be replaced with even, big, totally, so, too, very, rather, quite, entirely, and especially. The use of the word meg is not limited to Titus and his friends, but is frequently heard from the adults, such as parents and medical (technical) personal.

Other words are not as generationally shared. In fact, several of Anderson’s terms aptly show how language shifts generationally. The word unit illustrates this concept well. Like the current day dude (which is still surprisingly prevalent, considering how many decades it has been around), unit can address or allude to someone specifically—“Unit! Hey, Unit!’ (9)—or can be used a generic expletive, as in “Whoa, unit! The moon!” (4). Interestingly, where Titus uses the word unit, his father still utilizes the antiquated equivalent, with phrases like: “Dude…Dude, this is some way bad shit” (46) and “Dude, I just bought you an upcar, and you’re being a brat” (105). Dude is being phased out with the father’s generation, and unit is being phased in by the next. Violet’s father, on the other hand, is an anomaly. He illustrates a far longer epoch of language evolution. Functioning with an outdated feed that exists outside of his brain, he is a professor at a university and teaches dead languages. These programming languages—FORTRAN and BASIC—have long been extinct, replaced by more advanced programming for internal feeds.

Another interesting element of generational change is seen in what Robert Moore calls basic slang. In an article titled We’re Cool, Mom and Dad are Swell: Basic Slang and Generational Shifts in Values, he explains that basic slang differs from the normal concept of slang, in that it is not transitory—sometimes lasting several decades—and is pervasively used by many sectors as a term of approval. He tracks the word swell and its replacement, cool. While both have a long history, the dominating slang usage of both signals a generational shift. Swell was a 1920s rejection of lingering Victorian values, while cool became a marker of the distance and disconnect youth felt towards adult culture, in the decades following the Second World War. “These linguistic shifts,” he explains, “are indicative of positively valued emotional attitudes that can rise or fall rather abruptly and do so in the hands of those youthful cohorts that decisively reject some of their parents’ values” (83).

An interesting follow-up, Peter Petrucci and Michael Head write that in Australia, sweet has become a frequent synonym for cool, though it has not replaced cool. I know from the conversations of my 14-year-old brother and his friends that sweet is also used extensively, at least among youth of Northern California. It will be interesting to see if it continues to grow as a trend. In Feed, the word brag has succeeded swell, cool, sweet (and perhaps others still unknown to us) as the pervasive slang for approval. Since this is fiction, and we know only the outcome of linguistic change, we can only surmise the ascent of brag’s established popularity, and its larger social connotation. Regardless, it is a marker of linguistic change.

Beyond generational change, language must change to reflect society. Thus every new advance in technology spurs an accompanying change in everyday language. When the automobile arrived on the scene, there was in influx of new vocabulary, from the now obscure duster (a garment worn to protect clothing), motoring goggles s (worn to protect the eyes), and rumble seat (a fold out trunk designed for luggage, but used as a seat), to the still in use gaselene (now spelled gasoline), and running board (Ostler 11-12). Auto became a morpheme that attached to dozens of existing words to adapt to the new automobile culture. Conversely, the society in Feed relies on upcars that drive in or on uptubes —compound words that use the morpheme ‘up’ with the traditionally understood words car and tube, to update (pun intended) the meaning, and account for vertical as well as horizontal travel. Another highly significant language decorator involves the advent of the computer.

We live in a world infused with such morphemes as cyber, net, e-, and web. One could say, “I e-mailed an online friend from one of my favorite networks, and gave her a link to a website about cyberliteracy,” and be understood. These kind of words have been phased out by the time we reach the ambiguous date of Feed, and have been replaced with words like “feedcast” (21), “feedflinging” (27), and “Feed-sim”(99). Fugue and malfunction are words for scrambled states of feed (both accidently, like technical failure, and self-induced, like substance abuse). Another feed-related term is m-chat, presumably shorthand for mind-chat, which doesn’t require vocal chords or lip movement. It is interesting to note how the word chat transitioned from meaning oral communication to written, as on external computers, to finally, a form of sensory verbal communication on internal feeds.

