Review of "On Writing Well"

Writing, whether we like it or not, is the central form of communication for the modern world. Everything starts in writing; movies begin as screenplays, classes are based on written instruction and speeches start off as lecture notes. The Internet–the global communication network–is mostly in writing. With such a large role in our society, good writing is vital for a successful career in most fields.

Good writing isn’t something you’re born with. You get it from lots of practice, and lots of reading on how to write. Whether you agree with everything a “How To” book tells you on writing–or nothing at all–it still shows you the way one successful writer writes.

The reason I open with this statement is that if you’re anything like me, you’re probably too proud to think your writing needs much improvement, if any. I’m not trying to sound arrogant; it’s just that I have been writing for many years and fancy myself pretty good at it. But even the self-proclaimed good writers can improve on their technique.

On Writing Well is a great resource for a student in pursuit of any degree. It’s not just for students, either. Even those professionals who have already landed their careers can benefit from the advice William Zinsser gives. It’s not even a dry book–like so many publications on writing out there. The author does a nice job of making an instruction book fun and interesting. He uses humor and colorful stories to get a lot of his points across.

In On Writing Well, Mr. Zinsser breaks writing down into four different parts, split into 25 techniques and subjects. He first discusses the backbone of writing: style, the audience, words, usage, etc. Then he talks about the project you’re writing as a whole and unifying different pieces into one masterful product. He then discusses the different avenues of nonfiction: literature, interviews, travel, science and technology and sports, to name a few. Finally, he ends his work with attitudes–the attitude you’re implying in your writing, to be exact.

When writing for a particular audience, Mr. Zinsser reminds you to tailor your work to that audience. This might sound simple; however, as Mr. Zinsser points out, if your writing is boring, confusing or just plain sloppy, your readers will quickly lose interest. Throughout the book he discusses these techniques and gives the reader excerpts from actual writers’ work so he or she gets an example of what he’s talking about in his instruction.

William Zinsser, working.

Mr. Zinsser warns against overusing exclamation points (I rarely use them outside of texting). He discourages fragment and run-on sentences. He reminds us when to use “that” verses “which.” I found that bit, “If your sentence needs a comma to achieve its precise meaning, it probably needs ‘which’” particularly helpful. And on top of this, he also condones the use of conjunctions at the beginning of sentences–which justifies my liberal use of at the beginning of sentences in this review.

I have experience in writing about science, but writing about sports has always been a weak point for me. Taking interviews has always been something I’ve wanted to do, but never known how. He gives advice on writing memoirs, as well. I have been interested in writing a memoir for a while, so this is definitely an appealing part of the book for me.

Even though I didn’t agree with everything he said in his book (an example of this is his refusal of giving up the sexist pronoun, he), I still got a lot out of reading it. If you are a professional writer, novice writer or someone who only writes to meet quotas, On Writing Well is an informative piece that helps fine-tune your skills at writing. Mr. Zinsser does his best to cover every aspect of writing, whereas most other writing books cover one topic, or genre. I definitely recommend finding a place in your bookshelf for this reference book.

I bought my paperback copy in the local Barnes & Noble for $9.60. If you get it off Amazon.com it’s a couple dollars cheaper. You can also get it from Amazon.com in a hard cover for about $18. If you like to snuggle up to your Kindle or Nook when you read, alas, this book has no digital format.

The Facebook Epidemic

I remember as a kid there were only three ways of keeping in touch with friends and family: through postage mail, by calling, or by visiting that person. All these methods took some kind of real effort, too. To write a letter, for example, you had to sit down and write it, put it in an envelope, give it a destination to go to, and throw a stamp on it. On top of all that, you had to give the letter to the post office so your friend can actually receive it, in about two weeks. Written “snail mail” was probably the most cumbersome way of keeping correspondence. But once the letter reached your friend, having been hand written, it had your presence imprinted into it. The receiver knew that that piece of paper was in your hands shortly before it came into hers.

Enter, the digital age: we don’t have time to put our hearts into communication. The demise of snail mail came with the invention of email. Snail mail’s too slow. Now you can create a message in five minutes, throw in a shorthand message, and send it to however many people you want–for free. Why would you want to spend 40 minutes doing the same thing, and then pay a postage carrier to send it?

In the digital age, calling is becoming obsolete, too. Who needs to call when you can text? Calling can be nerve wrecking; texting is much less invasive. You don’t have to keep focused on the conversation with texting, either. When calling someone, you’re pretty much devoting your time to that person.

How is that a bad thing? It’s not if you were accustomed to the pretexting days and can still call the people you truly care about, instead of relying solely on texting. But if you’re a generation Y kid and texting is all you know, then you’re not going to revert to calling except in rare circumstances. This will result in poor social skills among our children, and even worse social skills among our children’s children. Our focus is being destroyed because we're spending every waking hour on digital devices.

Then there are the social networks, like Facebook and Twitter. Facebook is a website where you can create a profile for yourself and keep in touch with all your friends. But how many people really have a thousand friends? The biggest problem with Facebook is it allows you to share all the intricate details of your life (probably too many details), while keeping you at a safe distance from the rest of the world. After all, who in their right minds would sit in a room full of people and shout out about the toenail fungus that just won’t go away? After reading somebody’s profile on Facebook, there really isn’t anything left to talk to that person about, except maybe about reading that person’s profile on Facebook.

Twitter is just an excuse to constantly talk about yourself. Again, after you read a person’s Twitter, you’re extremely limited on your conversation topics when you actually see your friend in person. Unfortunately, this removes the necessity of people interacting face-to-face. We’ll soon see people sitting in a room together, talking via text messages on their phones­–­­not because the unlimited data plan has them excited, but because they are uncomfortable with human exposure and all they know is T9.

The Future of a Legend

I will admit, I never was much of an Indianapolis Colts fan–but I’m even less of one now that Peyton Manning was released. Manning was the sole reason the Colts were anything. He utilized his offense to get maximum results for the tools he had and he manipulated the opponent’s defense to give him what he wanted. For a lot of people, football is just a sport. To Peyton Manning, it’s a science. He will be sorely missed by Indianapolis.

But can you really blame Owner and CEO Jim Irsay for canning Manning? It was either that or pay him the $28 million roster bonus at the beginning of the season. And we don’t even know if Manning is truly back to his old self. The Colts couldn’t possibly afford to keep paying a still questionable Manning the big bucks and find a suitable replacement in this year’s draft. Peyton Manning settled in nicely in Indianapolis after 14 years of football, but it’s now time to move on to greener pastures.

Will he find those pastures in the mountains of Denver? Under Tim Tebow, last year’s offense was questionable. He had talent in his wide receivers, but he couldn’t quite get the ball to them. He preferred the ground and pound strategy and, believe it or not, was actually able to win quite a few games that way.

If Peyton Manning can throw like he used to there is no question in my mind that the Broncos will come away from this season victorious, even with the second toughest regular season schedule. The only thing I would be worried most about is Manning’s defense, which gave away 5,725 yards last season (it was actually better than the Colts, at 5,935).

The biggest question in regard to Manning's return to football is his neck: is it safe for him to play? Having the vertebrae in his neck fused together makes for an apparent soft target. That was probably the leading factor in the Colts' release of him. I wouldn't be too worried about Manning re-injuring himself, though. It's obvious that the defense has to get to him in order to hurt him. Manning has been in football for 14 years. He knows he doesn't have to do all the moves to make the big bucks in the NFL. As long as his line holds up, I don't see why manning should have too much of a chance of re-injuring his neck.

In my opinion, the only hurdle Manning is going to have to overcome is getting used to the thin air in Denver. Coming from Indianapolis to Denver, he’s going to have to do a lot of cardio training to acclimate himself to the much higher altitude. With the former at 845 ft above sea level and the latter at 5,470, come the first home game he’ll be sucking wind. The obvious advantage of that is he will have Godlike cardio at his away games where he’s closer to sea level.

