Writing About Genius: Discussing Authors on a Blog

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Scott D. Southard

I tolerate Garrison Keillor, but I am not sure how much I like him.

While I am impressed that he can write a two-hour show each week (and that is an accomplishment, make no mistake), I never found his fiction to be very good– comforting, yes; good, no. When planning for a trip to Italy with my wife, I picked up a bunch of his novels for all of the driving from tourist site to tourist site. Well, on day two of the trip, I gave his books to another traveler, and picked up some new books at a bus stop… Yeah, that says everything right there.

So why do I bring up Mr. Keillor? Frankly, I don’t think he helps the image of English majors and readers on his show. English majors (and I will include librarians with us since they get attacked as well) in his opinion seem to always live a life of illusion, false grandeur. Making us almost something to be pitied or laughed at… and they laugh every week.

Yes, English majors really don’t serve much of a purpose in the economy, no business manager has ever demanded an HR department to hire a new English major. When it comes to the American dream of moving up ladders and finding success, English majors are on the outskirts; because, honestly, our dreams are different. Continue reading →

Why This Writer Feels Guilty For Loving SHERLOCK

Posted on January 11, 2012 by Scott D. Southard

Let me say this off the bat– SHERLOCK is one of the best written TV series I have ever had the pleasure to watch.

I love all the twists and turns and surprises in each episode. I think the actors are great in their parts and I look forward to each new episode. I’ve already seen two of the three new episodes of season two, and it is even better than the first season. As a fan, I hope the series goes on for another 10 years.

OK, I got that off of my chest.

Now, let me say I feel slight tinges of guilt for loving and supporting the series, because it is not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s vision. Oh, they are his characters (the main ones, albeit with cell phones), but they are not his stories, his world, his words, his adventures, his time period. The creators are–to put it bluntly and completely on the table–taking what they want from his stories in piecemeal, and remaking it for their own profit.

Again, I love the series. I want it to go on, but it does set a precedent that makes me a little concerned. Because of this series’ success are we going to see “new versions” of classics all over the place? Is that a good thing? And more importantly, does it give the respect to the original artist that they deserve for their own creation?

Consider this, if SHERLOCK wasn’t such a well-made, well-written series would we be as happy around the enterprise?

If it was crap, I can guarantee you that the Sherlock Holmes fan sites around the world would have risen in protest around it. The fact it is good, helps. So do we say, it is OK to “reinvent” an artist’s creation as long as it is good? And who defines good? I don’t know about you, but I typically don’t trust TV executives to make that call for me. Continue reading →

Quoted in an article…

Posted on February 14, 2011 by Scott D. Southard

Hi, I’m quoted in an article on annarbor.com. The article is called “The Quirk Classic Series: A Literary Homage or a Disrespectful Distortion.” For those not in the know, these are the series of books where “authors” take another (and far better) artist’s work and add a “fantastical trick” to it so they can make a buck off of the other’s product. And since the author is far dead, they won’t mind, right? (But wouldn’t it be great if Jane Austen could return as a zombie and attack the people that ruined her greatest novel?).

This is my quote from the article:

“They are actually using Austen’s words, and Jane was pretty protective of her writing. I can’t imagine she would be happy to have another author’s name like that on the book, nor the …intrusion of zombies…” says Scott D Southard, author of “My Problem with Doors.” “I like to think of these new ‘classics’ as the equivalent of a bratty child repeating what a parent says in a higher, squeaky voice… but on a literary, artistic level, of course.”

You can read the rest of the aticle here: