Twitter, Books, and Other Such Things
Gah! I tried it again!
Facebook.
I know: I use it to disseminate my little scribblings. It's a necessary evil.
I am gradually envisioning how to spread my scribbling stuff through more avenues.
Yes. I know the avenues; the main barrier is the energy required to employ those avenues properly. Not today. Not today.
It just struck me that dogs are at a disadvantage. For the most part, the only sounds they can make are negative: barking, growling, and whining are the primaries. In contrast, cats have purring, guinea pigs have those cute little squeaks, and, while birds have a high potential for being squawking little beasts, they can often do lovely chirps and such. The best sound dogs can use is that strange, grunting groan. They mean well, but their sounds don't recommend them.
I like Dexter though (my parents' dog). He tries hard to be agreeable; typically, he ends up being obnoxious – just like a lovable Rudolph.
I often recall better times, but then I doubt myself. Were there actually better times, or am I just consumed by some idealistic delusion? Such is Facebook. Was there a time (I feel like there was) when it was this welcoming, wholesome place?
My mom says she uses it primarily to see pictures of family members – especially grandkids; that makes me glad. Many of the younger folk nowadays say they don't use it at all; I can respect that. However – many of these younger folk report – they have replaced it with Twitter or its similar constituents. I tried Twitter; really I did. 140 characters? 140 characters! That's not concision; that's regression. I cannot blame the proverbial them. They are pushing the boundaries of uninformation: saying little with few words and saying little with many words. Twitter is a forerunner of the former. Winston Churchill spoke aptly of the latter: "condensing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought."
140 characters. I can understand 140 words, but 140 characters? It's about as awful as the stereotypical interview question: "describe yourself in three adjectives."
(That's one of the questions at my job, which I like very much, so I'll qualify it.)
If that question is placed in the context of a very personable series of interactions, I feel that it is quite a good one. Honestly, I'm quite delighted by the company for which I work. One of the highest priorities in considering a hiree is having personal interaction: the interview itself, the interaction during training, the interaction during a teachback, and the interaction during orientation. Inside of such a context, "three adjectives" is quite good.
In contrast, however, companies stereotypically don't interview you if your resume is longer than one page, and I can't imagine many companies devoting four different events where they prioritize getting to know you. Sometimes, all you get are the trite questions. Bing bang boom, thanks but no thanks.
Three adjectives. I can't imagine too many things which I'd be comfortable limiting to three adjectives.
Lemme try:
Facebook.
I know: I use it to disseminate my little scribblings. It's a necessary evil.
I am gradually envisioning how to spread my scribbling stuff through more avenues.
Yes. I know the avenues; the main barrier is the energy required to employ those avenues properly. Not today. Not today.
It just struck me that dogs are at a disadvantage. For the most part, the only sounds they can make are negative: barking, growling, and whining are the primaries. In contrast, cats have purring, guinea pigs have those cute little squeaks, and, while birds have a high potential for being squawking little beasts, they can often do lovely chirps and such. The best sound dogs can use is that strange, grunting groan. They mean well, but their sounds don't recommend them.
I like Dexter though (my parents' dog). He tries hard to be agreeable; typically, he ends up being obnoxious – just like a lovable Rudolph.
I often recall better times, but then I doubt myself. Were there actually better times, or am I just consumed by some idealistic delusion? Such is Facebook. Was there a time (I feel like there was) when it was this welcoming, wholesome place?
My mom says she uses it primarily to see pictures of family members – especially grandkids; that makes me glad. Many of the younger folk nowadays say they don't use it at all; I can respect that. However – many of these younger folk report – they have replaced it with Twitter or its similar constituents. I tried Twitter; really I did. 140 characters? 140 characters! That's not concision; that's regression. I cannot blame the proverbial them. They are pushing the boundaries of uninformation: saying little with few words and saying little with many words. Twitter is a forerunner of the former. Winston Churchill spoke aptly of the latter: "condensing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought."
140 characters. I can understand 140 words, but 140 characters? It's about as awful as the stereotypical interview question: "describe yourself in three adjectives."
(That's one of the questions at my job, which I like very much, so I'll qualify it.)
If that question is placed in the context of a very personable series of interactions, I feel that it is quite a good one. Honestly, I'm quite delighted by the company for which I work. One of the highest priorities in considering a hiree is having personal interaction: the interview itself, the interaction during training, the interaction during a teachback, and the interaction during orientation. Inside of such a context, "three adjectives" is quite good.
In contrast, however, companies stereotypically don't interview you if your resume is longer than one page, and I can't imagine many companies devoting four different events where they prioritize getting to know you. Sometimes, all you get are the trite questions. Bing bang boom, thanks but no thanks.
Three adjectives. I can't imagine too many things which I'd be comfortable limiting to three adjectives.
Lemme try:
- shirts: medium, monochromatic, T
- food: … nope
- movies: nope
- drinks: nope
- friends: nope
- dogs: quiet, large, obedient
- books: fantasy, novel, science
- hair: long, curly (really, I only need two adjectives)
- games: board, video, outside
- pants: jean, corduroy, pajama
Meh. I'm over it.
It's getting late, and I'm tired, and I need to brush my teeth, but I like writing. I still need more input though. WHY HAVEN'T YOU WRITTEN? Or, if you did, why didn't you share it? Or, if you did, where did you share it?
I ran out of my previous book, Sherlock Holmes isn't quite as inspiring as I had hoped, and I keep forgetting to bring in the book that's in my car. Yes, I'm still going to complete Sherlock; it's one of those classics that I can't justify rejecting. Watership Down is sitting in front of me. I tried to read it years ago; I couldn't finish it. It's been a long time, but I have vague recollections of it feeling dull. Watership Down is often mentioned when I try to describe Brian Jacques' books. From my vague memory, they're hardly comparable, but I'll have to reread the Watership and conclude resolutely.
Tomorrow's Friday! I like weekends. More especially, I like the contrast between working normal hours during the week and then having a weekend off. Underemployment was miserable. It was especially miserable when people would say, "enjoy your day off." There were no days off. There were underemployed days; there were unemployed days.
I still don't do much with my weekends yet, but they're satisfying instead of doubly discouraging. Rest. I choose rest pretty often. I like to think I'm weak, but I often call to mind one of my favorite verses: “In repentance and rest is your salvation; in quietness and trust is your strength" (Isaiah 30:15).
Speaking thereof, I'm off to bed.
Sort of like Newspeak, isn't it?
ReplyDelete!!! I didn't even think of that correlation! Scary stuff.
Delete