All in all, I’m a little interested in seeing how next season will turn out. Peyton Manning is undoubtedly an all-star quarterback. My prediction is he will not disappoint.

Rise of the Little Guys

I wouldn’t consider myself a sports fanatic; however, I enjoy watching football from time to time–namely, the Missouri Tigers. Mizzou is not the greatest team in college football, especially now that they don’t have a really good quarterback, and even more so once they move to the SEC. Like any sports fan, I have my dreams of seeing my team go to the BCS championship. More likely than not, however, the end of the season greets me with disappointment and I tuck away my Mizzou car flags behind a stack of tools in my garage until next year.

But, before I count the whole year as a loss, I take a glance at how we’re doing in basketball. Usually, how this goes is after we have an unfulfilling football season I pull up ESPN to see how college basketball is going. Usually, I see a God-awful win/loss column, and turn off the TV and wait to see how next year’s football is going to go. I don’t enjoy watching basketball, especially if my team is losing.

When I looked up Mizzou basketball this year, what I saw was quite unusual: Missouri was 7-0 and ranked #10. Missouri was ranked! After an irksome 8-5 football season, where Mizzou did little more than fall short, it looked like basketball was going to be this institution’s redemption.

Missouri wasn’t expected to amount to anything in basketball this year because of their four-guard structure. Also, very few of the players were very tall, by basketball standards. The reason they were so successful wasn’t because they had a playmaker carrying them throughout the season, like you see in so many teams in college basketball, but because they worked together as a team. Frank Haith came into this organization and took the same players that had a 23-11 season last year, and transformed them into one of the most dangerous teams in the NCAA. In this team, the ball didn’t go to a playmaker; it went to the open man. The results where staggering. Missouri ended the season 30-4 overall, losing only to conference rivals. Their offense averaged 6^th overall, with 80.3 points per game. They lost the Big 12 regular season championship (the only championship that doesn’t matter) to Kansas, but dominated their opponents during the Big 12’s post-season championship.

By the end of the season I was waging bets with friends. I just knew they were making it to the final four–if not the National Championship. After all, a team would have to score 80 points against Missouri in order to beat them. Unfortunately, a team did just that–86 points to be exact­–in the first round of March Madness. The score was 84 to 86. The team was Norfolk State–some no name 15th seed. And again, I have to tuck away my car flags and wait until next year.

Ultimately, though, this year has taught me so much about the power of teamwork. To take a team that was supposed to suck, changing nothing about the players but how they interact as a whole, Frank Haith created, without a doubt, the most cooperative team in this year’s basketball. He thereby created the most dangerous little-man offense in the NCAA. Even though it would have been nice to see my team in the National Championship, leaving the Big 12 as conference champions is enough for me.

A Piece of Italy

Tucked away on the east side of South Avenue, in downtown Springfield, Bruno's is a traditional-style Italian restaurant. Upon first walking in, the scenery almost looks like a piece of Italy–or, what I would expect Italy to look like, having never been there. The ceiling is raised, coated with Renaissance-style paintings, and is draped with vines–but alas, those vines are all plastic (real vines would have probably been too hard to maintain and with them hanging overhead, would have dropped dead leaves into customers’ food). The counters and tables are all varnished. The aroma of the building hits me as I walk through the door: a sweet herbal scent.

As soon as I enter a waitress greets me, asks how many people are with me and if I would like a window table, or if I would like a table in the middle of the room.

“A window table is fine,” I say. I give the place a quick onceover. The tables are all set with wine glasses and silverware wrapped in cloth napkins. The walls are all painted dark green, yellow and red. There also appears to be a wine bar upstairs, but I didn’t take the time to visit it.

“You have a choice between two tables,” she says, gesturing toward the only two window tables in the restaurant, both vacant at this moment.

I pick one and sit down. When my friend arrives we examine the silverware, which is real silver, and read over the menu. To give the place a legitimate Italian feel, all the items on the menu are presented in Italian. For all of us illiterate in the Italian language, the English translation is also on the menu, under the Italian print.

