After getting a dozen or so hits from various search engines on this phrase over a 24-hour period, I toyed with a few responses.
There are, after all, some assumptions we can make--particularly since they were all coming from the United States. I considered simply guessing: You eat too much processed food and you don't get enough exercise.
I actually thought, though, that these searchers were looking for something specific. Maybe there was a book out by that name, or they were looking for a particular website. It seemed too strange that suddenly multiple people were searching EXACTLY that phrase. They clumped up in my search results, too, one right after another.
I'd speculated about this a bit and not quite decided how to respond when I happened to carry some laundry into the living room last night at just the right moment. "Just the right moment", in this case, was the moment during which my daughter was watching television and Drake of Drake & Josh woke up with green hands. Josh ran to look up the condition on the Internet and voila! Drake said incredulously, "WhatsWrongWithMyBody.com?"
"Yeah," Josh said. "I have it bookmarked."
Guys. They made it up. The URL, as you might expect, redirects to nick.com. And when that doesn't work out...well...I guess we go to Google.
Wondering what the heck this is all about? Visit What's This Blog All About, Anyway?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Should You Work for Free?
The answer to this question (like so many others) is a resounding and heartfelt, "It depends." I'm very firm on this.
This question arises frequently in the professional writing world. Established writers, as a rule, want to discourage new writers from writing for free because it might hurt the market rates those established writers command. That's wrong. A new writer's focus needs to be on her career, not the good of the industry; let that burden fall to those of us who are already making a living.
I'm a firm believer that for some writers in some circumstances, there are very good reasons to write for "free". I expect that the same general principles apply in other fields.
That said, I think that most of the people currently writing for free aren't getting much (if any) mileage out of it, because they don't have clear strategies or a clear understanding of how that writing will move them to the next step. Getting "clips" or "exposure" or "links" in a general sense is very unlikely to pay off; if you're writing for "free", make sure you know exactly what you're getting in return and exactly how it will help take you to the next level.
This question arises frequently in the professional writing world. Established writers, as a rule, want to discourage new writers from writing for free because it might hurt the market rates those established writers command. That's wrong. A new writer's focus needs to be on her career, not the good of the industry; let that burden fall to those of us who are already making a living.
I'm a firm believer that for some writers in some circumstances, there are very good reasons to write for "free". I expect that the same general principles apply in other fields.
That said, I think that most of the people currently writing for free aren't getting much (if any) mileage out of it, because they don't have clear strategies or a clear understanding of how that writing will move them to the next step. Getting "clips" or "exposure" or "links" in a general sense is very unlikely to pay off; if you're writing for "free", make sure you know exactly what you're getting in return and exactly how it will help take you to the next level.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Can Middle Schoolers Get Pregnant?
I know this blog is pretty new for me to be recycling posts, but I think I'm compelled by basic common sense to re-use the answer here that I set forth in my response to "Can You Rape a Prostitute?"
Yes, but you shouldn't.
Of course, any girl who has reached puberty and has a normally functioning reproductive system can get pregnant. The really big news is, if you time it just right you can actually manage to get pregnant BEFORE YOU'VE EVER MENSTRUATED. Yep, it's true. It's pretty rare, but menstruation is something that happens to clear out the unused eggs at the end of a cycle, so it isn't going to start until a couple of weeks AFTER you start being fertile.
Let me back up, though. If this is a question you have to ask, you are NOWHERE NEAR ready to be considering sex.
Wondering what the heck this is all about? Visit What's This Blog All About, Anyway?
Yes, but you shouldn't.
Of course, any girl who has reached puberty and has a normally functioning reproductive system can get pregnant. The really big news is, if you time it just right you can actually manage to get pregnant BEFORE YOU'VE EVER MENSTRUATED. Yep, it's true. It's pretty rare, but menstruation is something that happens to clear out the unused eggs at the end of a cycle, so it isn't going to start until a couple of weeks AFTER you start being fertile.
Let me back up, though. If this is a question you have to ask, you are NOWHERE NEAR ready to be considering sex.
Wondering what the heck this is all about? Visit What's This Blog All About, Anyway?
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Why are Books Memorable?
This one, of course, came from my RockStories writing blog and landed to my post explaining why I couldn't answer the question, "What the best book you've ever read?" I'm not sure whether the question is about why we generally remember books or what makes a particular book memorable, but I'm partial to the second interpretation--so partial that I've been looking forward to answering this question since I first noticed it in my search results more than a week ago.
Before I do, though, I have to say that the answer is undoubtedly different for everyone. I've been bored to tears by books that I know have a lot of objective merit (Tolkein, anyone?) and know that some very discerning readers just can't see what keeps me going back to re-read The Sun Also Rises every couple of years. Reasonable opinions may vary.
For me, though, the thing that makes a book significant is that it brings something to my attention that I hadn't thought about before. Usually that's not a revolutionary change, a kind of "Wow, I've been looking at this all wrong!" kind of epiphany, but a matter of being consciously confronted with something that is obviously true once it's been placed before us, but that we hadn't ever acknowledged before--or perhaps consciously noticed at all.
Recently, for instance, I was reading Jon Hassler's North of Hope, and I ran across a passage in which the housekeeper in a rectory suggests that an aging priest has lost his mind because he claims to have seen an angel. "Don't you believe in angels?" another priest asks her. She says that she does, but that believing in them and seeing them are two different things, and that's what sets Christians apart from lunatics.
When I read that passage, I laughed out loud, as I often do when surprised by obvious truth. Isn't that the common view, though it's not always spoken aloud (or perhaps even understood in so many words)? Isn't the world full of people who believe in angels, but would never in a million years believe that you'd seen one? And did you ever really think about the fact that they were the same people, until you read these words? I didn't, until I read Hassler's words.
The great thing is that these revelations can come from anywhere, be found in any kind of book, and don't require great literary prowess or National Book Awards. And once we've tripped over one, our thinking never quite snaps back to exactly where it was before. That, I think, is what makes a book memorable--one's just reading along, carefree as can be, and BOOM: for the rest of your life you know something, or see something, that you didn't know or see before.
Before I do, though, I have to say that the answer is undoubtedly different for everyone. I've been bored to tears by books that I know have a lot of objective merit (Tolkein, anyone?) and know that some very discerning readers just can't see what keeps me going back to re-read The Sun Also Rises every couple of years. Reasonable opinions may vary.
For me, though, the thing that makes a book significant is that it brings something to my attention that I hadn't thought about before. Usually that's not a revolutionary change, a kind of "Wow, I've been looking at this all wrong!" kind of epiphany, but a matter of being consciously confronted with something that is obviously true once it's been placed before us, but that we hadn't ever acknowledged before--or perhaps consciously noticed at all.
Recently, for instance, I was reading Jon Hassler's North of Hope, and I ran across a passage in which the housekeeper in a rectory suggests that an aging priest has lost his mind because he claims to have seen an angel. "Don't you believe in angels?" another priest asks her. She says that she does, but that believing in them and seeing them are two different things, and that's what sets Christians apart from lunatics.
When I read that passage, I laughed out loud, as I often do when surprised by obvious truth. Isn't that the common view, though it's not always spoken aloud (or perhaps even understood in so many words)? Isn't the world full of people who believe in angels, but would never in a million years believe that you'd seen one? And did you ever really think about the fact that they were the same people, until you read these words? I didn't, until I read Hassler's words.
The great thing is that these revelations can come from anywhere, be found in any kind of book, and don't require great literary prowess or National Book Awards. And once we've tripped over one, our thinking never quite snaps back to exactly where it was before. That, I think, is what makes a book memorable--one's just reading along, carefree as can be, and BOOM: for the rest of your life you know something, or see something, that you didn't know or see before.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
My old dog won't eat; is she dying?
This isn't mine. I stole this search term from a friend, whose blog is largely focused on parenting and knitting (Google--could we have a word about your discernment process?) As she so aptly pointed out, a dog who doesn't eat WILL die, even if the loss of appetite wasn't a symptom of impending death. Thus, it's not something to be ignored.
She also pointed out that when her old dog wouldn't eat, the vet suggested that she change up her diet a bit, and lo and behold--home cooked meals did the trick. But loss of appetite can also indicate serious medical issues, and your vet is really the best source of information about this.
