You know how you scratch away at a lottery ticket to see if you’ve won? That’s what I’m doing when I begin a piece. I’m digging through everything to find something.
[…]
Scratching can look like borrowing or appropriating, but it’s an essential part of creativity. It’s primal, and very private. It’s a way of saying to the gods, “Oh, don’t mind me, I’ll just wander around in these back hallways…” and then grabbing that piece of fire and running like hell.

Twyla Tharp on hunting for ideas.

Marginal Revolution: *Create Your Own Economy*, standing on one foot

Tyler Cowen summarizes some of the contents of his new book. Some bits I’m curious about:

2. A new vision for how “autistic cognitive strengths” are a major dynamic element in human history and that includes a revisionist view of the autism spectrum.

3. New ways of thinking about what you’re really good at (and not so good at).

4. A view of why education is much more than just signaling, but why you should be cynical about most education nonetheless.

7. Why the Sherlock Holmes stories are a lot more interesting than most people think.

10. The importance of neurology for unpacking debates about aesthetics, especially when it comes to music.

I finished his Discover Your Inner Economist last week, which was wide-ranging and breezy and smart, just like the blog he co-writes. Looking forward to this new book.

Marginal Revolution: *Create Your Own Economy*, standing on one foot

An economy that is more entrepreneurial, less managerial, would be less subject to the kind of distortions that occur when corporate managers’ compensation is tied to the short-term profit of distant shareholders. For most entrepreneurs, profit is at once a more capacious and a more concrete thing than this. It is a calculation in which the intrinsic satisfactions of work count.

Matthew B. Crawford, The Case for Working With Your Hands. NYT Magazine, 5.24.09. That last sentence is such a winner. (via)


Personics Commercial.

I’m not sure how big it got, but I know I missed this growing up in rural north Georgia. Apparently, for a time in the late ‘80s and early ’90s (as LPs and 45s were fading but before CDs made a big splash, way before our idyllic days of mp3 ubiquity), you could buy singles for $0.50-$1.50 or so, and have them recorded on a custom-labeled mixtape. (via retro thing)

As if lugging around a book the size of a 2 br. 1¼ bath apartment isn’t enough, you may want to carry a notebook as well. You won’t always have the requisite Oxford English Dictionary within arm’s reach, you know.

How to Read Infinite Jest. (via infinitetumblr).

I checked this out from the library a while ago. Unfortunately, some guy had it requested before I could break into triple-digit pages. Now that I’m armed with my very own shiny new copy, I’m ready to dive back in.

Just learned a new word: “Walla is a sound effect imitating the murmur of a crowd in the background.”

One of the tasks of the film critic of tomorrow – perhaps he will even be called a “television critic” – will be to rid the world of the comic figure the average film critic and film theorist of today represents: he lives from the glory of his memories like the seventy-year-old ex-court actresses, rummages about as they do in yellowing photographs, speaks of names that are long gone. He discusses films no one has been able to see for ten years or more (and about which they can therefore say everything and nothing) with people of his own ilk; he argues about montage like medieval scholars discussed the existence of God, believing all these things could still exist today. In the evening, he sits with rapt attention in the cinema, a critical art lover, as though we still lived in the days of Griffith, Stroheim, Murnau, and Eisenstein. He thinks he is seeing bad films instead of understanding that what he sees is no longer film at all.

The Film Critic of Tomorrow. Rudolf Arnheim, 1935. Ah, the troubles of understanding and reconciling The New with the vast collection of Things We Already Love.