For the dinner menu, the main course starts at $11.90, and only goes up from there. The most expensive thing I could find was the $24.90 Filetto di Manzo ai Funghi Porcini (beef tenderloin). The most expensive pasta dish, at $17.50, was the Shrimp Linguine. The appetizers cost from $3.90 (garlic bread) to $10.90 (the imported Parma ham). The deserts, which vary day to day, are all $6.00. Because the deserts are so varied, Bruno’s doesn’t have a written menu for them. Instead, the server announces that day’s desert menu to you at your inquiry (ours is kind enough to offer to write the desert menu down on the back of a to-go lunch menu, which we accept).

I have a glass of lemonade, which is $1.90, the same price as all other drinks. Feeling conservative, I decide to order the Spaghetti al Pomodoro (spaghetti with tomato sauce). I also choose an appetizer on the cheap side, and order the Zuppa del Giorno (soup of the day), which is $4.95. Today’s soup is minestrone (mi-nə-ˈstrō-nē).

I sense a familiar smell when the waitress brings the minestrone to my table; its aroma reminds me of alphabet soup. When I inform the waitress of my finding, she jokes that I’d figured out their secret. “We try to pick out all the letters before we bring it out to the table,” she says. “Maybe if you look hard enough you’ll find an ‘O’ in there somewhere.”

Though its smell resembles alphabet soup, the taste is hardly close. It’s a thick brown broth, filled with beans and a bit of herbs floating in the top of it. I also notice the lemonade is not Minute Maid, which is a good thing. I like a little originality in my food if I pay the big bucks for it (and yes, I consider a $1.90 lemonade high dollar).

I barely have enough time to finish my soup before the main course arrives. I’m sure the turnaround for orders drags a bit more during really busy occasions, such as a weekend, but I can always appreciate a quick presentation of my food. The spaghetti is good; it doesn’t have that mass-processed look that you get in other restaurants. It actually appears to have had real sweat put into it–although, you don’t taste the sweat.

When it comes time for desert, I decide to have the chocolate moose pie. They don’t use an Italian name for the deserts, because they are not on a fixed menu and the employees are American and don’t speak Italian for real. Nonetheless, the cake is very delicious and extremely filling.

With the drink, appetizer, main course and desert, my meal at Bruno’s rang up a grand total of $26.75. This is a lot for one person, but if you want to take someone on a fancy dinner to impress him/her, this is a good spot for it. I do want to mention that, though our waitress was very careful to ensure all our needs were met through most of the dinner, there was a period of time toward the middle where she could not be found. When a group of people showed up at the door, she appeared briefly to seat them, then disappeared again for a few minutes. Other than that, she was very considerate and helpful.

If you want to try their food but don’t want to shell out a lot of money go during lunchtime, when their food costs about half as much as their dinner menu. Their lunch appetizers range from $3.70 for the garlic bread, to $6.75 for the spinach and artichoke dip. Their lunch pastas range from $8.20 to $9.45 and the most expensive item on the lunch menu is their chicken tenders, which is $9.55. I’ll also note that their lunch menu is written in English, and not Italian. They must not be trying to impress anyone during the daytime.

All jokes aside, this is a very eloquent restaurant that seems to bring a little piece of Italy to downtown Springfield. I will keep this place in mind anytime I want to go somewhere fancy, but I don’t see myself eating here often because of the prices. Bruno's is located three blocks south of the square, on South Avenue, close to Pershing Street. Their hours are Monday through Thursday, 11 am to 10 pm, and Friday through Saturday, 11 am to 11 pm.

Dinner or a Movie?