That said, I want to add a word about searching the Internet. Even if the Internet was the best source of this information, this search string was doomed to fail. Remember, Google returns search results in large part based on a match-up of the words you typed into the search box with the words on the page it returns (excluding "stop words" like "the"). It's common for people searching for information on the web to type in questions like the one above, but it's generally not very effective: if you were writing a veterinary information site, would you write "my old dog won't eat, is she dying?" on the page? Probably not--unless you were a savvy search engine marketer.
Thus, the question above turns up a knitting / parenting blog where the author has talked a bit about her concerns about her old dog, while a search for: dog symptoms loss of appetite turns up pages of veterinary information about various medical conditions that can cause dogs to lose their appetites, warning signs, and what you should do. In short, when you're looking for information on the Internet, don't type in the question you want answered--type in the key words you'd expect to find in the answer, or that you'd put in a heading if you were writing the answer.
She also pointed out that when her old dog wouldn't eat, the vet suggested that she change up her diet a bit, and lo and behold--home cooked meals did the trick. But loss of appetite can also indicate serious medical issues, and your vet is really the best source of information about this.
That said, I want to add a word about searching the Internet. Even if the Internet was the best source of this information, this search string was doomed to fail. Remember, Google returns search results in large part based on a match-up of the words you typed into the search box with the words on the page it returns (excluding "stop words" like "the"). It's common for people searching for information on the web to type in questions like the one above, but it's generally not very effective: if you were writing a veterinary information site, would you write "my old dog won't eat, is she dying?" on the page? Probably not--unless you were a savvy search engine marketer.
Thus, the question above turns up a knitting / parenting blog where the author has talked a bit about her concerns about her old dog, while a search for: dog symptoms loss of appetite turns up pages of veterinary information about various medical conditions that can cause dogs to lose their appetites, warning signs, and what you should do. In short, when you're looking for information on the Internet, don't type in the question you want answered--type in the key words you'd expect to find in the answer, or that you'd put in a heading if you were writing the answer.
Is it better to be Catholic or get a divorce?
I'm not sure that I understand this question, because they're not mutually exclusive. The Bible says that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and so one can't be a fully practicing Catholic if one has divorced and remarried without receiving a declaration of nullity from the church. But the simple act of getting a divorce, while discouraged, isn't a bar to practicing Catholism--to oversimplify a bit, it's simply disregarded. A civil divorce doesn't impact your obligations based on the vows you took before God, so in the eyes of the church, you're still married.
If I Died, Who Would Care?
My first inclination was to say that no one could hope to find the answer to this question through a search engine, because the answer was unique and personal for every one of us. But even as I set out to write that, I realized that it wasn't entirely true; I think that the fundamental answer is the same for each and every one of us.
Here it is: You'd be surprised.
It's pretty easy, in day-to-day life, to take the people around us for granted. It's also easy to give the impression of taking them for granted even when we don't, or to assume that people know the small differences they make in our lives even when we don't mention them--or that they have plenty of other, closer people to affirm them and don't really need to hear from us. It might even be a little intrusive.
But all those people who aren't saying anything for whatever myriad reasons make sense are still there. Friends you haven't talked to in months, or maybe even years, but who know you're out there and value that even if time and life carry them in different directions; the customer who comes into your store three days a week and counts on the extra moment or two you take to chat with her because she's alone most of the time; the person yet unmet whose life you might change entirely.
Someone. That's the answer. It might be someone you overlook, someone you never thought of, someone you've forgotten, someone you don't yet know well. But if you died, it would change someone's life, and not for the better.
Here it is: You'd be surprised.
It's pretty easy, in day-to-day life, to take the people around us for granted. It's also easy to give the impression of taking them for granted even when we don't, or to assume that people know the small differences they make in our lives even when we don't mention them--or that they have plenty of other, closer people to affirm them and don't really need to hear from us. It might even be a little intrusive.
But all those people who aren't saying anything for whatever myriad reasons make sense are still there. Friends you haven't talked to in months, or maybe even years, but who know you're out there and value that even if time and life carry them in different directions; the customer who comes into your store three days a week and counts on the extra moment or two you take to chat with her because she's alone most of the time; the person yet unmet whose life you might change entirely.
Someone. That's the answer. It might be someone you overlook, someone you never thought of, someone you've forgotten, someone you don't yet know well. But if you died, it would change someone's life, and not for the better.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
What's the Side Affects [sic] of Putting the Condom on Wrong and Still Having Sex?
Pregnancy.
Oh, and STDs. Possibly AIDS.
Or maybe none of those things. It's a gamble, just like unprotected sex.
Oh, and STDs. Possibly AIDS.
Or maybe none of those things. It's a gamble, just like unprotected sex.
Friday, November 2, 2007
10 Year Old Boy Keeps Having Headaches, What's Wrong?
I don't know.
Neither does Google.
Take this child to the doctor, please.
Neither does Google.
Take this child to the doctor, please.
Can You Rape a Prostitute?
Yes, but you shouldn't.
This is a reasonable question in the view of the fact that a judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that raping (oops, sorry, forcing a prostitute to perform sex acts at gunpoint) was mere theft of services. Armed robbery, if you will.
In truth, what's the argument? That prostitutes regularly consent to sex, so they're deemed ALWAYS to have consented, in all circumstances?
That's a pretty slippery slope, don't you think?
This is a reasonable question in the view of the fact that a judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that raping (oops, sorry, forcing a prostitute to perform sex acts at gunpoint) was mere theft of services. Armed robbery, if you will.
In truth, what's the argument? That prostitutes regularly consent to sex, so they're deemed ALWAYS to have consented, in all circumstances?
That's a pretty slippery slope, don't you think?
Thursday, November 1, 2007
How Long Have Smarties Candies Been Around?
Wow.
You have no idea what kind of can of worms you've opened with this one.
The answer is....
IT DEPENDS.
You see, "Smarties" is actually the name attached to two very different candies, and feelings run strong about each.
The real Smarties are disc shaped, concave, and pastel. They come in clear cellophane rolls. The company that makes real Smarties was founded in 1932 and came to American in 1949.
Fake Smarties were introduced by Rowntree in 1937 and acquired by Nestle about fifteen years ago. They are chocolate, and bear a very close resemblance to M & Ms, except that they do not have "M" printed on them. In Canada, where the fake Smarties are considered the real Smarties, real Smarties are called Rockets.
Please note that the classification of Smarties in this post has been entirely objective.
You have no idea what kind of can of worms you've opened with this one.
The answer is....
IT DEPENDS.
You see, "Smarties" is actually the name attached to two very different candies, and feelings run strong about each.
The real Smarties are disc shaped, concave, and pastel. They come in clear cellophane rolls. The company that makes real Smarties was founded in 1932 and came to American in 1949.
Fake Smarties were introduced by Rowntree in 1937 and acquired by Nestle about fifteen years ago. They are chocolate, and bear a very close resemblance to M & Ms, except that they do not have "M" printed on them. In Canada, where the fake Smarties are considered the real Smarties, real Smarties are called Rockets.
Please note that the classification of Smarties in this post has been entirely objective.
5000 Words is How Many Pages?
There's some variance, of course, based on font, spacing and margins. However, the typical double-spaced page with one-inch margins will contain between 250 and 300 words. So, 5,000 words is approximately 20 double-spaced pages.
Looking for more writing, editing, freelancing and publishing information? Visit my writing blog.
Looking for more writing, editing, freelancing and publishing information? Visit my writing blog.
Is Ann Coulter a Transvestite?
Okay, I have to cop to the fact that I know exactly what caused this search string to land a visitor to my blog today. It was my post from last March entitled "Ann Coulter...What the Hell?" In that post, I suggested than Ann Coulter LOOKED like a transvestite. It wasn't by any means the focus of the post, and given that there must be hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of other people who have noticed that Ann Coulter looks like a transvestite, it does surprise me a bit that my 7-month-old post with only one paragraph about Ann Coulter's looks is still coming up on the second page of search results...but there it is. At least I know how in the heck this one happened.
The thing is, I don't know the answer.
