The power of writing

I have had occasion to write about Roy Peter Clark on this blog earlier. His Writing Tools column on Poynter Online is not only a great read but also a terrific learning experience. Take, for instance, his post on what writers can learn from Glee, the smash-hit musical that was shown on Star World recently and which was phenomenally popular with youngsters.

First, in the introductory three paragraphs, Clark gives us the lowdown on Glee even as he explains why he is a fan.

Next, he discusses why Glee works so well, listing four points:

• The power of mixing
• Diversity of cultural expression
• Depth of characters
• Expect the unexpected

In "The power of mixing", Clark warms to his theme by going back in time to Shakespeare and comparing the Bard's approach to writer-director Ryan Murphy's finesse in Glee:

Shakespeare was harshly criticized in the 18th century for his violations of the classical unities of time, place and action. Unity of action, for example, would never have permitted the comic Porter to play the bawdy fool immediately after the assassination of the king in "Macbeth." The Bard's ability to mix theatrical modes is one hallmark of Shakespeare's greatness. In the same spirit, the creator of "Glee" teaches us the power of mode mixing.

Murphy has done something with "Glee" that may be unprecedented in the history of television: blending the best aspects of comedy, drama and musical expression without making the audience experience the show as a cacophony.

Clark also gives us the comparable examples of I Love Lucy, M*A*S*H, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Then, in "Diversity of cultural expression", we read about the many different characters in the show. As we read on we understand why the story works. And if you have watched the show, as I have, you will experience an epiphany, as I did, when you read that last sentence:

Authentic diversity can never be expressed through tokenism. The stereotypes in the show, out of context, would constitute, at best, a guilty pleasure for the audience. What makes "Glee" work is that no single character bears the burden of representing a whole group.

Next, Clark tackles "Depth of characters". There's so much thought that has gone into the writing here, as Clark continues to expound on Murphy's magic:

Every significant character has something at stake, some defining issue that gives the writers an opportunity to explore character. Artie (Kevin McHale) dreams of dancing, but is in a wheelchair. Quinn (Dianna Agron) is president of the Christian crusaders for chastity, but, of course, winds up pregnant.

Kurt worries that his father cannot love him completely because he likes show tunes and interior decoration and not football. Rachel (Lea Michele) has a world of talent and an unquenchable need for stardom, but an empty place in her heart caused by a mother she has never known.

Finally — and this is so important for viewers and readers, and therefore so important to writers — comes the principle of keeping the audience on tenterhooks: "Expect the unexpected".

Each time you think you understand a character fully, the writers throw you a curve.

Clark then sums up his exposition by outlining the seven lessons to be drawn from Glee for writers. And because he talked about Shakespeare earlier, Clark ends his column by giving us his theory on the link between Lady Macbeth and Sue Sylvester, the coach in Glee.

Read Roy Peter Clark's article in its entirety here: "What writers can learn from 'Glee' ".

Isn't it amazing how watching a TV show can result in such an explosion of ideas?

• If you want further proof of  Clark's greatness as a writer and journalist, you must read "Three Little Words", his touching story about a journey of trust, betrayal, and redemption. Make time to read it. You will marvel at the writing style — this is what journalism is about.

• Also read: Roy Peter Clark on "how to get story ideas" and "Point your mouse to Poynter".

UPDATE (June 15, 2013): An e-mail from Roy Peter Clark that I will always treasure:

From: Roy Peter Clark <roypc@poynter.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM
To: Ramesh Prabhu <ramesh.prabhu@commits.edu.in>

Ramesh, thank you for your kind thoughts and your generous words.  I'm delighted that "Writing Tools" is working for you and your students.  And cheers to you on your own devotion to the craft.  -- Roy

--

Roy Peter Clark
Vice President and Senior Scholar
The Poynter Institute
801 Third Street South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
office:  727-553-4227
rclark@poynter.org

author of:
 "The Glamour of Grammar:  A Guide to the Mystery and Magic of Practical English"
 "Writing Tools:  50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer."

• Both the books mentioned above are available in the Commits library.

(1) Facebook rants to make you think about bad English vs good English (1-5)

 

***

Ramesh Prabhu

Rant No. 2: Why do we say, "Send me a mail", when we mean, "Send me an email"?

Top of Form

about an hour ago

Vedant Varma Just a thought...are the two any different these days?

