The Setup

How does the saying go? The wallpaper on the desktop in the first act must be changed by the third?

I’m a desktop fidgeter, I confess. Really good wallpaper lasts about a day, and finding a lovely new background is usually my first line of defense against getting any work done. Hell, I’ll change every icon in my Dock to deflect a particularly stubborn project. “If I create a perfect, pristine setup,” I tell myself, “I will produce perfect, pristine words.”

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Instead, it’s come to this: the least distracting, least present settings I could achieve on my Mac, without sacrificing a certain aesthetic appeal. It resists fidgety change because I hardly know it’s there. It doesn’t make my writing any better. It just makes my writing possible.

In case there’s anyone else out there with my precise working tics, here’s a rundown of the current settings:

The Menubar


From left to right: that’s Tweetie, Skitch, SMCFanControl and FuzzyClock.

The Tweetie menubar icon will modestly shift to blue when I get new mentions or direct messages on Twitter. It makes a highlighted dock icon or a Growl notification look as audacious as a big-top ringmaster. I’ll get to it when I notice it, thankyewverymuch.

Skitch’s menubar icon serves a practical purpose: you can use it to snap a selection without changing window focus. This turns out to be important in the software-blogging part of my work.

SMCFanControl warns me when my MacBook looks like it might go all Mount Vesuvius on me, and lets me crank up the fans accordingly. I keep the icon there because I find it attractive, and because SMCFanControl offers no option to turn it off.

FuzzyClock: because you don’t actually need to know the time down to the minute, so you may as well stop being a self-important jerk about it.

You may notice some missing icons:

Volume: I already controlled it via keyboard 9 times out of 10, so I ditched the icon.

Airport: When I’m in-office, there’s no need to quickly change my wifi settings.

Bluetooth: Why?

Spotlight: I never use it. Instead, I use Quicksilver. Disabling the Spotlight icon takes a little more work than the previous three I’ve listed — which all have checkboxes in their respective preference panes — but you can get rid of it. Try this tip from MacOSXHints. (It’s labeled 10.4, but works on Leopard and Snow Leopard, too.)

Continue reading

Farewell, Click Opera

Momus has long been one of the devils on my shoulder. I give him credit for introducing me — through his blog, Click Opera — to an alternate universe of culture that I somehow missed in college. Sure, Momus’ taste in ideas and fashion leans conspicuously toward Tokyo, but that only makes his perspective more compelling in the midst of the usual blogroll of young, trendy Brooklynites. Without Click Opera, I might have missed out on Shibuya-kei, Cornelius, Bertolt Brecht, Erving Goffman, and Jacques Dutronc. Now, the idea of putting myself together without those pieces seems impossible.

Click Opera passed away calmly and peacefully from natural causes last Wednesday. For six years, Momus ran his blog with a winking, endearing brand of narcissism, easy to forgive and fall in love with. I could disagree with what he had to say, but not without giving it serious thought. He’s the type of older, cleverer (and, let’s be honest, sexier) guy whose experience I could accept or reject, but never ignore.

While Momus’ music, performance art and emerging career as a novelist will continue, and they all have their charms, Click Opera was a way of life. And not just for the devoted readers, it turns out. Momus decided to retire the blog because it had swallowed too much of his own life for too long, and he wants to direct his energy toward other things.

Fair enough. My blog already gets kicked around and treated as second-best when I have paying gigs or opportunities with bigger, more respectable online publications. I understand Momus’ reasons for dropping Click Opera, but his consistently fine writing there during the back end of the aughts makes a solid case for the blog as a medium.

Sure, I’ll miss Click Opera, but I’ve learned enough from it to get along on my own. It was a starting point, not a sealed box. Of course, I’ll keep an eye on whatever its author creates next, but I also want to take what Momus did — reporting on things he found fascinating or problematic — and run with it. I’d be proud to put out something even half as provocative.

Some Favorite Click Opera entries

These aren’t necessarily the best, most important, or most representative posts from Click Opera. They just happened to grab me personally, for various reasons:

Photo: simplifica

Jacked Up

Flickr Photo Download_ Jack in the Box.jpg

I don’t usually put on my graphic designer hat to write this blog, but tonight, the power of fast food compels me. While eating at a Jack in the Box for the first time since college, I spotted a history of the company logo on a placemat. The old logos had character! More than that, they actually had — get this — Jacks-in-the-Box! Somewhere between 1951 and today, Jack in the Box managed to pretty much screw the pooch when it comes to corporate identity.

