Big-Time Puzzle Collectors

I collect mechanical puzzles, and most people are shocked when I tell them I have 600-700 puzzles in my collection.

But that's nothing. Jerry Slocum's collection has over 30,000. And his is the second largest in the world (the largest currently belongs to James Dalgety in England, but he inherited it from Edward Hordern, who built it).

Jerry's donating his collection over time to the Lilly Library in Bloomington, Indiana, and the New York Times has an article about the first wave of arrivals to the library. Be sure and click on the accompanying graphic to get a rare look at the interior of a Kamei secret box (I own a copy of Cassiopeia; it's neat). Usually, Kamei works hard to make sure you never see the mechanisms in his boxes.

Melissa and I passed on the opportunity to travel to Bloomington with a group after International Puzzle Party, which Jerry started 28 years ago. I considered applying for the curator job for this collection, but that's another story.

Go Ahead, Make My Day

From my most meticulous and critical (in a good way) editor, after I submitted a piece the other day, "sentence by sentence, the piece reads better than anything you've sent before. There's a kind of ease and control to the writing, along with nice turns of phrase." As almost every writer knows, "ease" takes a lot of work to create.

Of course, this came after a statement that I need to restructure the piece and delve into more specifics—show don't tell, the classic advice to writers. Still, the email brought a big goofy smile to my face.

Slate on Building Crossword Puzzles

Slate features an interesting article about a face-off between human-built and computer-designed crossword puzzles. Coincidentally, the National Puzzlers League meets in San Antonio this week for their annual convention. Many of the folks mentioned in the article will be there, but I have to miss it. The NPL con happens too close to International Puzzle Party, and I have to choose. This year, I'm going to IPP.

Writing Fiction

I'm trying to improve my writing. Most of my readers (on OWF and in print) might say that, by now, I'm a decent writer. Even I accept this. But I can do better. I want to be a great writer, not a good one.

I've taken another step down this path by reading Janet Burroway's Writing Fiction, a textbook for writing classes that a no-nonsense coach recommended to me at the Wine Writers' Symposium. I would recommend it in turn to anyone who wants to improve their craft as a writer.

I don't plan on becoming a fiction writer, though the book has certainly inspired me to try. But I do want to add story elements to my writing, and the principles of plot, setting, and characterization apply to fiction and nonfiction alike.

Indeed, the book's made me a better reader. I've been reading Best American Short Stories out loud to Melissa on car trips (disclaimer: I work for the publisher), and occasionally I'll stop and dissect the story based on my progress through Writing Fiction. Burroway writes simply but clearly, and includes numerous short stories that illustrate her points (though the copyrights on these pieces must have contributed to the $60 price tag). She provides excerpts from other works or student papers, taking you through the do's and don'ts for each area. I plan to re-read the book, taking time to do the exercises at the end of each chapter. I want to understand these aspects of writing, and include them in my own work as I move away from the reporting genre that I lean towards.

I can already see improvement. In a recent piece for Edible East Bay, I focused on characterization (always a weak point of mine) and setting, and tried out some ideas for making a connection without bludgeoning the reader with it.

I worry that I'm in some limbo, with writing not as good as it was before because it's on its way to being better. But my editor at Edible East Bay liked my piece a lot, so I haven't gone too far south.

Wired's Found Contact Lens

I like the "Found" feature on the back page of Wired. It's an artist's concept of future technology interspersed with items from our daily lives.

The current issue featured a contact lens with a heads-up display. Neat concept, but then I realized the artist got it wrong: With all the data around your iris, and not your pupil, you wouldn't be able to see any of it. We see because light enters our pupils: The iris just controls the aperture.

Melissa points out that since it's from the future, I don't know what technology they're using, so maybe they've figured out a way to make it work. Good point.