15 minutes ago

Ramesh Prabhu Very different, Vedant. "Mail" is the collective term for "post", all the letters addressed to you, for instance.

mail

–noun
...1.
letters, packages, etc., that are sent or delivered by means of the postal system: Storms delayed delivery of the mail.
2.
a single collection of such letters, packages, etc., as sent or delivered: to open one's mail; to find a bill in the mail; The mail for England was put on the noon plane.
3.
Also, mails. the system, usually operated or supervised by the national government, for sending or delivering letters, packages, etc.; postal system: to buy clothes by mail.
4.
a train, boat, etc., as a carrier of postal matter.
5.
electronic mail; e-mail.

So it is correct to say, "Let me check my mail" if you are going to log on to Gmail, for instance, and access your in-box.

But to say, "Send me a mail" — that's just horrible.

10 minutes ago 

Like ·2 people

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane To Ramesh: Because that is the default means of communication...even that is changing what with Online Messengers, Mobile SMSing, social sites wall communication (Facebook, Twitter) etc. Incidentally...mail viz. India Post has become dysfunctional, in Gurgaon at least...no card posted by me has reached it's destination!!

9 minutes ago

Ramesh Prabhu Sunil: I am talking about NOT using bad English: please read "How to write PLAIN English".

7 minutes ago

Saurav Sen @Ramesh: Sad though, the commoditisation of the English language has long loosened the grip of Wren & Martins, Fowlers of even the Oxford or Chambers. Have been witness to the gradually expanding spectrum of "acceptability" of just anything, as long as the target audience gets to comprehend the message/expression. American English, Queen's English, Hinglish, SMS lingo, colloquialisms have all entered the common melting pot of monetisation. If there was any left, the advent of social media has hammered the last nail into the coffin. I say sad, because I wonder if the generations to come would ever get to learn good English, EVER!

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane To Ramesh and Saurav: The conflict between the old school and the new generation will persist. Meanwhile, we need to also recognize evolution of the English language; e.g. new words are formed using hyphens, then after a few decades the hyp...hen disappears and Oxford and Websters accord recognition to it; illustrations: aircraft, bandwagon, cooeprative (also co-operative) etc. which were hyphenated in the past. In the corporate world communications, "email", "mail" and "note" are used interchangeably in formal business communications. What was bad English when we are young, viz. "I'm good" instead of "I'm fine" has become okay today and might become recognised by Oxford and Websters down the time-line!!

22 hours ago

Ramesh Prabhu Valid point, Sunil. Language will, and must, evolve to keep pace with progress. I am all for it. And I am also all for going by what the standard dictionaries say.

But "send me A mail"? I am not at all for it.

22 hours ago 

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane Looks like there's agreement about accepting new English words for formal business and journalistic use provided that it is endorsed by well known dictionaries e.g.Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD), Websters and Chambers.

21 hours ago

Ramesh Prabhu Of course, Sunil. But "send me A mail"? Never. :-)

21 hours ago

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane To Ramesh: Never; incorrect grammar!! I'm only talking about WORDS... not syntax. By the way, who or what standard beside Wren and Martin are the final authority on English language syntax?

21 hours ago

Ramesh Prabhu I use the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners at work; at home, I refer/defer to Chambers. A good online dictionary is Dictionary.com.

21 hours ago

Tania Sarkar the 'e-mail' factor!!! :)

2 hours ago 

AND THIS CONVERSATION FROM GMAIL BUZZ:

Noyon Jyoti Parasara - is "email me" correct?

Shalini Sen - Isn't it "send me an email" or "email it to me"?

Ramesh Prabhu - Shalini and Noyon: I prefer Shalini's options, but "email me" is colloquially correct on the analogy of "ring me" ("phone me").

***

Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 3: Why do we say, "I am tensed" or "I am tensed up" when we mean, "I am tense"?

Top of Form

28 minutes ago

• Samarpita Samaddar likes this.

Samarpita Samaddar Because some of us live between present and past? ;) ha ha ha

26 minutes ago · Like · 2 people

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane Indish or Indlish

about an hour ago

Ramesh Prabhu Yes, Sunil, and BAD English.

about an hour ago

***

Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 4: Why do we say "one of my friend...", when we should say "one of my friends..."?

Top of Form

• Samarpita Samaddar and Smitha Prasanna like this.

Sharon George list of ur pet peeves?

2 hours ago 

Ramesh Prabhu Yes, Sharona. Go to http://goo.gl/N5XuJ for Nos. 1 to 3. :-)

2 hours ago · Like · 1 person

 

Medini Mangala can u believe it... i was actually waiting for rant no. 4 ... argh

about an hour ago · Like · 1 person

Paromita Chakraborty Know what Sir, once every year we should have these updates from you... just to brush up on our English :-) thank you.