Dinner and a movie–the common cliché. It’s what a lot of people think of when the word “date” is mentioned. But is that necessarily the way to go? We’ve all heard of the expression, “Tried and true,” but does that really apply to dating? I’m no Dr. Phil, and I’m not trying to lay down the law in dating, but I have my own philosophies and practices I’d like to share:

First, I refrain from taking someone to a movie as a date. I suggest you do the same, too–especially on the first date. The reason is obvious: it’s dark, quiet and, if you don’t know the other person, awkward. If you’re not sure what kind of activities would make a good date, or you are broke, you can’t go wrong with just dinner; everyone likes to eat, and a quiet scenery will give a couple a chance to interact and get to know one another. This is vital for a first date, because you are basically two strangers and need time and communication to breech that comfort zone. 

Keep it simple. The purpose of a date is to get to know one another.

I always try to keep the first date simple. I avoid doing things like hiking or golfing because I’m not sure the other person likes doing those things. Going to a theme park would be extremely difficult to follow on the second date and getting drunk at a bar would be just a horrible idea to establish a first impression. A dinner at a quiet restaurant is the best way to go.

It's not what you're doing on a date, but who you're doing it with.

In reality, the best dates we remember are those we had with people that were fun and engaging–not the dates that were expensive and flamboyant. I like to just be myself. If the other person doesn’t like me in my own colors, the first date is the best time to figure that out.

I also don’t usually buy the girl dinner on the first date. I know that goes against tradition, but at this point I don’t know for sure if there is going to even be a second date. Why would I waste money like that on someone I will never see again? I’m not trying to encourage stuck-up behavior, but that’s just my point of view. I do, however, treat the girl to the second or third dinner, being more confident that I am not wasting my money, or time.

Beer or Wine?

For most of my adult life I have considered myself a beer drinking man–namely, Bud Light (as you may have guessed from my recent critique of the new Bud Light Platinum). Recently, however, I have found myself growing a liking to wine. To say that beer and wine have a lot in common would be like saying Webster Dictionary and Urban Dictionary are one and the same. Let’s make a quick comparison of the two beverages:

Alcohol Content: On average, beer has an alcohol content of 4-6% by volume; whereas, wine usually ranges from 10.7-12.4%. The light beers are usually the beverages around 4% alcohol and the darker beers come in at 5-6%. In wine, it’s a little bit more complex. White wine, as a general rule, has a lower alcohol content than red wine. The alcohol content is also dependent on how dry the wine is (dry means bitter). I personally drink wine for the taste and its contribution to a meal. Thus, I prefer the sweeter, but soberer wines to the drier, difficult to ingest wines. There is one more twist to the alcohol content of wine: ice wine. It is frozen halfway through distilment, not only causing a sweeter than normal taste, but also elevating the alcohol content, which ranks at about 12.4%. If you really want to get crazy, there’s a special red wine, known as Port Wine. At 20%, its alcohol content is comparable to that of liquor.

Flavor: For those of you who have never had beer, you’re not really missing out on a whole lot when it comes to flavor. It’s an acquired taste; and how well it goes down depends on its overall intensity. Darker beers tend to pack more of a punch, and have a bitterer aftertaste. Beer is never really sweet; it goes from weak flavor (light beer) to strong flavor (dark beer). German beers are closest to what would be considered a sweet beer (German beer is pretty awesome). Wine, on the other hand, can be either very sweet and delicious, or extremely dry and often, in my opinion, foul tasting. Chardonnay is a dry, red wine. If you think beer is an acquired taste, have a bottle of cheap chardonnay. White wine, as a general rule, is sweeter than red wine. There are exceptions to this rule, just as there were exceptions to the alcohol content rule. Missouri red wine, for example, is usually very sweet because of the concord grapes used to make it.

Social Junctions: Wine is most famous for its place in upper-class society and romantic dinners. Beer, on the other hand, is most infamous for binge-drinking youth and out of control parties. Though beer’s image may be tainted, there is nothing wrong with drinking a couple brewskies during a football game–wine just wouldn’t feel right.

Health Hazards: Alcohol is a poison, which cannot be metabolized by the body. In order for your body to get rid of it, the liver breaks it down. Not only can it damage and destroy the liver if you excessively drink alcohol, but it can also damage other cells in the body–including brain cells. This is one of the reasons (among several) why binge drinking is strongly discouraged.

