Every night I bore Janie to sleep. I don't read boring things; she's just more than happy to drift off while I'm reading whatever it is out loud. As a bonus I set aside a few minutes to read - something I don't do near as much as I'd like.
It occurred to me that instead of reading Bill Bryson or E.L. Doctorow I could just get in my Gather reading every evening.
Gather has a lot of writers, but we need to encourage reading too.
Here's what I'm going to do.
Every evening I'll choose enough articles to make up a couple pages of Courier 10 point text. That's about how much I can read before I konk out too. I'll pick a few articles in the evening, post them for you to check out, and then in the morning we'll check in. I hope to do this every night. We'll see.
Let's go to the highly rated articles. I always like to think of these as the lucky writers, because if you even get so much as one 9 you're not there. And there's nothing wrong with a 9. Still, if there's anything controvercial or challenging in your piece, you'll be lucky to make it into the top 25 "highest rated" of the day.
Tonight I'll pick Dialog With My Medication by Amanda W. Heck, it's number one.
But it's pretty short, let's see, Disney Under Attack by Delvin B is also short. Okay, two for one.
Now how about the ones that don't get high ratings but inspire a lot of conversation. I usually don't like these but might jump in with that all-American saying "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?" Among the "most discussed" here is Humanizing the "Speak English" Debate by Senobia T. One hundred and one comments; rating of 4.2 - sounds representative of the genre . . .
For my last selection, I'll search by a tag that interests me. I just bought a fun Indonesian mask. Let's search on Indonesia. Eww. No, I don't think so. Ah, here. Are We Not Being Discriminated by Rossie Indira.
That rounds out what I'll be reading tonight. Tomorrow I'll let you know what I think. I may praise, but I won't be too critical - unless it just screams out "expose me."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
Carol, thank you too.
Okay, I may not always comment on all articles as not everything I copy without reading is going to resonate with me. It doesn't mean I think it's bad; I just want to focus on the ones I actually have something to say about.
"Dialog with my medication" was very personal and had some depth inviting us to read between the lines. That's good. I also agree with the format. If there are only two speakers in a dialog, the writer can dispense with "said the medication", "and then I said" etc. Just the statements is fine.
"Humanizing the English debate" basically said - to me - that people should know something about a topic before spouting off on it. Again, I didn't read the comments, but I agreed with the basic premise and it could be applied to both sides of the debate.
"Are we not being discriminated" had some valuable and consistent grammatical errors that leant it a very authentic feel without robbing it of its eloquence. I believe strongly the best way to undermine mean-spirited, oppressive fundamentalism - both abroad *and* at home - is to encourage and empower women. I know that word empower has been used a lot in recent years, but I think what people find annoying about it is their fear of sharing power - their desire to preserve their eroding privileges.
So, that's my initial take on the links above.