I suspect that Ann Coulter is NOT a transvestite, and is instead merely an unfortunate looking woman. The potential poetic irony is tempting, I'll admit--and I have to think it wasn't an Ann Coulter supporter running this search--but I think it's a red herring. Or at least, last week I would have thought it was a red herring--this week I learned that no one knows what red herring means and we're not supposed to use that phrase anymore.
Whatever we want to call it, here's the point: Ann Coulter doesn't use logic. She doesn't make sense. She defies reason. That said, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether she's a woman who just happens to look like a man, a man trying to look like a woman, or a monkey trying to look like a human. As a political commentator, she's a wash. Stop worrying about what's under her clothes--what's coming out of her mouth is really all the ammo you need.
The thing is, I don't know the answer.
I suspect that Ann Coulter is NOT a transvestite, and is instead merely an unfortunate looking woman. The potential poetic irony is tempting, I'll admit--and I have to think it wasn't an Ann Coulter supporter running this search--but I think it's a red herring. Or at least, last week I would have thought it was a red herring--this week I learned that no one knows what red herring means and we're not supposed to use that phrase anymore.
Whatever we want to call it, here's the point: Ann Coulter doesn't use logic. She doesn't make sense. She defies reason. That said, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether she's a woman who just happens to look like a man, a man trying to look like a woman, or a monkey trying to look like a human. As a political commentator, she's a wash. Stop worrying about what's under her clothes--what's coming out of her mouth is really all the ammo you need.
How Bad is it To Get Married Outside the Catholic Church?
I'm going to assume that the person conducting this church was either Catholic or considering marrying a Catholic. Otherwise, the answer is quick and easy--it's not bad at all! No worries!
The thing that really intrigued me about this search was that it didn't land the visitor to my Catholic Blog, which gets a lot of traffic on Catholic marriage and Catholic divorce related strings. No, this one led to What's Wrong Around Us?, where there is exactly one post referencing the fact that a lot of Catholics get married outside the church because they don't want to jump through the hoops. That single post--from last March--is buried among rape cases, punitive damages issues, speculation about why the bees are disappearing, a few objections to the world of SpongeBob Squarepants, a note about buying on ebay, and a very popular post on birth control for middle schoolers. (Note to Google: This process may need a little refining.)
But I digress.
"How bad is it to get married outside the Catholic church?"
If you care enough to ask this question, it's about as bad as it gets. If you've been baptized Catholic and are married outside the church without permission, the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the church. Living with your spouse in an invalid marriage has the same ramifications as living with someone OUTSIDE of marriage. You can't make a good confession as long as the situation continues and you haven't resolved to change it. You can't take communion.
If a technicality is the only problem--that is, if you just CHOSE to get married outside the church or did it in a hurry and there was no reason that you couldn't have been married within the church, you can probably get your marriage "regularized" and blessed by the church--talk to your priest. If there was an impediment to the marriage, like a prior marriage of one of the spouses, that will have to be resolved before the marriage can be recognized.
The thing that really intrigued me about this search was that it didn't land the visitor to my Catholic Blog, which gets a lot of traffic on Catholic marriage and Catholic divorce related strings. No, this one led to What's Wrong Around Us?, where there is exactly one post referencing the fact that a lot of Catholics get married outside the church because they don't want to jump through the hoops. That single post--from last March--is buried among rape cases, punitive damages issues, speculation about why the bees are disappearing, a few objections to the world of SpongeBob Squarepants, a note about buying on ebay, and a very popular post on birth control for middle schoolers. (Note to Google: This process may need a little refining.)
But I digress.
"How bad is it to get married outside the Catholic church?"
If you care enough to ask this question, it's about as bad as it gets. If you've been baptized Catholic and are married outside the church without permission, the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the church. Living with your spouse in an invalid marriage has the same ramifications as living with someone OUTSIDE of marriage. You can't make a good confession as long as the situation continues and you haven't resolved to change it. You can't take communion.
If a technicality is the only problem--that is, if you just CHOSE to get married outside the church or did it in a hurry and there was no reason that you couldn't have been married within the church, you can probably get your marriage "regularized" and blessed by the church--talk to your priest. If there was an impediment to the marriage, like a prior marriage of one of the spouses, that will have to be resolved before the marriage can be recognized.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
What's Wrong with Cinderella?