Problem number one: I had no idea Jack in the Box had even changed its logo. A quick trip to Google reveals that the current abomination has been in play since late 2008. The exterior signage of the locations in my area hasn’t been changed, so this new logo was effectively invisible to me until I found myself craving a patty melt … more than a year later.

Problem number two: This logo suffers from severe multiple personality disorder. We’re not talking about mild, real-life, DSM-IV multiple personalities, either. This is a case of played-by-Jim-Carrey-in-the-movie-version multiple personalities.

The friendly, red six-sided figure and the inviting, old-school script evoke the kind of neighborhood hamburger joint my parents probably visited when they got good grades in elementary school. So far, so good. Then we come to the type for “in the box,” which blatantly aims for cool and contemporary. If the script “Jack” is 1962, the squarish sans serif “in the box” is 2002. It’s less Jack in the Box, more Jack in the XBox.

Conclusion? Jack in the Box has no idea what it really wants to be. Sure, they’ve got the cheeky spokes-clown who’s supposed to signal that they’re less stuffy than other burger places, but he’s asking you to believe a very 1950s proposition: that you should buy these burgers because they’re actually pretty good.

Whatever my feelings about Jack in the Box’s food (for the record: a Sourdough Jack, once a year, tops), the typography doesn’t lie. Jack’s a total schizo, and the dude needs to get his act together.

On this count, I can’t blame Duffy & Partners, the designers of the new identity. The brief they were working with asked for something more in line with the mascot, Jack Box. They delivered the design the client wanted, but because Jack is all over the place, so is the logo.

jackfail1.jpg

Essential reading if you’re curious about this sort of thing:

  • Underconsideration’s branding blog, Brand New, on the new Jack in the Box logo. They’ve even got some images from Duffy & Partners.
  • Bnet’s Jim Edwards is also not a fan of the new logo.

Welcome to the Pie Decade

piedecade.jpg

The New York Times recently ran a piece about the increasing speed of generation gaps. Because life-changing gadgets have much speedier development cycles than they did when I grew up, sociologists think people in their twenties have become the new out-of-touch grownups. Apparently, someone 5 years my junior relies a lot less on email and a lot more on IMs than I do, and that makes me a prematurely-old curmudgeon. A Pew researcher quoted in the article explains that “[c]ollege students scratch their heads at what their high school siblings are doing, and they scratch their heads at their younger siblings. It has sped up generational differences.”

Fellow twenty-somethings, we have apparently passed our expiration date.

But wait! While I was sipping Ovaltine in my rocking chair and passing out some delicious Werther’s Originals, I happened on another article. The Philadephia Inquirer asked kids between 7 and 13 to predict what significant developments this new decade might bring. Great! Another chance to feel old! Surely these intrepid junior futurists would hold expectations far beyond anything my senile 26-year-old brain could make sense of. I pushed back my fears, put on my glasses-on-a-chain and started to read.

The article shocked me, but not because kids born in the ’90s are growing up as unfathomable cyborgs. On the contrary, my 7-year-old self would have made the same totally awesome predictions these kids did. The overwhelming concern for the well-being of animals, the robot monkey butlers, and the hope for an end to divorce are straight out of my childhood. Unrelatable? Hardly.

Sure, maybe the iGeneration will one day process my remains into fuel for their jetpacks, but we still get excited by the same fascinating stuff. I’d like to add my endorsement to this prediction by Marly, age 8: “Chefs may create new recipes, such as new flavors of pie.”

Some things are so timelessly cool that every effort to explain their appeal using grown-up language comes off as overly-academic and weird. You can try to translate that feeling in every kid’s gut into studies and essays, but they’re never going to be as exciting as dinosaurs and robots. Attempts to analyze the magic are dated before they’re ever finished, but pie will never lose its relevance. Just be cool, okay? I think you’ll find you still know how.

Welcome to the Pie Decade.

[Photo: varktherebel]

Cold Content Farm

winterfarm-1.jpg

It’s more reliable than any bus in town.

“What do you do?”

Me, I write. Constantly. Nights, weekends. If I am not currently holding a drink and being asked what I do, I’m writing. So I say, “Me? I write.”

Then comes the look. I’m hoping for a little interest, somewhere around the corners of the mouth. A quick chorus-line kick of the eyebrow will do. That’ll get me going, because it lets me know you love words, and I absolutely must know which words you love. I’m hoping we can do the dance of giddy reminiscence, about novels, about stories and, hell, even about blogs. It’s one of my favorite dances.