***

Ramesh Prabhu Rant No. 5: Why do we say "12 noon" and 12 midnight" when "noon" and "midnight" will suffice? (A Bangalore Mirror news report yesterday referred to "12 midnight".)Top of Form

• Sujith Mohan, Sreemoyee Dutta and Samarpita Samaddar like this.

Samarpita Samaddar hahahaha :D BM is well-known for these ... I love them nonetheless.

6 hours ago  

Vidya Nayak i suppose we say 12 noon, so if someone has missed out hearing the first part let them hear the second.
actually cant think of any other wacky reason

6 hours ago 

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane

‎12 Noon and 12 Midnight are required when denoting that precise time because of the following:
A. Noon & Midnight by themselves are interpreted as a broad band of time not precisely 12 pm and 12 am respectively.
B. Many people get confused ...if they see "12 am" and "12 pm" as they are not sure if it is midnight or noon hence they are avoided.

5 hours ago 

Ramesh Prabhu

Sunil: Here's the definition of "noon" from Dictionary.com --

NOON
–noun
1. midday.
...2. twelve o'clock in the daytime.

And the definition from Macmillan:

Noon: twelve o'clock in the middle of the day

MIDNIGHT (from Dictionary.com)
–noun
the middle of the night; twelve o'clock at night.

And the definition from Macmillan:

Midnight: twelve o'clock at night

So I don't buy the argument that "12 Noon and 12 Midnight are required when denoting that precise time".

I also don't buy the argument that "many people get confused if they see 12 am and 12 pm". Are these people educated but illiterate? (That's another pet peeve of mine, by the way: What's the point of being educated if you're illiterate?)

4 hours ago 

Medini Mangala sirie: breathe in... breathe out...

4 hours ago · Like · 2 people

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane Thanks Ramesh...I know, you know, but some junta don't know..therefore you do a Bangalore Mirror!!

4 hours ago  

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane Sorry...wrote too soon...didn't click on "See More"....if newspapers were distributed only to well educated people, their circulation would plummet drastically!!

3 hours ago 

Ramesh Prabhu Sunil: Newspapers are for EVERYBODY who can read and is interested in reading them. No general newspaper wants to be known as one read by only "well-educated people". My point is the one I raised earlier: "What's the point of being educated if you're illiterate?" :-)

3 hours ago 

Ramesh Prabhu In fact, I have a Reading Room post with the headline: "What's the point of being educated if you're illiterate?" http://goo.gl/XtZuu

3 hours ago 

Sunil John Valentine Sonawane I'm with you in your "literate but not educated" rant (been lamenting about it since my school days). Let's try and design an "Education Quotient" Test...ideas welcome from all who see this.

3 hours ago Like · 1 person

Ramesh Prabhu Medini: Re your "breathe in... breathe out..." advice. Thanks.
Don't worry, though, because Sunil and I (we go back a long way -- college -- 1975-76) love a good argument, as you can see. :-)

AND THIS GMAIL BUZZ CONVERSATION:

dipankar paul - Reforming the world... one rant at a time...
But, if 'chill pill' and 'TTYL' can make their way into the dictionary (due to repeated usage), do you think the time's up for 'noon' and 'midnight'? 

Ramesh Prabhu - Dipankar: For "12 noon" and "12 midnight", you mean? Never. Except, perhaps, in an Indlish dictionary, to be used by Indlish newspapers.

Bottom of Form

 ALSO READ: "50 RANTS TO MAKE YOU THINK ABOUT BAD ENGLISH VS GOOD ENGLISH".

 

35 things you should NOT do at your job interview

Two days ago I provided a link to a Mint article on a book that offered tips on how to answer frequently asked job interview questions.

Today I read in DNA a feature on "the things you must avoid at your job interview". This article, which has been reproduced from the Business School Edge website, provides helpful advice on such aspects as (not) paying enough attention to your appearance, (not) acting too familiar with your interviewers, (not) giving too many personal details, (not) turning in a messy application, (not) keeping your cellphone on during the interview, and (not) showing up late for the interview.

Read the feature in detail here: "35 things to avoid at your job interview".

Plagiarism is okay, says DNA executive editor in an apology for a column

R. Jagannathan, executive editor of DNA, writing in the newspaper today on the Edit Page, has the temerity to suggest that there is an upside to plagiarism.