Health Benefits: Recent studies suggest drinking one to two 12oz glasses a day of either wine or beer–alcohol namely–can lower your risk of heart disease. Alcohol (in moderation) increases the amount of HDL (good cholesterol) in your blood stream, and also seems to benefit the lining of blood vessels, making them less likely to form clots. No clots means no stroke. I recall the last time I had my cholesterol checked my HDL was low. Little did I know I wasn’t drinking enough beer/wine.

Movie Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

We begin in a dark room illuminated by a single, dim light. An old man crouches behind what appears to be either a desk or a small table. A younger man sits in front and to the left of the desk. Stacks of files and papers surround the old man. The desk is heavily cluttered. Ashtrays over-flow with mashed down cigarettes.

“Trust no one, Jim,” the old man says. “Especially not in the main stream.” In front of him is a chessboard. The pieces have pictures of five faces taped to them. He aligns the pieces at the front of the desk. “There’s a rotten apple, Jim, and we have to find it.”

The five faces are those of top agents in MI6 (the CIA for Great Brittan), also known as the Circus. The old man is Control (John Hurt), and he believes one of these five is a mole for the Russians. This belief has become an obsession. An obsession that Control believes he is at the verge of resolving. He secretly sends Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) to Hungry in hopes that the final piece to his troubling puzzle is there.

Unfortunately, the mission Control sends Prideaux on is botched, forcing Control to retire and take his right-hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), with him. The internal investigation is forgotten until Minister Lacon (Simon McBurney) is approached by an AWOL spy about a mole at the top of Circus. Sadly, by this point Control has passed away, and the knowledge he has goes along with him. In desperation, Lacon decides to bring Smiley out of retirement to lead a team to spy on the spies in MI6.

A question lingered in my mind as I watched this film: is it based on a true story? Only after the film was over and the credits began without noting any such real-world events did I realize the answer to my question. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (127 minutes) is set in 1973, at the peak of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and is an impressive portrayal of the same-named novel by John le Carré.

The reason I wondered if it were based on a true story is because of the realism. These appeared to be real agents, in a real organization, following real-world laws of physics. Other spy movies tend to have completely fake and unrealistic plots with the carved-chin cool and confidant heartthrob who is mankind’s only hope for survival. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has no such heartthrob. The majority of the agents portrayed in this film are rather old and those that are young are the agency’s scalp hunters and pawns.

The agency is presented realistically. The women in the film only work secretary positions and are frequently flirted with by the gentlemen in the film. This is a very probable environment in 1973. The dim light and smoky environment give the film a dark atmosphere.

Tinker Tailor Solder Spy is a brilliant orchestration of espionage, betrayal and treason of the highest degree. It also accounts affairs and forbidden love, as well as the twisted emotions that result. This is a world where no one trusts anyone, and tensions are always on edge. Even though this is a spy movie, the plot is very thick. This is one of those movies you have to watch twice in order to fully understand and appreciate. The violence is brutal in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. In one scene, a woman gets shot in the head while nursing her infant. In another, a spy witnesses domestic abuse while observing a Russian agent.

The only gripe I would really have is the flashbacks. They occur in this movie without warning. It is very easy to think you’re watching the current time when it is actually from the past. This can throw you off and confuse you while trying to follow the plot. As said earlier, this is a movie you’ll probably need to see twice. But it is definitely worth the second view.

I thoroughly enjoyed the portrayal of George Smiley by Gary Oldman. The closed off manner of his interactions told of a man who had endured countless years of pain. He only speaks when he has to, and when he does it’s powerful.

The screenplay, written by Bridget O’Conner and Peter Straughan, is skillfully crafted. O’Conner actually passed away from cancer before the movie went into production. A dedication is made to her at the end of the film, before the credits. The director, Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) does an outstanding job of bringing the smoke-clouded and checker-walled world of the Circus to life.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” is rated R (due to violence, language and sexuality).