READ PART ONE. Today I would like to address the issue of the "non-sequitur." The non-sequitur is a rhetorical device by which a conclusion is made that does not follow from its premise. In fact, the term, which is Latin, literally means "does not follow." And by "literally" I mean "actually." Colloquially, it may also refer to a statement or a phenomenon which is un-prompted by logic and makes no sense within its given context. An example: I will not give you an example. Enough will follow shortly. The non sequitur is seductive. Between premise and unrelated conclusion, there is a wide, vertiginous gap that some people like very much, like delicious candy. Using a non-sequitur gives writing a "wacky" quality, and it is very popular among some who would ask me questions. An example:
John Kellogg Hodgman, Former Professional Literary Agent: This happens to be a perfect example of what I was just talking about. Imagine that. When I was a professional literary agent, I would caution writers against excessive "wackiness": characters with funny, hyper-literate names ("Mr. Thaddeus Ancillary walked into the bar..."), sudden deus ex machina kidnappings by UFO, or people who happen to have the heads of grinning cats. It is tempting to write this way, as it is clever-seeming and would invite comparison to established "wacky" writers like Joseph Heller, Douglas Adams, and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. But I never liked it. Maybe this is because a non sequitur is selfish, attention-grabbing, and needy, hijacking the surrounding text and undermining its more generous or honest purpose, which may be to tell a story or request information. Or maybe it's because I am a crank who only likes jokes when I make them. Anyway, here is a premise which has no bearing on the question it purports to illustrate. It wants nothing to do with the question, even though the question is its reason for being, and because of this, the premise seems to hate the question all the more. It is a very complex relationship. But it is a good question, and the answer is yes, if you're using a typewriter. Two spaces were long required to achieve readability on a fixed-width type mechanism like a typewriter (or in a font like Courier). But most fonts today are proportional, with each character taking up a different and appropriate amount of space, including the period. This makes the second space unnecessary as a visual cue and to some eyes undesirable. But I still put it in anyway, because I am a crank.
JKH, FPLA: This is a somewhat more stealthy beast, in that the question does have some arguable if tenuous relationship to the premise. But the premise is faulty. That is not teleportation but cloning, and my aversion to cloning as a plot device is a matter of public record (see AAFPLA IV). Cloning is a chump's game: a way to build in cheap evil-twin plot twists; to allow characters to cheat mortality and thus, believability; and in your case, to sidestep the problematics of near-light-speed travel. Also, it's gross (in a way that robots and spaceships are not). What's more, even with the same memories, that replicated person would be a unique individual—not the same person. I'm not sure about world leaders, but none of the assassins I know would stand for such a procedure, and neither would I. As for your question, I would limit myself to two references to Blade Runner, and then call it a day.
JKH, FPLA: Would you like a fried egg for breakfast? Two can play at this game. A horse!
JKH, FPLA: That is impossible, as your foot does not have a carpal tunnel, which is the opening through which the flexor tendons and median nerve run to the hand. You may be thinking of tarsal tunnel syndrome, in which the posterior tibial nerve is pressed up against a band of fibrous tissue known as the flexor retinaculum, resulting in numbness and pain along the sole of the foot. But I don't think you should worry this problem, because I don't believe you actually run as spastically or as frequently as you say you do, or that you are afraid of your own reflection.
JKH, FPLA: You should not be so hard on yourself. There are no wrong questions, just wrong answers, and these are not a concern here. But, since you ask, I recommend something along these lines...
JKH, FPLA: Somewhere in between. The 2002 Impreza WRX is rated by Subaru at 227 hp @ 6,000 rpm, which is very powerful, but not as powerful as the Japanese version of same, which hits 280 hp, or the Japan-only 22B, which is estimated at 325 hp. As you know, the WRX has extra-large halogen headlights doubled by oversize fog lights for extra-blinding action. My feeling: these should be illegal, unless I am driving one, in which case they are great. Of course, in answering this question, I have two advantages. First, I am something of a Subaru expert, given that I own a 1990 Subaru Loyale. Second, because I am so slow and lazy, it is well past March, so this information is easily available. But though I am flawed, perhaps irretrievably, an honest question deserves an honest answer. And you, dear reader, shall also have one, if you write here. Until then, a horse! That is all. John Hodgman
OTHER McSWEENEY'S STORIES:
Exercise By David Rossmann Nineteen Boys By Sarah Manguso Cases From the Files of Traig & McGrath, Shut-In Detectives By Jenny Traig and Peter McGrath Thirteen Short Satirical Fragments on 20th-Century Subjects Which Are Either Obscure or Have Long Since Passed From the National Memory, Done in the Style of Voltaire By Greg Purcell A River Rages Through It By Ben Greenman |
Red dot denotes content that is new today.
Black dot denotes newish content.