First, he feels sorry for Aroon Purie, who copied two paragraphs from an article in Slate and used them in his "Letter from the Editor" column in India Today. Jagannathan writes: "I'm sure Aroon Purie, editor-in-chief of India Today, is embarrassed that his lines on Rajinikanth were 'lifted' from Grady Hendrix's article in Slate.com."

Aroon Purie? Embarrassed? How is Jagannathan "sure" about this? And is embarrassment all Purie should feel as the editor-in-chief of the country's biggest magazine-publishing group who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

Second, and this is where I almost lost it, Jagannathan writes: "Grady [the author of the Slate article] protests too much. He is the one true beneficiary in all this, for plagiarism is the ultimate form of flattery. When you quote somebody's work and attribute it, you are merely acknowledging the source. But when you lift a passage out of someone's myriad outpourings and pass it off as your own, you are paying him the ultimate tribute. You find the lines so good that you wished you had written it yourself."

I couldn't believe what I was reading. Was this DNA's idea of a joke? Surely, this is a sarcastic piece, I thought. But no, as I continued reading I realised Jagannathan is serious.

Though he has the good sense to begin the very next paragraph, the third, by asserting that "this is not an invitation to Indians to copy someone else's intellectual output with a clear conscience. We Indians have to learn to respect copyright, as we are too blasé about stealing", he ruins it all by writing in the same paragraph that "plagiarism does have real (positive) spinoffs: it speeds up the spread of knowledge at the cost of slightly retarding innovation".

Huh?

After the paid news and private treaties programmes initiated by the country's largest media company, plagiarism is the biggest danger to the future of journalism, especially in India where, as Jagannathan admits, "we are too blasé about stealing".

So do we want young journalists and would-be journalists to think that plagiarism is okay because it is "the ultimate form of flattery" and it has "real (positive) spinoffs"?

Shame on you, Jagannathan, for trying to suggest that stealing is okay and then making things worse by telling readers that that is how "our pharma and software prowess was established". I am no expert on our pharma or software prowess, but as a journalist with more than 25 years in the profession, I am appalled that a columnist with a national newspaper is hinting that plagiarism is the way to go if we want better journalists and newspapers.

Shame on DNA, too, for publishing this drivel.

• Contrast Jagannathan's article with the one written by Aditya Sinha, the editor-in-chief of The New Indian Express, who was the first media honcho to comment on the Purie scandal. An excerpt:

The buck stops at the top... and it will take time for Purie to live down this stupid-mistake-by-stupider-underlings. But that’s good, in a way, if it occasions some introspection and forces some self-regulation. India Today has been charged with plagiarism too many times lately; just ask Canada-based blogger Niranjana Iyer or Anshuman Rane of the UK digiterati. It’s not a coincidence that these victims were foreign-based and that their work appeared online. It seems Indian journalists think that they are immune given a blogger’s distance from an Indian court and the fact the cyber-universe is so vast that the readership of a particular online article is often limited. No apologies have ever been offered to either of these two, by the way, and the culprits roam free to plagiarise again. Similarly, the Times of India film critic, Nikhat Kazmi, lifted from the legendary Roger Ebert for her review of Shark Tale, yet she remains at work for India’s largest media company.

Read the no-punches-pulled column here: "Plagiarise and be damned".

• DNA readers have also pilloried Jagannathan for this particular column. Here are two comments from the newspaper's website:

padma srihari from Bangalore

Mr.J,
I am appalled by your moral ambivalence. Aroon Purie STOLE. You are supporting him because you do the same. Filthy little cheats!

Posted on: Nov 4, 2010 7:42 IST

Bubloo Mookerjee from Ahmedabad

Hilarious, isn't it? At the end of an article extolling the virtues of copying is a line saying copyright permission mandatory to republish this article!

Posted on: Nov 5, 2010 22:26 IST

• EXTERNAL READING: Outlook editor Krishna Prasad has also published a blog post on Jagannathan's column: ‘Plagiarists speed up the spread of knowledge’.

On SRK's birthday, a tribute by a well-known entertainment journalist

Yesterday was Shah Rukh Khan's 45th birthday. To mark the occasion, ToI published a feature on the superstar by noted entertainment journalist S. Ramachandran, who also happens to be the ex-boss of Commitscion Noyon Jyoti Parasara (Class of 2007), who sent me the link.

Noyon writes:

"What's striking is how Rama enriches the piece with information about which we have no knowledge despite our knowing so much about SRK. Also, don't miss Rama's trademark humour."

I must agree with Noyon. There are some facts in the article that I was unaware of and I had to grin when I read some of Rama's quips.

