|
|
Bulletin Board
- Do Nothing But Read Day is set for Saturday, August 6. Although I believe they frequently amount to the same thing, the requirements are: (1) you have to read, and (2) you have to enjoy yourself. Accordingly, the DNBR crest is being added to the right sidebar.
- It seems standing up for South Dakota authors draws crowds. The day of my post on the subject was among the busiest days on the blog in the last four and a half years.
Blog Headline of the Week
Bookish Linkage
- You may be surprised at the range of books when 30 lawyers pick books every lawyer should read. (By the way, have I ever mentioned how much I despise “galleries” or slide shows where a simple list will do?). Back on topic, I’ve read three and have two others unread on my Nook.
- Meanwhile, the first annual Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction has been awarded. I actually quit reading the winner 15 years ago.
- Comparing the fiction of Room and the reality of Jaycee Dugard’s memoir. (via)
- The New York Public Library is allowing kids to “read down” (erase) any library fines they have by participating in the library’s summer reading program.
- Gollancz is launching SF Gateway, which it says will be the world’s largest digital library of SF and fantasy. It will make out-of-print titles available as e-books, starting with more than 1,000 titles this fall and plans for 3,000 titles by the end of 2012 and 5,000 by 2014. (via)
- A writer was awarded $100,000 in damages for libel for a book review in the UK’s Daily Telegraph.
- “Mary Doria Russell for President: we’ve done worse!”
- World Book Night is coming to the U.S. next year.
- The 2011 Mann Booker longlist was announced — and I’ve read none of the 13 books.
- The Booker longlist means, of course, that nominations are open for the 2011 Not the Booker prize.
- Meet the winners, runners-up and “dishonorable mentions” of the 2011 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest — for bad writing.
- “Pulitzer Prize winning author Jeffrey Eugenides was attacked on a New Jersey train on his way home from Manhattan last week by one of two inebriated men who were singing songs about their penises.”
Nonbookish Linkage
The meaning of today will not be clear until tomorrow.
Mason Cooley, City Aphorisms, Eleventh Selection
I think the media missed the forest for the trees in covering yesterday’s S.D. Supreme Court opinion on the appointment of members of that court. Much of the coverage seems to focus on the thought that any lawyer in the state can apply for any open judicial position. But that is not the crux or even really part of the decision. As a result, I thought it worthwhile to attempt to explain it without legalese and at its most basic (which is always dangerous).
Article V, Section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution says Supreme Court justices “shall be selected from compact districts established by the Legislature, and each district shall have one justice.” The core question, though, stems from Article V, Section 6. As pertinent here, it says, “Justices of the Supreme Court … must be citizens of the United States, residents of the state of South Dakota and voting residents within the district … from which they are … appointed.” (Emphasis added.) According to the Supreme Court, several of the people on the list submitted to Gov. Daugaard for the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Judith Meierhenry do not reside in the Supreme Court district she served. Thus, Daugaard asked the Court at what point in the selection process a person must be a voting resident of the Supreme Court district.
It is crucial to understand the entire process. First, the Judicial Qualifications Commission takes applications for the vacancy and then interviews the applicants. It is required to submit the names of “two or more persons” to the governor. The governor, in turn, must select the appointee from the names on the list. The actual appointment occurs when it is filed in writing with the Secretary of State. Finally, although appointed, the individual does not become a justice until he or she takes the oath of office. Thus, the process has basically three stages: application, appointment and swearing in.
The Court split 3-2 in answering Gov. Daugaard’s question. The majority said the relevant time to determine if a person is a voting resident of a particular district represent is when they take the oath of office. Summarized in one sentence, the majority said the constitutional provisions refer to “justices” of the Supreme Court and an individual does not become a justice unless and until they take the oath of office. It is the same result a plurality of the Court reached when the issue arose for circuit court appointments in 1993. The minority focused on the use of the word “appointed.” As a result, their view was voting residence must be established at the time the appointment is filed with the Secretary of State.
As a result, the ruling doesn’t really change who can apply for a judicial vacancy. The relevant constitutional provisions never mention the word “application,” which is probably why the application forms ask if the person is willing to move. In fact, theoretically anyone could apply for a vacancy, although the constitutional requirement that Supreme Court justices and circuit court judges be licensed to practice law in South Dakota makes it unlikely a governor will wait for a person to get a law degree and/or take the bar exam.
The crux and practical effect of the ruling is straightforward. If the person selected by the governor doesn’t reside in the district when they apply, it is the difference between whether the governor tells them “you have to move before I file your appointment” or “you have to move before you take the oath of office.” To report the decision as establishing that its created a free for all for lawyers to apply for judicial vacancies misreads it.
The power which the people of this state have entrusted to a [Supreme Court justice] affects the people’s lives, welfare and property to no small extent.
