what's going on
tuesday, february 5, 2002
hey! portia di rossi, the girl with the looooong, blonde hair on "ally mcbeal" just got engaged to ringo starr's step daughter! go portia! heh. :)
we're in the end stages of producing the second newspaper issue. and i wrote an editorial on the enron crap. i've been getting home around 1 am every morning to collapse in bed. as usual. heh.
tomorrow me and my weblings are going to try and put the newspaper online by the end of that day. it's a little stamina test. and tentatively, i will air my first radio show tomorrow night. i figure by then i'll be so tired and loopy, it might even be entertaining. heh.
we talked about masculinity in my "mass communication theory & research" class today, with dennis rodman as the focus of the discussion. i think i missed the "men wearing dresses really want to be women" memo. i don't find dennis rodman particularly attractive, but there are few things as yummie as a completely centered guy wearing whatever he wants.
i know plenty of men who can pull off wearing a skirt, or a dress, or lipstick and only appear even more masculine to me. watching them wear whatever it is doesn't make me go "ooooh! he must be gay and he wants to be a woman!" .. to me it usually signals a very solid, playful personality that makes me go "oo!" if it's well done.
anyway. head ache. annoyed at office people (the usual production "i hate you all" feelings). bleh.
i have somehow become the designated editor of editorials, because i seem to be the only one ready to say "what do you MEAN here? this makes no sense!" to writers that get a bit work-blind.
i spent 15 minutes arguing with one of our angry, young, black intellectual writers last night because "vociferous" and "polemical" really didn't need to be in the same sentence, unless his concern was merely to show off that he's not afraid to use a dictionary and thesaurus.
he got very upset, and accused me of "wanting him not to sound educated! and i am! educated!" .. er. he's a clear case of mistaking a complicated language to be the only indicator of how educated you are. feh!
i don't understand why somebody would rather have people read their editorial and not comprehend a single point that is being made in the text, but leaves you going "wow, he knows a lot of long words!" instead of methodically presenting your points in a strong, simple manner to win people over with WHAT you are saying, not HOW you are saying it.
eventually he agreed to let me substitute "vociferous" with "voice." gee. thanks. okay. it was very frustrating. later i heard a supposedly playful outburst from the writer proclaiming that "jennie is the devil!" .. passive-agressive, much? heh.
i understand being extremely protective of something you've created--pride is cool, it's good, love what you do. but if you are a writer, and you never learn to develop thick enough skin to be able to take criticism, or suggestions regarding your text but rather stay pig-headed and agressive.. well. good luck in the professional world. heh.
i too wrote an editorial. i spent two days researching and piecing together the whole enron thing, because i hate financial company news and whatnot, but i wanted to really understand what was going on. if i don't get enron, then i can't have other people understand anything of what it all means from what i write either. simple, right?
because the enron situation is such a snake's nest, and fairly complicated, i had to simplify the situation a tad bit much--there's only so much you can mention in 560 words or less.
when i finished writing it, i had everybody around me read it to help me iron out obvious crinkles. then my editor went through it to make sure i wasn't way off, or had left out anything major. after that, i sent it to the person whose skills in writing and editing i trust the most (angela), and got suggestions from her.
did people make suggestions to change things that i was initially pleased with and wanted to keep? certainly. did i huff and fuss and argue for half an hour with every suggestion? no, no i don't think i did. as long as i can see what they mean with their suggestion, and how it would improve my text, why wouldn't i be grateful for it?
"oh, you guys SUCK, you are making my text smoother and easier to read!" .. anyway. i guess what i'm saying is... sometimes, people are twits over nothing. feh!
i'm off to check my mail. i'm supposed to have a new hakan hellstrom waiting for me, from mom. cin cin! �� 3:35 p.m.
