We're not all winners

While '5-star' may be seen as an indication of achievement  (think 5-star generals, and 5 star restaurants), if we make everything 5-star, stars quickly become meaningless.

The other day, I was on my iPad, browsing through the app store.  Yes, I already have a gazillion apps, but they're coming out with new apps every day... and sometimes they're bigger, or better, or cheaper.

But sometimes, they're not.

So as I look through the available apps, if I see one that seems interesting, I take a look at the reviews.  One or two stars --  I move on.  If an app has 4 or 5 stars, it's worth a further look, and I read the reviews.  After all, it's always a good idea to hear from someone who's used a product you're considering.

So I was very disappointed when I come across a bunch of apps that seemed of interest, but when I started reading some of the reviews... reviews where people had given the app 3 or 4 stars ..  people were using words like 'mediocre', 'poor',  and 'buggy'.  Huh??
So I looked for some standard, relative to the rating of apps, and couldn't find anything.  But even so . why would you give 3 stars to something you weren't happy with?
This isn't 3 stars out of 100, or even 3 stars out of 50, it's 3 stars out of 5.... that's more than 50%.
Those three stars just became meaningless.

Reminds me of one of my pet peeves.  When I was in school, we had field day  (kind of like a mini-Olympics, for each grade level), and spelling bees, and science fairs.  As I moved on to junior high and high school, we continued to have things like science fairs, and we had debate contests, and we elected class officers.  And at each of those events, a few people won, and some came in second, or third, and some won nothing at all.  You might even say they lost.  And that was ok.  Oh sure, those who lost were disappointed, and even some of those who came in second or third, were disappointed.  And I'll be honest, sometimes, people were so disappointed, that they cried.  But everyone survived, and moved on.

Today, there seems to be a focus in school on making sure that 'everyone is a winner'.  Everybody walks away with a ribbon... every body.  If awards are handed out, every student gets at least one award.  What does this accomplish?  I understand that proponents of this approach believe that this builds self-esteem in young people.  But this is a short-sighted view.  I'd suggest that, in fact, what this approach does is diminish the importance of winning, takes away any incentive to do well, and does an extremely poor job of preparing these children for life in the real world.  If children are led to believe that everyone wins, every time ...  what happens when they get out in the real world?  Because, in the real world, there's no question that there are winners, and there are non-winners.  In the real world, not everyone gets the job they applied for, not everyone gets the raise that they asked for, not everyone wins.

Trying your best, doesn't make you the best.  And that's another thing.  If anyone can get a ribbon or award, if even mediocre and poor receives 3 stars, if everyone is a winner, there's no longer any incentive or motivation to even try your best.

Even as adults who grew up in the 'winners and losers' age, we're disappointed today when we don't win, when we don't get what we wanted, when we don't get what we think we're entitled to.  But at least we've been prepared.  Children who never lose, who never have the opportunity to lose... are not prepared for the real world.  And these are the same children who now award 3 stars out of 5  to something they don't like.  It's time to return to reality.

My reality???   I hear the kettle whistling, and I'm ready for another cup of tea.

Scrivener - you don't have to eat everything on your plate

I'm a huge fan of Scrivener.  This wonderful writing software works very well on both the Mac and Windows platforms...  and makes the process of writing much simpler, than trying to use Word/Word Perfect/Google Docs.  Scrivener allows you to bounce here and there, write the end, first,  write the middle and then move it to the beginning, take a section and split it into three separate parts in different locations, and have all of your research right there at your fingertips and available in a split-screen view with your draft.

At least, that's how I use it.

So far, if I think of something I wish my writing software did... I poke around, and sure enough, Scrivener does it for me.   I know there are tons of features on Scrivener, that I don't use.  Some features - I know about, but I've not taken the time to learn how to use them.  Some features,  I've not felt the need for.  And I'm sure there are still other features that are built in, but I haven't felt the need for them, so I haven't looked for them, and I haven't run across them.

And that's ok.

There are a lot of Scrivener users out there, who talk about the time it takes to learn everything that Scrivener has to offer.  And there are a lot of potential Scrivener users out there who express concern about being able to learn all the features, potential users who are too intimidated to give Scrivener a shot.  And I'm confused by both of these groups.

Scrivener puts a lot on your plate -- but you don't have to eat everything that's there.  One of the many things I like about Scrivener is that you use what you want, and ignore the rest.  And the parts that you're ignoring?  Trust me, they don't interfere with the parts that you are using, and they don't get in the way.  They also don't get rusty... they merely remain in the background, patiently waiting their turn, until such time - if any - that you call them up.

Yesterday, I came across a post by an author/blogger I follow - Michael Holley - talking about the corkboard feature.  It's a feature I'm aware of, but never felt that it matched any of my needs, so I've ignored it.  Michael talked about using it in a different way, and I might (or might not!) try it, at some point.

