Live Nude Girls

Live Nude Girls Venn

There’s something powerful about the number “3″. As writers, we are drawn to threes because they give us a sense of completeness. Past-Present-Future. Hook-Line-Sinker. Beginning-Middle-End.

Sometimes we choose to go the route of dualities. Good-Evil. Light-Dark. But they don’t feel the same.

Simple writing is best, but there are times when you can simplify too far.  Someone once said (and my Googling fails me, for reasons you’ll understand) that it takes three words at minimum to describe something. Anything less, and you’re falling short, or leaving ambiguity. The example given was a neon sign at Times Square years ago, promising Live Nude Girls.

Live Nude Girls Venn

Somehow, altering any one of those three words changes the complexion of the situation, in a decidedly more comical, more dark, or less sexist way. One word can change quite a bit.

Now, there is a picture of that classic sign somewhere on the internet. iStockphoto has it, and I’ll just link to it here. I won’t post it, because, well… I’m cheap. And I can’t find an alternative, because as you can imagine, “Live Nude Girls Sign” generates 127,000 hits on Google Images. “Live Nude Girls Neon” fetches 26,500 candidates, and the combination of “Live Nude Girls Neon Sign” only shaves it down to 21,400. And let me tell you, I just can’t bring myself to wade through that many pictures. I pondered the sacrifice, but alas…

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, writing, rule of threes, communication, venn[/tags]

Getting Around

Sitemeter

“I’ve been everywhere, man.”

Johnny Cash

There are times that I just don’t know how to count.

My little Feedburner counter says there are some 61 people or so who care enough about what I have to say that they want it pushed to them. (Or they care so little about it they don’t want to expend the energy to come here to see it.)

Yet, when I look at where these readers are, and how they get here, it’s a little mind-boggling: [Read more...]

Literally

TV Icon

(tip of the hat to Ariel Waldman, from Shake Well Before Use.)

This is literally the last post I will write. Until the next one. Literally.

For years, I have joked about the broadcast news definition of “literally.” When you hear that word, what the reporter or anchor is really communicating is:

“Hello, we thank you for listening and paying attention, but for the benefit of all our other audience members who might not take the time to key in on important details, we’d like to offer the following reminder: before the last sentence or so disappears forever out the sieve of your short-term memory, please reflect upon the care and craft of said sentence construction. You may have noticed a subtle inflection that appeared out of place, and here is the explanation.

You see, language is a difficult proposition. Words that appear to have one inherent meaning might also carry a completely different thought or essence once placed in a parallel context. Upon those occasions where the aforementioned word might fulfill the necessary requirements for meaning upon different planes of context, we reserve the right to note that occurrence. While some of these double-meanings are strictly accidental, or the result of some regional differences in casual language, others are given a “Freudian” implication, as though there were subconscious desire attempting to surface from suppression.

TV IconBecause we are broadcasters, our time is very precious, and we would hate for you to spend the energy to ponder whether our use of a double-entendre was indicative of happenstance or an actual sublimated thought. To prevent misunderstandings such as this in the future, we have instituted the following convention: immediately after any such clever turn of phrase, no matter how simple or non-clever, we will point out that it was in fact deliberate by waiting for a semi-humorous pause, then boldly adding ‘LITERALLY!’ It should be noted that all words in the teleprompter are capitalized, and the proper punctuation involves a leading ellipsis… LITERALLY!

If the resulting realization of our attempt at cleverness results in your greater appreciation for our skills as communications professionals, then consider yourself an insider to our great fraternity of brevity and charm. If, however, you view the occasion as nothing more than a trite pun – well, then an intern wrote it. LITERALLY.”

As far as I know, no one is cataloging the vast litany of ‘literal sins’ that are certainly hiding on YouTube or Google Video, but for those of you looking for more mainstream abuses of the word, Ariel says this is the most brilliant weblog she’s seen today.

Literally.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, language, broadcast news, television news, Ariel Waldman, communication[/tags]

Neutral Site

“Blogging is the new beige: a meaningless word that can complement the whole spectrum, from Noble Meritocracy to Malignant Narcissism.”

- Ike Pigott

Granular Thinking

I’m almost finished with the theme for this week – just one more concept to flesh out.

Too often we simplify to an extent that’s beyond the reach of the supporting reality. It’s a normal part of the process of assimilating what we can from our environment. We don’t remember every stark detail of every conversation (unless we are my wife, and I am saying something that has the potential to be hugely embarrassing when recalled in 20 months or so.) We don’t memorize every rock along the side of the road. We do tend to watch for patterns that interest us, or are at odds with entropy. “Rocks don’t just naturally trace the outline of an arrow on the ground” we say to ourselves, and we impart some meaning or message from that.

This is the process of encoding – packing in the essential information in as few memory chunks as possible. If there is a need for us to remember things in more detail, we can focus and do so.

The two errors we have in encoding are encoding too much (like when I remember that my wife looked happy on Wednesday, but forgot the list of things she wanted for her birthday); and encoding too little (remembering to packs five shirts, five pants, and no socks – because we weren’t thinking of “full outfits.”) It’s a delicate dance between the two. If you never end up over-encoding, then maybe you’re remembering too many facts and letting some slip by. Or more importantly, maybe you’re missing the big picture entirely. If you always over-encode, you are making decisions today about the things you will never ever need to remember again. [Read more...]

A Weak Me Too

Support the Municipality

I’ve been involved in online forums for years now. There’s one in particular where I have invested a great deal of time, where I recently crossed over the 5,000 post threshold. There’s a certain level of respect for seniority that is attached to longevity, but my reason for sticking around was more substantive. Three-and-a-half years out of the television business, I still go back occasionally – I like that it is a meritocracy.

When I was younger (and in that industry,) I had some thoughts and theories about how certain things worked and could be better. Like the vast majority of users, I had an online handle. The pseudo-anonymity gave us the freedom to say things that were politically incorrect without fear that search engines would attach our professional journalistic identities with ideas that might reveal bias. RoyalsBut it also fostered meritocracy – that one advanced in the pecking order by virtue of the power of his/her ideas. Had it been a truly transparent environment, many good ideas would have been bullied off the board. After all, how could a cub reporter in Billings possibly be right when compared to a reporter from Chicago? Obviously the one in the large market must be right… right? (Same holds true for blogs and rankings.)

Yes, anonymity was often a screen that allowed for bad behavior. In the midst of a wave of online congratulations about the birth of my daughter, one wiseacre openly compared her to a pile of… you get the point.

I’ve been on forums where there is anonymity, and I’ve been on forums that are wide-open. I’ve been a part of giant communities, and small intimate ones. I have a good understanding of the dynamics involved. And I am concerned… [Read more...]

Syntext

I love figuring out how we figure things out. That’s the joy of having a five-year-old… you get to see everything through a pair of unjaded eyes. But every so often, you get a chance to revisit something with a wiser brain than you had before.

The example that comes to mind is the syntax we use in written communication to emphasize a point. We have bold and italics and underlines. In a past age, we had ALL CAPS. AND WE HAVE NET-ETIQUETTE THAT FROWNS ON SUCH. The latter example aside, we code those words as <strong>bold</strong> and <em>italics</em> and <u>underlines</u>. Or we have advanced editors do the coding for us.

What has set us back is the proliferation of instant messages, SMS on the cell, and blog comments where you are limited in your coding. How do you go about specifying your emphasis in plain text?

Ask Travis Bickle:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Anyway, the emphasis is important, even if it gets lost in written communication. That’s why – in my humble opinion – so many of us have improvised with our own syntax for expression. But how do we code the informal information so it can be understood without a key? [Read more...]