jolt! wow! Jolt. wow. + Shakespeare, Hemingway and the Unibomber

It’s hard to concentrate on writing while the Mathematician is pacing, so I’ve tried to fix the formatting problems here. I had to start from scratch with a fluid template (if you don’t know what that is, never mind, really, the details are boring). What that means is, everybody should be able to see everything, both columns, and to resize your browser screen without losing anything. The screen cap to the left is what you should be seeing.

There is a style contest going on over at Movable Type, and the base template I am using was an entry there called Fleur.

Sorry to ask again for help, but could you let me know how this is showing up for you, and what browser you’re using?

And as a small offering, as I have nothing of real interest to share today beyond more mangled mathematician stories, here:

Jim Trelease is a reading education specialist and a very smart guy. The quote in the upper right hand column is from him, with a link to his website. On his website there is also an interesting article which considers a great question: how would Shakespeare, Hemingway, and others well established in the literary canon be graded on the new SAT essays?

Not that the answer is a surprise. But it’s still very sobering, the mess we’ve got when it comes to evaluating how ready kids are for college.

17 Replies to “jolt! wow! Jolt. wow. + Shakespeare, Hemingway and the Unibomber”

  1. The graphic redesign was a jolt – nice and clean, as a change, not as a criticism of the past header graphic, which I loved at the time. The Trelease website, I found it hard to grasp his points, I think because of all the outside links you need to follow and digest to get the full import of his points. But the idea that a criminal mind could score higher on a writing test than established and/or lauded authors of the past…well. I wondered, without having followed all the links through maybe I’d have an answer to this – but could it be that a Unabomber type would do better on this hypothetical test because he was born later in the modern world than Hemingway et al? Anyway. Interesting nonetheless.

  2. actually, there is no top part of the banner, but I’ll post a screen shot so you can see if you’re getting what you’re supposed to get.

    Stephanie. That is very kind of you, but the css isn’t so much the problem now. Right now the problem is, what creature ate half of my main index template, and how to get it to regurgitate.

  3. This is coming up as “storytelling storytell” on my computer, we use IE but I don’t know what version. But the sidebar is there.

  4. Sheena — if you readjust your browser window size, the storytelling title should expand/shrink with it.

  5. The title gets chopped off for me too. I’m using IE. I’ve tried to adjust the browser size and it doesn’t seem to help the size of the title. But maybe I’m not doing that right. Everything else looks fine but big.

  6. The title bar graphic is cut off at “i” in the second “storytelling.” I’m using IE too. If by adjusting the browser window you mean reducing or enlarging it, that’s not making a difference. I see the sidebar just as you’ve intended, and everything else seems fine. It’s just as if the graphic is too big for the allotted space.

  7. I don’t think it’s the size of the banner. It’s more likely an IE issue. I’ll see if there’s some way to work around it.

    On my browser, as I make the browser wider, the word storytelling repeats across the top. If I have the window the full size of my screen, I get ‘storytelling’ about three and a quarter times.

  8. Seeing everything except the red and white Storytelling banner at the top and the Jim Trelease quote and link. Good news is the side bar is truly at the side and not down the bottom. I’m using Win XP and IE6.

  9. As a writer AND reader, I find this concept rather offensive. Why would someone feel the need to alter a book to make it into an art form? A book is already a form of art…and someone’s hard labor. Why don’t these people go out and write their own books, get them published and then use their own work to alter into something else. Or am I missing something here? It is just ridiculous to me!

  10. Wendy — I’ve seen some very interesting altered books, a kind of interplay between reader and author, interpretation of the text, things like that. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of really awful, tossed salad-like altered books that seem poorly conceived and very poorly executed.

    I don’t take offense at this; you can make art out of almost anything, seems to me. But it’s rare that I see an altered book that makes sense to me personally.

  11. *nods* I see your point…maybe “offensive” is too strong a word *laughs*, BUT I love books so much just the way they are that I hate to see people messing them up!

Comments are closed.