Hello. I initiated this user account because I noticed that I was reading a lot of articles and then entering into discussions where I would make suggestions/corrections. While this was fun, I realized that it was rude to do so without attribution.
About Me: - Lives: Sherman Oaks, CA.
- Works: English instructor
- Projects: Currently finishing a book about the UK band, Depeche Mode.
- Eats: Vegetarian
- Interests (work-wise): Writing pedagogy, poetics, narrative otheory, post-modern thought, critical studies, cultural studies.
- Interests (leisure-wise): Hiking, Xbox, comic books, movies (Robert Bresson, Kubric, Ozu, David Lynch, Werner Herzog), oStar Trek (this is a very recent fascination), chess.
- Interests (Wikipedia-wise): Depeche Mode o A lot of junk has been written about the band over the years in magazines and the few books that are out there. It is not a problem of critics liking or disliking the band, but rather, very poor fact checking on the part of disinterested writers. o Regarding Grammar: grammar snobbery comes in two forms: helpful and anal. The helpful snobbery will, hopefully, allow for clear communication. It is important that the writer always strives for clarity. There is nothing more frustrating that reading a self-contradicting or confusing article. There is nothing wrong with the reader struggling with ideas, but they shouldn’t have to struggle with the sentences themselves. On the other hand, purely anal-grammar snobbery is not helpful if it is in the context of merely pointing out that a writer should have used “that” instead of “which.” As long as the idea is communicated clearly, lexical choices are up to the writer.