Just this week, someone visited What's Wrong Around Us? on the search phrase, "What's wrong with Cinderella?" I'm pretty sure the question related to Cinderella the character, not Cinderella the story. Tough. I can't be sure, so I'm going with what I've got.
Suzy Bogguss had a song fifteen or twenty years ago that challenged Cinderella...seemed to indicate that maybe happily ever after wasn't quite so happy after all and wanted to know what happened next.
A valid question, perhaps, but it PALES IN COMPARISON to the real issue with the Cinderella story. The true, absolute, unavoidable sticking point that brings our suspension of disbelief screeching to a halt and proves that fairy tales are just a lot of hogwash cooked up by wicked stepmothers who wanted to terrorize children into doing their chores.
Here it is.
(Are you ready?)
Why didn't the glass slipper disappear?
Midnight arrived. The clock struck. The carriage turned back into a pumpkin. The footmen turned back into mice. Cinderella's beautiful ball gown turned back into rags. The horse turned back into a dog and the driver turned back into a horse and Cinderella's split ends returned and...the glass slipper lay patiently on the palace steps, waiting for the Prince to find it.
A momentary delay? It was, perhaps, the last to turn? But no. Cinderella slips one into her pocket and the...whatever-you-call-that-guy-who-works-for-the-King...carries the other around the kingdom trying it on various women (because the Prince can't remember what Cinderella LOOKED like or anything, apparently--just her shoe size).
Because I Must Make Sense of Everything, I came up with a theory.
My theory is that the glass slipper remained after midnight because it was wholly created. Every other item was transformed from something else, but Cinderella was BAREFOOT. The glass slippers were conjured out of thin air, and thus had nothing to turn back into at midnight. Sure, they could have vanished, but they were in a slightly different position than the other items, and it MIGHT make sense.
But then why didn't they tell us that?
The Cinderella story is hundreds of years old...am I the only person ever bothered by this? Has no modern author adapting the story or Disney producer thought, "Wait...we should explain that!" Just me? Well, maybe so.
But that's what's wrong with Cinderella, for real. It's much more serious than the suspect nature of the whole "happily ever after" thing.
Suzy Bogguss had a song fifteen or twenty years ago that challenged Cinderella...seemed to indicate that maybe happily ever after wasn't quite so happy after all and wanted to know what happened next.
A valid question, perhaps, but it PALES IN COMPARISON to the real issue with the Cinderella story. The true, absolute, unavoidable sticking point that brings our suspension of disbelief screeching to a halt and proves that fairy tales are just a lot of hogwash cooked up by wicked stepmothers who wanted to terrorize children into doing their chores.
Here it is.
(Are you ready?)
Why didn't the glass slipper disappear?
Midnight arrived. The clock struck. The carriage turned back into a pumpkin. The footmen turned back into mice. Cinderella's beautiful ball gown turned back into rags. The horse turned back into a dog and the driver turned back into a horse and Cinderella's split ends returned and...the glass slipper lay patiently on the palace steps, waiting for the Prince to find it.
A momentary delay? It was, perhaps, the last to turn? But no. Cinderella slips one into her pocket and the...whatever-you-call-that-guy-who-works-for-the-King...carries the other around the kingdom trying it on various women (because the Prince can't remember what Cinderella LOOKED like or anything, apparently--just her shoe size).
Because I Must Make Sense of Everything, I came up with a theory.
My theory is that the glass slipper remained after midnight because it was wholly created. Every other item was transformed from something else, but Cinderella was BAREFOOT. The glass slippers were conjured out of thin air, and thus had nothing to turn back into at midnight. Sure, they could have vanished, but they were in a slightly different position than the other items, and it MIGHT make sense.
But then why didn't they tell us that?
The Cinderella story is hundreds of years old...am I the only person ever bothered by this? Has no modern author adapting the story or Disney producer thought, "Wait...we should explain that!" Just me? Well, maybe so.
But that's what's wrong with Cinderella, for real. It's much more serious than the suspect nature of the whole "happily ever after" thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
