Aug 12
Khakjaan WessingtonUncategorized
I’ve been on HTML Giant. They are annoying and need to be told so. More importantly, the readers need to know that their fellow readers know they are all sharing the experience of reading an idiot. Hannah Arendt says that the origin of totalitarianism begins when the individual feels isolated. This love-letter is an attempt to break that fascistic tendency (and we all know the HTML Giant losers would be the first aboard the right fascist bandwagon): http://toylit.blogspot.com/2010/08/jimmy-chens-chicken.html
Aug 09
P. H. MadoreUncategorized
I believe in OpenSource Software.
This is the kind of statement you could have made every year for the past ten years. It’s the kind of statement that has only progressively made more sense, or been more common, and yet still it’s not the sort of statement that gets enough traction anywhere. Yet increasingly it’s open source projects like Firefox and Open Office that make the kind of progress we need in the software community, open initiatives with progress as their headpieces instead of grossing lots of money. It’s become apparent through projects like Wikipedia that passion-driven exploration and development produces the most potent product.
This website is built on an open platform, of course. dispatch is designed, of course, with Scribus and OpenOffice, among other open source software.
So the question becomes: why do greed-driven software platforms succeed at all? There’s now, essentially, an open source solution for every question.
Jul 30
Khakjaan WessingtonArt, Craft, Uncategorized, memes, poetry, writing combatwords
Rules for CombatWords! Updated for July 30, 2010:
Critique & Scoring:
Scoring is based off critique. Each critique item is worth one point. Positive critiques are +1, and negative critiques are -1. One critique per reviewer, per composition—so get it right the first time. Simple “I liked it” (ILI for short) and “I didn’t like it” (IDLI) critiques are only worth +/-1. Critiques may be as general or as specific as the critic would like. However, anyone may critique a critique to adjust the score: this includes the author of the subject composition. However, only one critique per post per poster, to prevent vendettas from mucking up the game. Critiques may go into overtime, but only in the case of thread consensus.
More
Jul 23
Khakjaan WessingtonCraft, Literature, TWAK, Uncategorized, evolution, humor, memes, philosophy, poetry, writing combatwords
Combatwords for July 23, 2010: Pleasure Versus Pain
Pleasure and pain; comedy & tragedy; happiness and despair—these are the moods and feelings we chase or flee. They are also the foundations of behavioralist worldviews. Han Fei Tzu and BF Skinner have plenty in common, despite their 2000+ year gap. Take this topic however you’d like: humans as animals; the two flavors in life; whatever.
Combat Deadline: July 25, 6pm PST.
Critique Expires: July 27, Midnight PST.
Time Bonuses: +1 per 5 hours ahead of deadline.
ARE YOU A JERSUSALEM CRICKET OR A CAMEL SPIDER???!!!
FIGHT!!!!!!(?)
Jul 16
Khakjaan WessingtonUncategorized combatwords
Causality: Reflections, Echoes and Ripples: Hume made the point there is no reason why we should expect causality. Locke claimed that all things had primary and secondary qualities. Descartes said there was no reason to believe anything is real and Bishop Berkeley said the only way this world makes sense is if it’s mediated in the mind of God. So the origin of phenomena has been a question humans have long wanted to answer. We want to know the essence of a thing; as if that would stop the questioning. Since there is no satisfactory answer to the problems of phenomena (a task for philosophers besides!), it is a rich area to write about.
Combat Expiration: Sunday, July 18, 2010; at 6pm PST
Critique Expiration: Monday, July 19, 2010; at 6pm PST
Time Bonuses: Bonuses are scored in increments of 6 hours. Pieces that post from now until midnight PST get a +8; Midnight to 6am, +7; 6am-Noon, +6; etc.
Scoring Reminder: SCORING MUST BE METED IN INCREMENTS OF +/-1! There is a good reason for this rule: it prevents the ‘I liked it/I hated it’ critiques from predominating. It prevents score inflation; as if you think you can score +2 well what’s to stop someone else from scoring -10? You MUST score by increments of +/-1 and if you can’t be bothered, then your response doesn’t count for much. I will modify all scores to reflect this, as you all have had a few weeks to try the system out. So no more, “I loved it! +10,” Or “I’m a total moron and I can’t express why I hate your composition in simple craft terms; -100.”
PS: You might shoot at the wrong mule, so look out!
Jul 12
Mather SchneiderLiterature, TWAK, Uncategorized, poetry, random
The only genuine excuse for anonymity, in my opinion, is fear for your life. The anonymouses that are sprouting up around here, what are they afraid of? I believe poetry and all writing should be grounded in real life, and if you are not even willing to put your own name up against your words, what kind of reality are you writing from? Fantasy, game playing, tidly winks. People like this stand against individuality, identity and personal style, though they would all claim not to, simply out of pc, and the truth is they don’t know who they are or what they are doing. They are anonymous to the world because they are anonymous to themselves. They say their words should be enough, but their words sound anonymous too, edgeless, academically objective and dull, adhering to too many rules, the kinds of words that could be written by pretty much anybody who was born without a spine or any will toward personal identity. And when your anonymous comments and poems are loved and lauded by other anonymous commentors and poets, well then, anonymity wins, lowest common denomitor wins, banality wins.
Jul 10
The HumanistUncategorized publishing literature beliefs opinion
Here is my reaction to this statement: A core belief of mine is that literature will be produced both in the absence and abundance of money.