Lately, it’s been the other look that shows up more often. The rolling eyes, the slumping shoulders, the scan around the room for someone in a respectable profession. Now we’re doing another dance altogether. Now you’re stepping on my feet. Now you’re asking me, “Oh, so you do content?

Content: that most formless, most beige, most indifferent of nouns. You’re comfortable with “content,” because what’s actually contained is irrelevant to you. You don’t wonder whether it’s writing, because you don’t intend to read it. You don’t care whether anyone else reads it, either. Words aren’t for reading; they’re for indexing, clicking on, optimizing. They fill that space under the banner and left of the text ads. They’re not even fast food, they’re bot fodder.

Perhaps there’s good money to be made shunting keywords around, writing articles that aren’t meant to be read, but that’s money I’m leaving on the table. I want to write something honest, something inexpert, something search-engine-unoptimized. I want to write what makes me hurt, what gets me off, what gets me out of bed every morning, and what makes me stay longer than I should. I want writing with skinned knees.

You want me to sell advertising.

Do you know how many keyword-grinding, content-farming replicants it takes to equal a Gruber or a Rands? How about a Haruki Murakami? Trick question. When Murakami describes the pleasures of owning a perfect sofa, or when Rands explains how geeks approach games, they’re not writing for a teeming nest of Google spiders. Writers don’t “create content,” they fucking write. What’s contained does matter to them. The right words matter. Not the keywords, not acai berries or vacuum cleaners or whatever the ad people can “monetize” today. Sometimes, the right words keep them up nights.

You may be a writer if: the right words keep you up nights.

I’m not Murakami, I’m painfully certain. I’m not Faulkner or Kerouac or Gruber or Rands or Mark riverboatin’ Twain. Everyone’s got stories, though, and I’m thrilled and terrified at the possibility that I might have it in me to tell one deftly and honestly. You advise me against that, though, because it probably wouldn’t be good for my pagerank, and you’re not sure how I intend to profit from these messy aspirations of mine.

I’m not sure, either, but I promise I won’t do it by leaving the web — or the print publishing world, for that matter — worse than I found it. Resolved, then, as I look away and pretend to be infinitely fascinated by the way the light hits my glass: I will keep working to get better at what I do. I will keep losing sleep, keep looking for the right words, keep reading real writing. I will stick by the people who love a good story. Life’s too short to dance with ad hucksters, get-rich-quickers, bot-feeders and human acronyms.

“Oh, so you do content?”

No.

[Photo: James Jordan]

Webcockery and Flirting at Barcamp Seattle

I gave a little talk about webcockery at BarCamp Seattle over the weekend — “webcock,” of course, being Dean Allen‘s “naming convention for online-marketing, web-strategy, killer-startup cheerleaders/water-carriers.” Instead of tearing down webcockery directly, I tried to give a cock’s-eye view of the ideal social media marketing expert. Retweets! Hashtags! Auto-following! With these simple tools, you can ruin Twitter faster than ever before!

webcockery101.jpg

The session was called “Webcockery 101: How to Leave Twitter Soooo Much Worse Than You Found It. Ugh. Jesus Christ.”

Unfortunately, there’s no video of these shenanigans. Just in case people are curious, though, I’ve uploaded a PDF of my slides. Also, thanks to Tara Hunt for posting a good play-by-play of the discussion to Twitter. It went something like this:

# Now onto Webcockery! ……I don’t know either. ;)
# “The webcock toolkit includes linking to urself relentlessly, only reading ur @ replies, following everyone back, followfridays, etc”
# “Retweeting is the webcock reach around.” LOL
# “If you don’t provide a place for people to see popular links on the internet, who will?” #webcockery
# “Only follow people who automatically follow you back.” #webcockery
# “Refer to yourself to a ‘______ ninja’ in as many profiles as possible.” #webcockery
# “You might just want to tap that star”
# .@catherinegordon ‘Webcockery’ is NOT a positive term. It means you are a douche. These are tongue in cheek.
# p.s. If ur following the #webcockery tag, it’s tongue-in-cheek. Webcockery is douchery. The ppl who are using twitter for the wrong reasons.
# In other words…DON’T BE A WEBCOCK. ;)
# He’s creating a venn diagram of where Webcockery overlaps with Douchebaggery. Nice.

rtwebcock.jpg

Afterward, Chris Downie, who ran a morning discussion about “social microgames,” offered $10 to anyone who would “retweet” my talk later that day. Dylan Wilbanks took him up on it and put on a version of the presentation that was as deadpan as I wish mine could have been.

On Sunday, we did a live Q&A for Am I Flirting?, the flirting blog I write with Melissa Gira. Melissa co-presented via Skype, to talk about some of the situations that led to AIF? posts and take questions from the audience. A lot of fun people showed up, and we had a great time with it (despite some problems with the patchy conference wifi). I have nothing but good things to say about doing a live version of your blog, especially if you write to a fairly narrow theme, as we do with AIF.

Why You Should Fake It

Sometimes a fake is even better than the real thing. Before Ben Folds released his latest record, Way to Normal, he spent a day in the studio producing “fake” versions of his new songs to leak to the public. Although these recordings were initially meant as a joke, a fun way to kill a day in the studio, they contain moments of brilliance that match anything on the “real” album. In an interview with Rolling Stone, Folds said that the idea of making a fake album allowed him to create in a way he wasn’t totally used to: “The word ‘fake’ came up when we started doing it and it takes all the responsibility out. You can just be free to write and let it go.”

That goes a long way toward explaining how the leaked album, made in a single day, even came close to the official release. Trying to fake being yourself might actually generate something that feels completely authentic, not burdened by reputation and assumptions. The distinction between real and fake is important during the process of creation, but its power diminishes once the art is out in the wild. If you played Lovesick Diagnostician (a fake song) and Dr. Yang (the real track) for someone who knew nothing about Ben Folds, and asked that person whether they were real songs, the question wouldn’t make any sense.

Frank Portman hit on this idea in one of my favorite novels, King Dork. Tom Henderson, the titular dork, learns the following lesson during his life as a high school outcast: “Start a band. Or go around saying you’re in a band, which is, let’s face it, pretty much the same thing. The quality of your life can only improve.” To really be in a band, you have to make music. When you just say you’re in a band, you don’t necessarily have to make anything.

If you’ve ever made up fantasy band names and album titles, a game Tom Henderson and Sam Hellerman play throughout King Dork, you know that the identity often matters more than the music. The iconography you produce under the guise of your new band can take on a life independent of any music that has been or will ever be made anywhere in the world. There’s something tantalizing about titles of songs and records no one will ever hear and posters for shows nobody will ever play.

Some fake bands, like the ones Tom and Sam create in King Dork, eventually cross over into real band territory. They rehearse, they make recordings, and they play shows. Others have no intention of getting there at all. In fact, they make a point of never engaging in any musical activity whatsoever. My friend Evan Hamilton (who, it’s worth mentioning, is in a real band) told me about The Tree Brains, a “theoretical rock” band that started online. Here’s how The Tree Brains describe themselves:

The Tree Brains are an imaginary band that anyone can be a part of. No musical ability is required to join. The band will never play anywhere because it only exists in theory. There is no initiation into the band. If you want to be in it, you’re in it. You may lay claim to any instrument or job in the band you would like.

If you decide to join the Tree Brains, you’ll be able to go around saying you’re a part of the band, and there won’t be anything made up about it.

A concept like the Tree Brains seems fun, but not particularly practical. I think it can actually be put to great artistic use, though. Creating a band, or an alternate personality, takes the pressure off in the same way Ben Folds did when he labeled his work “fake.” If you feel too close to your work, like you’re risking too much, then try acting like it’s someone else’s. Invent a character (or a band) that comes from the part of you that doesn’t self-censor, and then write, draw, build or sing from there, too. The part of Ben Folds that writes whimsical, honest, borderline inappropriate lyrics made a damned good album.

Thoughts on a Runner-Up Personality

Momus recently spent some time at Click Opera chewing on an idea that really bothers me. He calls it “runner-up-ization,” and it refers to a situation where people or cultures, instead of succeeding at being themselves, rate as runners-up at being someone else. As examples, Momus points to Indian fashion magazines that feature western-looking models and styles more prominently than local ones, and to the novelist Tao Lin, whose distinctive style inspires readers to wish they could write like him.

Runner-up-ization is real and frightening to me, as a relatively inexperienced writer with hopes of contributing something compelling, original or fun to the world. I spend a lot of my time, energy and passion digesting the creative output of people I see as first-place versions of themselves. I try to figure out how they do what they do, and how I can do it, too. When you admire people for their uniqueness, though, emulating them too precisely just misses the point.

And yet, there’s something there that’s worth emulating. Figuring out what lessons my heroes might teach me about myself keeps me up nights. It’s tempting to muddle everything together into a derivative recipe, to strive to be “one part” this guy, or “the next” that guy. That would sure be easier than working out what resonates with me about, for example, Matt Fraction’s writing on Casanova, and how I can use my limited ability to make something of my own that leaves me with that same kind of feeling.
Continue reading