Vote for Leigh!

Thanks to my friends Jack (who nominated me) and Rochelle (who discovered the contest) I am now a finalist for the Houston Most Valuable Blogger in the “Everything Else” category!

I'm a finalist in the Everything Else category!

So, in a strange flashback to fourth grade, I’m going to ask for your vote.  If you know people, see if they’ll vote, too!   You can vote once a day, every day until September 9th!

I’m planning to scope out the competition; I’ll let you know what I discover, or you can check it out for yourself.

A Strange Ad Campaign

I went on a road trip to visit family during part of my time off, and I saw a series of strange billboards in Missouri.  In a pale imitation of my friends at Interpretation by Design, I want to share these signs with you.  They had outdoors-type people (one had a couple of hikers, another had some folks with fishing poles) and the sign said in big letters “We Promise Missouri” followed, in smaller font, with “we won’t move firewood.”

Apparently Illinois needs this message, too. The image is from the listed website.

This seems like a strange message.  My first thought, when I saw one, was that it was a series of “good neighbor” type ads.  You know, don’t move firewood, pack out my trash, or any of a variety of outdoors-related etiquette.  (Although on reflection, moving firewood seems like a low-priority behavior change.)

When I saw a second one with the same wording, I got kind of curious, enough that I started wondering who I could ask about said signs.  On the third one I noticed a website in small (for a billboard) type near the bottom.

I went to this site and discovered that several states have this message.  It is to help prevent the spread of an invasive insect pest called the Emerald Ash Borer.  Invasive species are a big issue for me, so I can appreciate this concept.  It seems that the billboards may be a little off, though.  Somehow the background information for the concept needs to be introduced – perhaps this is something that I didn’t experience (like TV or radio ads) since I don’t live in the affected area.

I doubt that most people are weird enough to look up the website just because of the billboards, though.

Cut to the Conversation

I have one odd reading habit that I developed in childhood which remains with me to this day.  My eye is automatically drawn to the dialogue.

With all of the discussions I’ve had recently about my auditory-learning preference, I’ve noticed it more.  Plus, unlike most of my reading lately, I’m actually in the midst of a novel rather than non-fiction.  (There is less dialogue in a non-fiction book, unsurprisingly.) I must know without realizing it that I miss things, because when I caught myself this afternoon it was on the return to find out what I skipped.  In pondering why I felt the need to read the conversation twice, it hit me: because I didn’t read all the other sentences the first time.  I cut right to the conversation.

No wonder the dialogue is the first thing that I write when working on a novel!

Finding Tiny Errors

There are a few stray commas in Butterflies.  There is also one age-related problem; it should say “not quite eleven” and instead it says “not quite ten.”  I am certain that it doesn’t affect the story for most people, and the commas are really minor, but I’m noticing all the little stuff like that as I am reading it again.

I do love the story, and reacquainting myself with the characters is wonderful.  As this is my fourth time to read it, however, the critical proofreading part of my brain is getting a bit too much say.  I wish it would be quiet; I know that I can update the current version with a new one, but one wrong number and a few stray commas don’t seem like they are worth the effort.

Farmer’s Market Adventure

One pastime that I have come to appreciate more since I began writing is people watching.  I’ve learned on my visit with family that we’re really good at speculating.  “What do you think that KEEPR license plate means?  Is he a zookeeper?  A beekeeper?  Likes to fish?  It could be he thinks a lot of himself, or maybe that’s his last name!”  People watching includes elements of this, along with a simple need to observe other human beings in order to write about other human beings.

Today we went to the farmer’s market.  I am quite pleased with the tomatoes, peaches, locally made cheese and bread that my parents were kind enough to buy for me.  The farmer’s market is also a great place to people watch.  There are business people out on their weekend and moms with their kids.  There were lots and lots of people with dogs, in different shapes and sizes.  (Eli, my dog, did not go, because I know he’s not a farmer’s market-friendly type of dog.)  There were people in modern-day hippy outfits and a college student or two.  We even ran into a couple of people that we knew.

People watching is fun and has definite applications for writing.  Now that I’m getting absorbed with Diaea once again, it will provide some good insight for developing the new Chasing characters.

A Tangent Trip

Ok, today I am not going to write about writing.  (If you’re disappointed, I’ll try to be back to normal tomorrow.)  Today I am going to have a little tangent about something that’s been bothering me more than usual lately.

“Shopping helps you live longer.”  “Smoking takes 10 years off your life.”  “Hot dogs can give you cancer.”

All of these statements are made based on scientific research.  The problem with them is that most people don’t understand the scientific method, or how experiments are done, and so they don’t take them with the necessary tablespoon of salt.  Why, you ask, should you not just believe these things outright?

It is relatively easy to prove a relationship in a study.  Proving causality is much, much harder.

Let’s take the shopping example, since it’s the least straightforward.  They compared people who were living in Taiwan, how old they are, and how much they shopped.  You can prove there is a link between older age and more shopping; fair enough.  But you can’t prove that the reason they lived longer is because they shopped.  There are lots of other variables that are involved in how long a person lives!

How about the smoking one?  Smoking takes 10 years off your life.  Ok, fair enough, but what if the person in question doesn’t smoke but gets hit by a bus?  Or maybe he smokes, but also eats nothing but bacon and mayo for his entire life?  What if our smokers are also generally unhealthy people in other ways?  Can we truly say that the 10 years they lived less is due to the cigarettes alone?  (I don’t condone smoking, by the way, but it’s an easy example.)

Unless you can eliminate all other variables (which is done in a lab but can’t be done in a study of real people) you usually can’t prove causality.

The other thing that is always left out of the media reports but I guarantee is in the study findings are these two words: “on average.” They take all the cases and average them to find their results.  Saying that the human lifespan is 80 is an average; we understand that some people won’t live that long and some live longer.  The same is true with any scientifically based study, but most people don’t realize that.

Ok, thank you for indulging my tangent about proving causality versus proving a relationship; you may now return to your regularly scheduled day.

Reading Butterflies

In order to get back into the right mindset for writing Chasing, I’m reading The Queen’s Butterflies again.

Not counting revisions and reading sections, this will be the fourth time that I’ve read it.

I wonder if I’ll have the same experience this time, where I get to the point where I can’t put it down.  I hope that I enjoy it as much as I have before!

Previous Older Entries