Literature will always be produced, you are correct. (so long as there is language) What I don’t understand is the need some people feel to publish their literature. For a very long time that was my only goal as a writer, it was such an important goal I put it before becoming a good writer. I would day dream about my first publication and how I could kick my feet up on the foot rest of accomplishment, knowing that the hard part is over and its smooth sailing from there.
Now I had not been dreaming about publication like I used to. Pessimism had taken hold of my outlook, and my old positive self chipped off the sharp edges of the pessimism in this way: First I told myself ‘no one cares what you could say, they have no need for your point of view, others have said everything you could wish to say and most likely they have done it better’,
This was a crippling mindset. It backspaced over years of work, left countless pages without revision, and possibly crushed what was left of my youth. Living with that burden of thought was too taxing, so like Andy from Shawshank Redemption, I began to chip away at it with a tiny rock hammer. What was once a formation so great it blotted out the sun and everything around it, is now a manageable mountain.
I chipped away at it by telling myself ‘So what? I don’t need to publish this stuff, this stuff is for my own amusement, this stuff is something I can’t avoid, this stuff is my reality’. I wrote and continue to write because it has the potential to make me feel right. I don’t mean its affirming, I mean it’s natural. Which is why I agree with you that no matter the presence of money, literature will be produced.
The one reason I can see that makes sense to me when it comes to publishing work, is this: We are the present. Behind us is this immense history chalked full of great achievements in arts and sciences. Being in the present, we have a chance to carry this history over, and in doing so it passes through our hands, it passes through our minds. In the same way our bodies digest food, our minds digest ideas. We pick them apart, break them down, turn them into new and amazing things, and get rid of what we do not need.
Here is our chance in this relay race with no foreseeable end, to grab that baton and to run with it in a way that is peculiar to ourselves before handing it off again. With that said, I will try to look at every single persons attempt to publish their own work as a noble thing, as a necessary thing, as a natural thing. (even though there are a bunch of douchebags in the mix, if we didn’t have douchebags we wouldn’t have a metric to quantify the good ones)
Jul 09
Khakjaan WessingtonUncategorized
CombatWords for July 9, 2010: Binaries
Binaries shape the structure of our cognition. Not just as Yin and Yang, Heaven and hell, or zero and one; but also induction versus deduction—self versus other: action, reaction. Riff off this theme. Bonus points should be allocated for those who are able to effectively riff off the theme and also other posters.
Combat Expiration: 6pm PST, July 10, 2010.
****Critique Expiration: EXTENDED! 6m PST, July 11, 2010****
Bonuses: A post gains +1 for every three hour increment posted ahead of deadline. Max +8.
Form Restrictions: None. Prose, poetry, aphorisms; whatever.
RULES FOR COMBATWORDS HERE
Jul 02
Khakjaan WessingtonUncategorized
This first Combatwords is going to be simple to start with. The only rule is to riff off what another combatant wrote; this way we can ensure participants are writing new pieces. The first poster can write about whatever he or she wants.
Time limit is midnight PST for kombat & July 3, 12pm, PST for responses. +1 per 30min before midnight with a max of +5.
Anyone can respond to any composition except his or her own, but may respond to responses (to try & clear neg ratings). Final score is based off the sum of all scores given by all respondents to a piece (Combatwords rules http://trickwithaknife.com/?p=764 ).
Have fun & Fight!
Jun 30
Khakjaan WessingtonUncategorized
Rules to combatwords: I announce groundrules in the beginning of each thread (iambs, freestyle, no punctuation, specific topic, etc). Scoring is based off responses: each negative response is -1 and each positive response is +1. Anyone can respond to a response to either negate the scores or to confirm them. Majority rules & uncontested points win by default. Duels have one time limit, while the response period has another. Clock scoring is measured by +1/-1 depending on how many increments of 5 min one is over or under clock time. Responses posted after the time limit are invalid. This is the only objective metric for combatwords.
The purpose of scoring is to both validate the subjective way literature impacts the reader, while also maintaining standards of craft and topicality.
So for example, say I call for a sonnet and a 1 hr composition time and 2 hr critique time.
3 people write sonnets.
- Writes a sonnet with 36 minutes to spare for a +7.
- Writes a sonnet with 15 minutes to spare, for a +3.
- Writes a sonnet 3 minutes late, for a -1
So if I wanted to critique them, I’d do something like this:
- 4 out of 14 lines didn’t scan, so -4. I still liked it, so +1. There was a turn on line 9, so +1. Two out of the quatrains carried an effective argument so +2. The final couplet was especially good for reason ‘a,’ so +1. Final score +1
If someone wanted to criticize my criticism, they could do something like this:
- 2 of the lines I identified really did scan. Here’s the proof _____. Adjusted score +2. The final couplet failed to resolve a poetic argument and failed. Adjusted score, -1. Total adjusted score +1. Final score: +2.
For something like scanning, I might step in and use a dictionary to adjudicate, but there are few objective circumstances where that would be necessary.
Rudimentary taxonomy of responses:
Negative:
Didn’t like any one thing(line, sentence, paragraph).
Failed the assignment for any one reason (per instance).
Failure to complete idea/metaphor/composition’s intention
Etc.
Positive:
Liked any one thing (line, sentence, paragraph).
Succeeded for any one reason (per instance).
Success in completing idea/metaphor/composition’s intention
Etc.
And it’s a game, not a literary IQ test. The idea is to play, but to also compete & push one’s limits as a writer. I’ll post a new thread announcing a duel later today or tomorrow.
Older Entries