Whether m-chatting or talking, the language of Feed is exemplary of the manifold ways language changes. The lexicon of Feed reflects generational differences, and the ever-evolving relationship between language and society, both related to value systems, and technology. With its changeability, fluctuation, and non-static nature, language is anything but null. Language is brag—meg brag.

Anne Bryan is studying English education at Southern Oregon University.

Works Cited
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Massachusetts: Candlewick Press. 2002. Print.

Craig, Ricker. “’Bog or God’ in A Clockwork Orange.” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews. 16.4: (2003). 51-54. Print.

Lillo, Antonio. “Covert Puns as a Source of Slang Words in English.” English Studies. 89.3 (2008). 319-338. Print.

McWhorter, John H. The Word on the Street: Fact and Fable about American English. London: Plenum Trade. 1998. Print.

Moore, Robert L. “ We’re Cool, Mom and Dad Are Sweel: Basic Slang and Generational Shifts in Values.” American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage. 79.1 (2004). 59-86. Print.

Ostler, Rosemarie. Dewdroppers, Waldos, and Slackers: A Decade by Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003. Print.

Petrucci, Peter, and Michael Head. “Sweet as is Cool for New Zealanders.” American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage. 81.3 (2006). 331-36. Print.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions, Language, What People Are Reading | Comments Off on Meg Null, or Like…Brag: an Exploration of Language in M.T. Anderson’s Feed — A guest post by Anne Bryan

A New Approach for Young Adult Authors–a guest post by Alyx Johnson

A guest post by Alyx Johnson

In today’s market there is a wealth of young adult writers – all of whom strive for different goals. They each have the opportunity to change the face of the genre with every new book release, but not all of them go about it the same way. One author will put together a novel and release it onto the market, letting it forge its own name without much guidance – but the results differ. Sometimes books like this hit the jackpot and make it big, like Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight. Others flop without much notice. But some authors can make a splash by putting in a bit more effort. With the use of new media platforms, an author can connect with fans more easily than ever. John Green is an example of an author who goes the extra mile to communicate with his fans.

Green has written several novels for young adults – some of which are even used in classrooms. His second book, An Abundance of Katherines, details the journey of Colin, a once-time child prodigy who is struggling to come to terms with the fact that his mathematical skills are not advancing as quickly as he wants them to (and not to mention his recent breakup from a girl named Katherine). As the story evolves, Colin learns valuable lessons and comes to a greater understanding of himself, as well as the people around him. The themes and messages of the novel are realistic and meaningful, but Green’s various web platforms allow him to help his readers understand the text even more fully.

Green’s contact with his fans evolved when he and his brother, Hank, started their YouTube channel in early 2007. This platform did not begin with a large viewing, but as it grew its potential climbed steadily. While the channel is not always aimed towards literary interpretation, its educational value is undeniable; the brothers address current events, discuss little-known facts and even give kids dating advice. Their overall message to kids is, essentially: strive to be intelligent, passionate and caring individuals – and aside from that, just don’t forget to be awesome.

Well-known authors could immediately make a similar connection with fans, simply by creating and sharing videos – or even just blogging regularly. This would allow authors to dispel misconceptions related to their books, or to share interesting bits of knowledge. Authors would even be able to inspire their fans to organize events to support charities or conduct research studies – but the benefit of author-fan contact does not have to end there. It may seem that fans get all the benefit from author’s involvement, but social platforms also give authors the ability to alert their fans to book-tours. New, lesser-known authors can even attract new fans by putting themselves out there. In truth, the positive impact that authors can bring about by being more vocal is boundless; as new platforms emerge the ability for authors to reach out to their fans is becoming easier, and new opportunities arise every day.

Alyx Johnson is passionate about young adult literature, which helped
guide her to become an English Education student at Southern Oregon
University. She currently lives in Medford.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on A New Approach for Young Adult Authors–a guest post by Alyx Johnson

Non-word of the Day

Welcome to 2012. The first Literary Ashland Non-word of the Day is

resolvevolvolution noun. A new year’s resolution made many times before (from resolve +(re)volve+(resol)ution).

Only 365 left to go. You can follow them all @LiteraryAshland.

Posted in Ideas and Opinions | Comments Off on Non-word of the Day