Read the article here: "Simply SRK: Know him more on his birthday".

• SRK fans (I can think of two Commitscions in particular): You probably know more about your idol than anyone else — I am certain you know more than I do, for sure — so if you don't find anything new here, please don't send me flame-mail. :-)

How journalism guru Roy Peter Clark helped to turn a classified ad into a heartwarming newspaper story

"Bird — Cockatiel, grey with white face. St. Pete Beach area. Whistles at toes!  Heartbroken. [Phone number]..."

This was the classified ad that senior journalist and columnist Roy Peter Clark of Poynter Online saw in Florida's St. Petersburg Times (now renamed Tampa Bay Times). But why was Clark looking at the classifieds in the first place? And how did this ad then become a news story?

First, the answer to the first question: Clark is writing a new book titled Help! For Writers. "The book will list 25 of the most common writing problems, with 10 suggested solutions for each," he writes on his Poynter blog. "The problem in question was 'I am out of story ideas.' "

Clark continues:

...what better place to find [stories] than in the news.

Begin with the small stories, the ones that play inside the paper. Look for announcements of events you might write about. Scour the classified ads, in the paper and online.

He says he realised then that he needed a real-life example and he rushed downstairs to grab a copy of that day's St. Petersburg Times.

And now comes the story about the story:

Then I wrote: "It took exactly 30 seconds to find the telephone number of a person who lives on the beach and is heartbroken because her cockatiel — who whistles at toes — is missing. So what are you waiting for? Get to work. Dial that number."

A little later it occurred to me that the bird story deserved more than a mention in a book that might not be published for more than a year. So I sent a message to editor Kelley Benham at the Times. I had confidence that Kelley, who once wrote an epic story about a rogue rooster named Rockadoodle Two, would give it a good look. Not only did we have a lost bird and a heartbroken owner, but the bird apparently had a foot fetish.

Kelley messaged me back that reporter Stephanie Hayes was "all over" the story. And she was, producing a piece that got good play in the paper, and told the sad tale of an old man living on St. Pete Beach, whose beloved bird, named Shadow for its gray feathers, had flown away.

All novice reporters and aspiring journalists and college students working on the editorial desk of their newspaper should read Clark's post to learn what happened next. And to learn how to originate and develop local stories. Because that is the big challenge, isn't it? How do you find stories every day? And how do you write them so that they are good enough for your publication?

Read Roy Peter Clark's post in its entirety: "Need a Story Idea? Check Lost and Found". And then read Clark's superlative column on how to tighten up your writing.

• For some practical tips on finding stories, read "100 places to shop for stories", by Gregg McLachlan, on the News College website.

• And also check out this Reading Room post: "Point your mouse to Poynter" (Poynter Online claims it has "everything you need to be a better journalist". I believe it.).

• Photo courtesy:  St. Petersburg Times/ TampaBay.com

So you want help with job interviews...

Who doesn't?

That is why Matthew J. DeLuca and Nanette F. DeLuca have written Best Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Interview Questions.

And that's why Mint has, helpfully, published edited excerpts — questions and answers — from the book.

Here are a few questions featured in the book:

• What is the reason you left/are planning to leave your organisation?

• Do you instant-message? Do you twitter? Do you like to use emails? Do you have a BlackBerry or iPhone?

• Have you ever worked for or with a difficult person?

• What do you like the most about this position? What do you like the least about this position?

• What is your current salary?

Want to know the "best" answers? Go to "An ace up your sleeve".

• Best Answers to the 201 Most Frequently Asked Interview Questions: By Matthew J. and Nanette F. DeLuca,Tata McGrawHill, 217 pages, Rs. 250.'

UPDATE (October 1, 2013): Read these two posts before you head out for that job interview:

1.  Five Things You Must Not Do in an Interview and Five Things You Must

2. What Interviewers Wish They Could Tell Every Job Candidate 

UPDATE (April 24, 2014): Richard A. Moran, CEO of an American company, offers a thought-provoking riff on what he calls The #1 Interview Trap Question. You'll be surprised, as I was, to learn what that question is.

What makes us tick?

If you want to understand what makes India tick, read India Unbound, by Gurcharan Das.

If you want to understand what makes the world tick, read Longitudes and Attitudes, by Thomas L. Friedman.

(Both books are available in the Commits library.)

MARK HADDON

But, surely, we also want to know what makes us tick. In that case, read A Spot of Bother, by Mark Haddon, to better understand the human condition. Yes, it's a novel, a work of fiction. But it smacks of reality all the same, dealing as it does with the madness of family life.

