"How can the novel, that tortoise of literary forms, keep pace with the current events hare?"
Mark Swartz of The Village Voice writes about the resurgence of serial novels appearing in popular news outlets such as The New York Times, The London Observer, and Slate. Certainly this format has been alive and well online for some time (notably in fan-fiction venues,) but still the refreshing presence of serialized fiction in major media outlets is hopeful. It speaks well for our powers of concentration! Swartz seems to be implying that the thriller genre is more amenable to this type of publication, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that. A romance can have just as much unresolved tension and anxiety as a murder mystery.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Instant Poetry (no magnetic words necessary)
Click your way over to Ken Gordon's new project, a tech-savvy new concept website: QuickMuse. His recent article published in Poets and Writer's explains his intentions a bit, but I confess the most amusing thing about the article is Andre Codrescu's slam of Gordon's idea as "not even entertaining". But don't listen to Codrescu (at least not in this instance.) Gordon has wisely given up on the competitive idea behind the site, and what remains is an attempt to use the internet's spontaneity to probe the creative process. The stable of writers who have signed on to the project is a star-studded one. Thylias Moss and Paul Muldoon have already posted to the blog and according to Claire Zulkey at mbtoolbox, Robert Pinsky and Marge Piercy are on the way. The playback option is a fun feature: "watch" your favorite poets write poems from the comfort of your own desk chair. The downside: the possibility that the most "entertaining" aspect of the sight is watching Moss make typos.
Which puts me in mind of another techno-wonder for the ever-busy writer: one of my favorite, favorite, favorite authors, Margaret Atwood, has come up with a gadget which is frankly weird. Bethanne Patrick writes about it in her blog: AOL Bookmaven. When a long-distance book-signing is the only option, we can now turn to The Long Pen.
Which puts me in mind of another techno-wonder for the ever-busy writer: one of my favorite, favorite, favorite authors, Margaret Atwood, has come up with a gadget which is frankly weird. Bethanne Patrick writes about it in her blog: AOL Bookmaven. When a long-distance book-signing is the only option, we can now turn to The Long Pen.
Monday, May 22, 2006
The New York Times encourages traitors
More and more, desperation seems to be the modus operandi for the Bush Administration. For six years now they've been pushing the limits of the Constitution to find ways to silence critics, operating under a policy of "shoot now, talk later." The latest targets of these attacks: the press.
According to an April 22, 2006 article by Greg Miller of The L.A. Times, "The CIA ... fired a senior officer for leaking classified information to news organizations, ... that said the agency maintained a secret network of prison facilities overseas for high-ranking terror suspects. ... The termination, announced Friday, marks the latest in a series of high-profile crackdowns on spy agency and Bush administration officials accused of unauthorized disclosures of classified information."
But who's to say that information which is classified is so designated because it is truly crucial to national security? Does the classification system not also have the advantage of hiding the less palatable elements of governmental policy from both Americans and the international community? According to Miller, "Disclosures about that program and other operations in recent months, U.S. intelligence officials said, have damaged the United States' ability to win cooperation from European countries and other allies in the fight against terrorism." To follow this logic, flagging international support (which was never all that strong to begin with) is not the fault of the administration and its illegal actions, but instead of those who publicly discuss those policies.
Does that mean that leaking classified info to the American press is tantamount to traitorous activity? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems to think so. CIA operatives sign non-disclosure agreements in which they swear their secrecy before they are privy to classified information. Thus, leaking information is a punishable offence. But reporters make no such pledges. Nonetheless, in today's New York Times, reporter Adam Liptak writes that Gonzales said "The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information."
Liptak continues, "Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and 'communications intelligence activities.' "
With the recent newspaper exposure of the NSA's phone tapping program and the creation of a databank of millions of American's daily phone calls, some politicians are pointing at reporters as traitors as well. In Miller's article, Sen. Pat Roberts is quoted as saying, "At a time in which intelligence is more important than ever, leaks have hindered our efforts in the war against Al Qaeda, those guilty of improperly disclosing classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
None of these programs -- the prisons, the phone tapping, the data base -- can unreservedly be called legal. And yet it is the reporters, who have a moral imperative to share crucial information with their American readership, who now have to watch their backs. At the same time, in its leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame, for example, the administration has demonstrated its willingness to employ press leaks to its own advantage.
No writer, whether a news reporter or otherwise, should ignore this dangerous trend. By hunting down writers who deliever the news whether it be flattering or unflattering, the administration asks the American people to choose willful ignorance over their First Amendment rights. Perhaps some are ready to make that sacrifice, but we shouldn't be.
According to an April 22, 2006 article by Greg Miller of The L.A. Times, "The CIA ... fired a senior officer for leaking classified information to news organizations, ... that said the agency maintained a secret network of prison facilities overseas for high-ranking terror suspects. ... The termination, announced Friday, marks the latest in a series of high-profile crackdowns on spy agency and Bush administration officials accused of unauthorized disclosures of classified information."
But who's to say that information which is classified is so designated because it is truly crucial to national security? Does the classification system not also have the advantage of hiding the less palatable elements of governmental policy from both Americans and the international community? According to Miller, "Disclosures about that program and other operations in recent months, U.S. intelligence officials said, have damaged the United States' ability to win cooperation from European countries and other allies in the fight against terrorism." To follow this logic, flagging international support (which was never all that strong to begin with) is not the fault of the administration and its illegal actions, but instead of those who publicly discuss those policies.
Does that mean that leaking classified info to the American press is tantamount to traitorous activity? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems to think so. CIA operatives sign non-disclosure agreements in which they swear their secrecy before they are privy to classified information. Thus, leaking information is a punishable offence. But reporters make no such pledges. Nonetheless, in today's New York Times, reporter Adam Liptak writes that Gonzales said "The government has the legal authority to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information."
Liptak continues, "Though he did not name the statutes that might allow such prosecutions, Mr. Gonzales was apparently referring to espionage laws that in some circumstances forbid the possession and publication of information concerning the national defense, government codes and 'communications intelligence activities.' "
With the recent newspaper exposure of the NSA's phone tapping program and the creation of a databank of millions of American's daily phone calls, some politicians are pointing at reporters as traitors as well. In Miller's article, Sen. Pat Roberts is quoted as saying, "At a time in which intelligence is more important than ever, leaks have hindered our efforts in the war against Al Qaeda, those guilty of improperly disclosing classified information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
None of these programs -- the prisons, the phone tapping, the data base -- can unreservedly be called legal. And yet it is the reporters, who have a moral imperative to share crucial information with their American readership, who now have to watch their backs. At the same time, in its leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame, for example, the administration has demonstrated its willingness to employ press leaks to its own advantage.
No writer, whether a news reporter or otherwise, should ignore this dangerous trend. By hunting down writers who deliever the news whether it be flattering or unflattering, the administration asks the American people to choose willful ignorance over their First Amendment rights. Perhaps some are ready to make that sacrifice, but we shouldn't be.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Welcome!
Welcome to Inky Pixels. This blog is intended to be an unapologetic look at the writing life and all it's elements: writing, publishing, marketing and news. I welcome your input and suggestions. --Darlene Cohn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