But today, I came across an interview with David Hewson, and one of his remarks made me do a mental fist pump.  Hewson is an author, and was talking about one of his books that is based on a television series, and consequently has 3 different story lines weaving in and out, and he talked about how helpful Scrivener was to this process.  He could write from beginning to end, but he could also pull out only the sections applicable to story line A, and make sure there were no gaps.  And then he said

That said I think it’s important you only use the tools you need. Scrivener is a very powerful and complex piece of software. You’ll be wasting time if you try to learn all of it – I haven’t and I’ve probably written fifteen books in it now.

Wow.  That's what I've been trying to say.  Not only should you not worry about learning it all, you shouldn't even try to learn it all.  Only use the tools you need.

Don't you just love it when someone more important and famous than you, says the same thing you've been trying to say??!!
I think I'll celebrate, with a nice cup of tea.

Laurie's "read" list, 2012

I just came across a post on the PBS site that on this date (February 19)  in 1985, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was published, in the United States.  Literary critics universally recognize this as a literary masterpiece.  While nothing that I read in 2012 falls into that category, it did seem like there were some enjoyable pieces that I read, so I thought I'd check my list on  Goodreads, and see what was there.

Well, there certainly was a lot of 'junk food'...   "Spell Bound", by Kelley Armstrong, "Destined for an Early Grave", by Jeaniene Frost, "Cherry Cheesecake Murder", by Joanne Fluke.  There were a couple of Linwood Barclays, and a couple Janet Evanovich books, and a Sue Grafton, and some Lee Child books.  I'm not embarassed about my junk food reading..   sometimes you're just not in the mood for something gripping, or enlightening.. but you just want entertaining fluff.  But there's nothing wrong with either writing, or reading fluff, in my opinion.  I do a lot of reading when we're out on the boat, and I also do a lot of reading just to avoid boredom.  And reading is certainly better than stealing hubcaps.  I also read some amusing Harry Potter fanfic by Norman Lippert.  Until recently, I had no idea what fanfic was ..  it's typically a parody, or a take-off, on a piece of original fiction.. written by fans of the original.  When I first heard about fanfic, I thought the idea was kind of stupid..   but I came across some free stuff (yes, I'm a sucker for free books for my Nook), and some of it was pretty bad.  But as it happens, the stuff written by Lippert, with James Potter (Harry's son) as the main character, isn't half bad.

Moving on through my list..   oh yes!  I read "The Magicians", by Lev Grossman, in 2011, and thoroughly enjoyed it.. and in 2012, I read book 2, "The Magician King".  I was initially intrigued, because I'd read that this was a combination of Harry Potter, and "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" ... but this 2-book series was so much more.  Definitely has some dark spots, definitely NOT recommended for children, some excellent characterization, much more of a focus on how people react in different situations.  In fact, I liked it so well, that (I know, this makes no sense), when I heard the Mr. Grossman's brother, Austin, had written a novel - "Soon I Will be Invincible" - I read that in 2012, as well.  It was nothing like "The Magicians", of course.. I knew it wouldn't be... but I did enjoy it.

Oops.. this is getting long..  so I'll try to speed this up, and only include books that were both good, and memorable.
"The Warded Man"' by Peter Brett.  Pretty intense.. I've added a couple others of his to my 'to-read' list, but haven't gotten to them, yet.
"Fairy Godmother", by Mercedes Lackey...   interesting twist on fairytales.. in concept, this reminds me of the television show, Once Upon a Time.
"Before I go to Sleep", by S. J. Watson.  Wow!  Some really clever plot twists.
"The Shadow of the Wind", by Carlos Ruiz Zafon.  Very different... kind of like a psychological study.
"19th Wife", by David Ebershoff.  Very good, but difficult to follow at times.  There's the historical fiction part about the early Mormons based on letters from one of the early wives, but then you have a more modern story woven in about a son of a more modern Mormon wife.  Oh yeah, and there's a murder.
"77 Shadow Street", by Dean Koontz.  This is an exception to my plan to only include books that were good.  This one - while certainly not a waste of time - was a disappointment.  Mr. Koontz, I know you can't be excellent all the time, and this proves it.
"11/22/63", by Stephen King.  A major departure from his usual writing... which makes this a very worthwhile read whether you're a King fan or not.
"The Casual Vacancy", by J. K. Rowling.  Yes, I'll admit it, I only picked this one up, because I liked the Harry Potter series, and I knew it would be very different.  And it was.  But even so, at first, it was hard to not be disappointed... and the book certainly moved much slower.. but as I realized that the main characters in this story were a) someone who died in the first few pages  (oh come on, that can't be a spoiler.. how do you think the vacancy came about?), and a website...  I found this to be quite enjoyable.
"The Woman Who Died a Lot", by Jasper Fforde.  You're either a Fforde fan, or you're not.
"Dies the Fire", by S. M. Stirling, and "The Passage", by Justin Cronin.  I've enjoyed dystopic novels, since long before their recent popularity
"The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry", by Rachel Joyce.  This was one of my favorites  (after "The Magician King").  It involves people, and their motivations, and their interactions.  Oh dear, my description is dull, but the book is not.

Wow.   2012 was a pretty good year.  I lift my teacup in a toast to the books I've read, and here's hoping that 2013 is just as good.