6 Word Story Solemnly Modernized

Ernest Hemingway once penned a six-word story, which reads as follows:

"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

He later credited this as his life's best work. Many regard Hemingway's "Baby Shoes" as the best of its kind. I'd have to agree with that sentiment, even though I've limited experience with the art form.

What I want to explore today is how the meaning of that simple six word story has changed over time. The apparent intention of Mr. Hemingway was to depict a sad tale of infant mortality. The obvious intent of a six word story is to be concise, but the mere simplicity in his word choices invoke not only the child's brief life and the implied grief of the family, but also the utter sadness and power of the tragedy. Unless anyone finds another way to interpret the story, there's really not much else to ponder.

I've been ruminating on this micro-story for some time now, and I keep returning to and pondering the incredible irony and revelation in the work when examined through a modern day lens. At the time of Hemingway's writing of this story, there was pretty much only one approach to its interpretation. Fast forward to today however, and there seems to be a new way to read his thoughts and intentions.

To explain this train of thought, I need to offer some historical perspective. In "those days", a family would most likely not purchase or acquire baby shoes (or anything for that matter) without absolute intention in utilizing that item. Weather it be hand me downs, new purchases, or other means; goods were obtained for specific and obvious utility, duration, and function. So the tragedy in this story comes from the fact that these baby shoes were fully intended for use- and when the situation arose that they were not needed and subsequently sold- the grief and sadness becomes apparent. Simple, heartbreaking, true.

When I think of this same story in the context of modern times, I come to very different conclusions. I am aware that todays world is very different. We now live in a society that sometimes urges us to consume for the sake of consuming. We buy much more than we need, live above our means, and often times resort to storage unit space because of this trend. We buy to keep up with the Jones', we spend to "feel better", we purchase to "better our lives", and sometimes we buy/ spend/ purchase because we "need". What a concept huh!?

So, think of Hemingway's masterpiece in this aforementioned context. Really- think about it. After having done so, I don't read his story with the same heartache and sadness. I don't read the story with the same clarity and vividness. I now read the story with the inflection of a question rather then the assertiveness of a strong statement. Why you ask?

It comes down to a basic premise- one which plays off my original evaluation of Hemingway's story. As read currently, I have options as to what the story may mean. Could the baby shoes be the wrong size; only to be thrown into a closet and never utilized? Could the parents have bought two different pairs of shoes- one name brand and one generic brand; and then decided to only use one pair, thus relegating the other to the "sale bin"? Could someone else have gotten the shoes for the baby/ family in a gifting manner, and again not be of any use at the present time?

Each of these scenarios could be true, as could several others. Either way, there doesn't seem to be the same relevance, immediacy, and genuine tug of the heart strings that the original had. I don't mean to infer that the story can't stand the test of time (or maybe I am?) I'm more ruminating on the fact that taken into current contexts, it just doesn't pack the punch it once did. It's almost as if it's been sullied by our "progress", where it now requires thought and context rather then a purely visceral response by the reader.

I don't quite know how to react to my thoughts on this one? Has the arc of time made us too complicated , to cumbersome in our materialism and consumerism, overly concerned with outlying status quo's and competition. Are we incapable of describing our worlds in six words anymore? I sure hope not, and I'm fairly certain that Mr. Hemingway would be astonished that someone could read his masterpiece and not come away with a clear and resolute feeling.

*********************

One of the reasons I began thinking about this topic is due to a recent chord that was struck in my mind. An NPR radio show (podcast) that I love called "On The Media" recently held their "12 Word Novel Contest", and it jogged this whole train of thought. While not the 6 word type that Hemingway nailed down, it's still a rewarding, enjoyable, and enlightening segment. It's worth checking out, as there is definitely hope for the simple and short form of writing. It's definitely not lost on today's world!

Have fun chewing on all this fat I put on your plate!
Peace
AM Son

Read more >> Options >>

"Spygate", will you please die now!?

I hate to play a role in dragging out this scenario even longer; in sensationalizing a story that ought to be put to rest, but I just can't resist posting this video from CBS News.

First and foremost, I laud Belichick for his apparent candor and forthrightness during the interview. Many people will always feel that he's a sneak, a cheat, and arrogant; and that any truth he tries to spin at this point is just his way of putting his finger in the hole in the dam. I feel otherwise, he appears to have clear and concise answers and reasons for the "situation", and doesn't resort to emotional finger pointing and dodging of blame and reason. I like his demeanor and tone, and wish that an interview like this could be the sort of thing that puts an end to this melodrama.

I do wish that CBS News would have played the whole interview on their broadcast- instead of relying on viewers to surf to their website for the entirety of the conversation. The snippets from the TV broadcast are sensationalistic and shallow, and beget more questions than they answer.

Here's the entire interview. In my opinion, this "spygate" crap should be put to rest, and all the "cheating" talk should die along with it.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.554603&w=425&h=350&fv=link%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fsections%2Fi_video%2Fmain500251.shtml%3Fid%3D4104334n%26releaseURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Frelease.theplatform.com%2Fcontent.select%3Fpid%3DZLrGTX0nbJ7vKjyWreX1e5VhCqPqyTLx%26partner%3Dnewsembed%26autoPlayVid%3Dfalse%26prevImg%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fthumbnails.cbsig.net%2FCBS_Production_News%2F710%2F476%2Fketeyian_full0516_480x360.jpg] from www.cbsnews.com posted with vodpod

D-U-M-B Dumb, Dumb, Dumb!

When one takes to accusing another individual or even an entire sect of people of being "dumb", they are seemingly opening up themselves to a litany of criticisms and attacks. In essence, they had better be sure they aren't residing in a glass house. This is not to say that I'm accusing anyone of the pot calling the kettle black, but rather that it becomes relevant and important for one to understand what parameters of "knowledge" and "experience" and "information" we've set up in a scenario in which one individual or group calls another individual or group "dumb".

This scenario plays itself out in a new book entitled "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30)", written by Mark Baurlein. Out of full disclosure, I've yet to read this book, so I've no real clue as to what is discussed, laid out, assumed, or discovered within its text. I am, however, intrigued by its premise and scope and plan to read it this summer. I just hope that it's not a blanketed condemnation of an entire generation. I also hope that the blame isn't placed solely on one sect- be it the generation in question, their parents, the media, religion, poverty/ economics, or any other possible influence or excuse.

I thought this book was an interesting tie-in to my previously aforementioned "GQ" article. As I mentioned, I plan to read the book, so look forward to a possible review and discussion here at the blog.

Edit: Here's a fascinating take on this book- a worthy read indeed! I like the tone of the article, and the way the writer stays relatively objective while still defending both sides passionately.

GQ (but not like you think)

Thomas Friedman is one of today's foremost experts on world economics and globalization. As a journalist of foreign affairs, he's written a few books- including an extremely lengthy and fascinating book entitled "The World Is Flat", which encompasses much of what has transpired in the global economic and socioeconomic spheres over the past forty or so years. In short, this dude knows what he's talking about when it comes to the interrelations of global economics and global politics. I liked "The World Is Flat", and also find some of his NY Times articles and columns interesting as well.

An October 2007 article titled, "Generation Q"- written by Friedman- has had my interests piqued for months now. Check it out and decide for yourself weather or not you're a member of Generation Q., and if so what it means to you. I'm fairly guilty of some of his accusations- both the good and the bad. I'm aware of my part time ambivalence, and looking for a way to give it some regularly scheduled vacations.

You?

Peace

AM Son