In the Matter of the Interpretation of S.D. Const. Art. V, §§ 2 and 6,
2011 SD 44 (citation omitted; brackets in original)
I am not easily offended. But there are exceptions. One is the post at the Publishers Weekly‘s blog of the “singular” writers for each of the 50 states. South Dakota’s entry? “No one of note. The closest South Dakota has to literary tradition is that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s itinerant childhood stopped through Dakota territory [sic] in 1880.”
The authority for that conclusion? Apparently, a Wikipedia entry. I don’t think I’m being oversensitive or a homer for thinking that is a rather fallacious method of judging a state’s literary tradition and writers. Regardless of whether other sources were used, the statements lack analysis and respect.
First, the list isn’t based on where a writer was born. So why is Wilder Wisconsin’s singular writer? She lived there seven years. In contrast, after arriving here in 1879, Wilder lived, married and taught in Dakota Territory and South Dakota for 11 years. That seems to be more than just a stop along the way. Of course, why let facts get in the way of a smarmy shot at a place you’ve probably never been?
Likewise, it seems the blogger didn’t pay much attention to the people in the Wikipedia entry. They include Vine Deloria, Jr., George McGovern, Frederick Manfred, and Ole Rølvaag. No, there’s certainly no “literary tradition” there.
Is it that you have to live in the state when you write your books? Then what about Kathleen Norris? Even if non-fiction or essays don’t count, she also writes poetry. What about Black Elk? I forgot, Native Americans relied on oral traditions so their philosophy could never be a basis for a literary tradition. If living here at the time isn’t the requirement, how about attending college here? Pete Dexter still returns almost annually to the South Dakota Festival of Books even though he graduated from USD 40 years ago. Or how about your experiences while living here helping form part of the setting for your classic book? Since he didn’t live here as long as Laura Ingalls Wilder, maybe L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz needs to be revised.
Those are just nationally known writers. I doubt the blogger ever read some of our less well known but talented writers, such as John Milton or Linda Hasselstrom. Of course, this is a mere dot in flyover country so a New Yorker wouldn’t need anything more than Wikipedia before deciding South Dakota has no literary tradition or worthy authors. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that, compared to South Dakota’s cultural destitution, New York emerges from the list as “the unchallenged king of the U.S.” After all, only NYC’s publishing community and literati are brilliant enough to divine literary worth.
The Plains are full of what a friend here calls “good telling stories,” and … our sense of being forgotten by the rest of the world makes it all the more important that we preserve them and pass them on[.]
Kathleen Norris, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography
Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes
- Farmageddon (“If you long for the days of an agrarian based democracy and family life on the farm, you have to buy Terry Redlin prints to capture the time. If it ever really existed.”)
- Rescuing Books (“Being told to keep two copies of a book in stock and to throw away the third, knowing full well we’d be ordering third and fourth and fifth copies in just another month or two, seemed like some kind of cruel waste of so many people’s energies.”) (via)
- How to Be a Writer (“Let her find her own truth, even if she has to spin outrageous lies in search of it.”) (via)
Book Review of the Week
Blog Headline of the Week
Bookish Linkage
Nonbookish Linkage
Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid.
Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I’m not surprised when I see typos in book galleys or advance readers copies. After all, these come before a book is finally coming off the presses. Over time, though, I have been surprised at the seemingly increasing number of typos in finished books. Now it appears computers may be to blame, at least in part.
According to Virginia Hefferman of the NYT, “Before digital technology unsettled both the economics and the routines of book publishing … most publishers employed battalions of full-time copy editors and proofreaders to filter out an author’s mistakes. Now, they are gone.” While I don’t necessarily blame typos on authors (some could arise in the editorial process), this makes sense. Copy editors and proofreaders provide a second (third or fourth) eye. The fewer of them, the greater the odds a typo may slip by. Besides, how many of us have relied on spell-check only to later discover it missed a misspelled word because the misspelling was another word? (I admit I once had a letter go out that referred to “pubic inspection” instead of “public inspection.” Just a slight difference, right?)
Hefferman considers some of the errors “endearing, and evocative.” She also points out the Pollyannaish view that typos might show us more of the human side of the writer. I, evidently, am not as tolerant. To me, a typo is a stumbling block in the flow. If there are several, I tend to view them as displaying a lack of concern. Substantive ones may even make me wonder about the author, the editor(s) and any fact-checkers and, thus, the book. I can accept the explanation that computers may be at fault. After all, I’ve found e-books tend to be the worst offenders, which I presume is a result of converting a document into digital format. Still, I don’t think a book should be hitting the shelves with multiple typos. It’s not an original handwritten manuscript. It’s a final product and if it is flawed, I may wonder what else in it is also flawed.
Here ends my miner rant.
(P.S. That one was intentional.)
Typos are very important to all written form. It gives the reader something to look for so they aren’t distracted by the total lack of content in your writing.
R.K. Milholland, Something Postive, July 3, 2005
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
