I just learned that my friend Debbie Ohi, a writer and illustrator of children’s books, has a Substack. Even though I never plan to write a children’s book, I was fascinated by her article on understanding picture book format and construction. I’d never realized there were such strict page requirements. If you’re thinking of getting into this field or know someone who is, you should find her articles very interesting.
A conspiracy theory, according to Merriam-Webster, is “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.” Alternatively, it’s “a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public”; the idea presumably is that insiders have conspired to keep the truth hidden.
Dictionary.com takes a similar approach: “a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot” or “a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group.” In all these cases, a conspiracy theory requires a conspiracy to make something happen or to keep something hidden. The cabal has to be hidden and the conspirators powerful; an accusation that some people got together to plan a crime doesn’t count as a conspiracy theory unless the perpetrators are extremely rich or powerful.
(more…)
In my Liberty Fund article on Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, I made an error. Relying on what others wrote, I said:
When he [Beaumarchais] wrote The Marriage of Figaro, Louis XVI banned it for three years. The King supposedly said, “For this play not to be a danger, the Bastille would have to be torn down first.” Eight years later, it was, and the French aristocracy came crashing down with it.
It’s a good thing I used the word “supposedly.” I suspected a problem today when I got Lever’s biography of Beaumarchais and found a different version of the remark: “This is detestable and will never be performed; the Bastille would have to be destroyed for the performance of this play not to be of dangerous inconsequence.” “Dangerous inconsequence” is a weird phrase, so I looked up the original French and found it on Wikipedia: “La représentation ne pourrait qu’être une inconséquence fâcheuse, sauf si la Bastille était détruite.”
(more…)
A disturbing number of major websites have adopted a double standard in typography. Skin-color terms are capitalized or not, based on what color is in question. I’ve seen sentences where the typographical standard is changed in mid-sentence, even in mid-phrase, capitalizing “Black” and putting “white” in lower case. I haven’t seen a consistent pattern in other color terms, such as “brown” (or is it “Brown”?).
Authors aren’t to blame for this, except when they’re running their own websites. The site sets the typographic standard (or lack of one), and the authors have to live with it or find other outlets.
(more…)
Reports about a copyright lawsuit by Ed Townsend’s estate against Ed Sheeran recently caught my attention. The suit claims that Sheeran’s song “Thinking Out Loud” infringes on “Let’s Get It On,” usually attributed to Marvin Gaye but co-authored by Townsend. The claim was that Sheeran improperly used “harmonic progressions” and “melodic and rhythmic elements” from the earlier song, but a federal court has ruled there was no copyright violation. That got me thinking about the whole issue of song copyrights.
To start by making my own views clear, I’m in favor of copyright. Some libertarians argue that creative works aren’t tangible objects and thus shouldn’t be subject to property rights, but I think the concept of ownership is as applicable to creations of the mind as to physical creations. Copyright prevents one person (or corporation) from taking someone else’s creation and profiting without getting consent or offering compensation. I think 95-year copyrights are inappropriate, but living creators should enjoy protection against the appropriation of their work.
(more…)
The first time I ran into the term “hate speech” was on a mainstream political site that assured the reader that it was not advocating censorship but linked prominently to a site whose title was “Hate speech is not free speech.” From its beginning, “hate speech” has been what Ayn Rand called an “anti-concept,” a term that doesn’t define a category with specific characteristics but serves to obscure the speaker’s intent. The term is and has always been a call for censorship.
Hatred is an emotion and can be good or bad. Hating tyranny and deadly diseases is good. Hating people for their sexual preferences or skin tones is bad. Either way, it isn’t really the emotion that matters; it’s what people do and say. What’s actually wrong is spreading falsehoods, uttering gratuitous insults, using appearance as a proxy for character, making threats, and suppressing people with discriminatory laws and violence.
“Hate speech” doesn’t mean speech expressing hatred. In practice, it means “speech I hate” or “speech I want banned.” Saying “I hate spinach” or even “Fuck J.K. Rowling” isn’t considered hate speech. Grossly insulting everyone who registers Republican isn’t hate speech. However, I’ve seen claims that drawing a picture of Muhammad and saying “there are no atheists in foxholes” are hate speech.
(more…)
Once again, let’s look at an expression which is loaded with meaning that most people don’t think about. Some writers use it without thinking, others because they’re promoting their particular philosophy. The expression is “being on the right side of history.” If you don’t support a certain cause, you supposedly aren’t on the right side of history.
What does that mean, though, and why do you want to be on that side? It’s an idea that comes from the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and its two bastard children, Marxism and Fascism. This idea, called historicism, holds that history inexorably follows a certain path. Your only choice is to go with the tide or against it.
If you put the phrase into your writing without thinking about it, you could be lending support to historicism without knowing it.
(more…)
In a previous post, I quoted a statement by Hamline president Fayneese Miller referring to “a purported stand-off between academic freedom and equity.” This got me thinking about the way some have tried to change the meaning of the word “equity.” It’s hard to tell what Miller meant, since she’s the only one doing the purporting. Others, though, have tried to shift the meaning of “equity” from its traditional one.
The Merriam-Webster definition of “equity” gives several technical meanings in law and finance, as well as “justice according to natural law or right; specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” Equity means applying the same standards to everyone; it rejects, for example, laws giving special privileges to the nobility or denying rights to people on the basis of their appearance, sex, or religion.
(more…)
Software is getting steadily better at passing the Turing test. This doesn’t mean computers are people and should have their civil rights recognized, but it raises some problems. Students use computer-generated output to generate essays and answer exam questions. A bot called ChatGPT has gotten a lot of attention for its ability to generate coherent answers to questions.
The issue of using AI to generate what’s euphemistically called “content writing” — low-quality filler for business pages and blogs — hasn’t gotten as much attention. The people who work in that field need to worry, though. If a customer wants some generic text to give the impression of having something useful to say, can a machine do it well enough? Computer-generated output is cheaper than paying content mill rates. It will probably have fewer errors in spelling and grammar.
(more…)
“It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” A book I picked up today in the library reminded me of that saying. It’s The Reformation, a part of the “Turning Points in World History” series. The book consists of essays by different authors. One of them, “The History and Premises of Protestantism” by Hans J. Hillerbrand, includes a half-hearted apology for John Calvin. Other parts of the book are more straightforward about his career of persecuting heretics, but Hillerbrand’s careful phrasing struck me. I’m thinking of these two quotes, found in the same paragraph:
(more…)