There's so much we can learn from the book that was hailed by the New York Times as "a fine example of why novels exist".


FROM A SPOT OF BOTHER:

• Aphorisms to live by-1

George chewed this over for a minute or two. When men had problems they wanted someone to give them an answer, but when women had problems they wanted you to say that you understood.

• Aphorisms to live by-2

You could say all you liked about reason and logic and common sense and imagination, but when the chips were down the one skill you needed was the ability to think about absolutely nothing whatsoever.

• Aphorisms to live by-3

...it occurred to him [Jamie] that there were two parts to being a better person. One part was thinking about other people.The other part was not giving a toss what other people thought.

• Aphorisms to live by-4

Perhaps the secret was to stop looking for greener grass. Perhaps the secret was to make the best of what you had.

• Aphorisms to live by-5

And Ray said, "Eventually you realise that other people's problems are other people's problems."

FYI, Mark Haddon is the author of that massive bestseller, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time (also available in the Commits library).

• Photo courtesy: The New York Times

"Push us. Push yourself."

In a recent post titled, "What's the point of being educated if you're illiterate?", I criticised our education system and our educators for failing our youngsters. I highlighted the inability of many undergraduate and master's level students to even spell simple words correctly and I wrote:

Neither at the high school level nor at the undergraduate level do teachers bother, I am told, to check and correct spellings in their pupils' written assignments and examination answer sheets. One reason for this may be the inability to deal with, and lack of time for, 40 or 50 or more students. However, I suspect that lack of interest is also a problem.

Yesterday Faye D'Souza (Class of 2004) sent me the link to a brilliant blog post by American entrepreneur and author Seth Godin lambasting "mediocre professors" and the education system in the US. See how much we have in common?

Godin, who popularised the concept of "permission marketing", is highly critical of...

"...professors who spend hours in class going over concepts that are clearly covered in the textbook... professors who neither read nor write blogs or current books in their field, professors who rely on marketing textbooks that are advertising-based, despite the fact that virtually no professional marketers build their careers solely around advertising any longer. ... And most of all, professors who treat new ideas or innovative ways of teaching with contempt."

And Godin concludes by coining a slogan after my own heart when he urges students to tell their teachers:

"This is costing me a fortune, prof! Push us! Push yourself!"

Now, Commitscions, where have you heard that before?

***

Earlier this month, on October 20, Seth Godin made another astute observation on the importance of reading (thanks for this link, too, Faye):

If you're in the idea business, what's going to improve your career, get you a better job, more respect or a happier day? Forgive me for suggesting (to those not curious enough to read this blog and others) that it might be reading blogs, books or even watching TED talks.

I am so glad that there are others out there who believe that reading can transform our lives. And who are happy to rant about it.

To read Godin's post in its entirety, go to "Deliberately uninformed, relentlessly so [a rant]".

• Photo courtesy:  #SethSaid.com

Street artist extraordinaire

Not many may know that an anonymous artist known only as "JR" last week received the 2011 TED Prize, a $100,000 (approx. Rs.44.5 lakh) award given by the non-profit organisation.

TED, or Technology Entertainment and Design, sought someone "who has a track record for changing the world in innovative ways, who hopefully has mobility and charisma, and who works on a global level," TED Prize director Amy Novogratz told the US magazine Fast Company. "And he does all those things."

"THE HILLS HAVE EYES IN THIS INSTALLATION IN A BRAZILIAN FAVELA."

 The article, by David Zax, continues:

JR, who keeps mum on the real name his initials stand for, joins the ranks of Bill Clinton, E.O. Wilson, and U2's Bono, previous prize recipients.

JR's canvas is the world. The Parisian guerrilla artist eschews museums, favoring the crumbling walls of the world's slums to the austere halls of its museums. (Even so, the Tate Modern did give him 100 feet of an external wall, and a 2009 auction of one of his prints fetched over 35 grand). Somewhat in the vein of the British artist Banksy, well known for his politically charged graffiti murals, JR will show up at slum, shantytown, or favela, often braving streets so mean that its children run around in bulletproof jackets. Once there, he enlists a crew of locals and erects enormous black-and-white photographic canvases on the walls, typically human faces or figures that lend a dignified air to a forgotten neighborhood.

You have to take a look at these "enormous black-and-white photographic canvases" to realise that TED has made a wise choice.

Watch the slide show: "Street Artist J R Wins the TED Prize".

• Photo courtesy: Fast Company