A Lament for the Oft Maligned Ignoble Art of Profanity

Strange as it may sound, I'm certain that I'm not the first to express the title sentiment. What happened? How did swearing in the English language fall to it's current state and how can it ever be made to recover? In today's English we have a fist full of 'swear' words with hundreds of variants; and that's it. Not only does this overuse of so precious few words limit us in our variety of speech, but the fact that no one digs down for that eternally creative human spirit that can achieve anything when it comes to swearing is really very sad.

Ever read Shōgun? Now there's some profanity; it gives new meaning to the phrase, 'swearing like a drunken sailor,' cause damn, those sailors can swear. (I just proved my point; 'damn' doesn't even register as a swear word to anyone.) I've been plowing through Aurturo Pérez-Reverte's Captain Alatriste series and he's so good at period cussing I had to pause the first few times I came across certain phrases. (e.g. 'S Blood! Short for Christ Blood!) Pérez-Reverte is hardly afraid of an f-bomb and when it's dropped, it hits hard. The effect is strengthened as no one word or phrase is overused as to become common place: less is more, by cutting back we can make our currently 'casual' swearing have the impact it should. It's a matter of how we swear in between f-bombs.

I'm just now getting around to the second season of The Boondocks, and there is some truly inspired material there, but it makes me sad to think this material is only used for comedic effect and will more than likely never find it's way into the argot of the equivalent of today's foul mouth sailors.

I'm taking a vow; a pledge for the rest of the year. I will wash my mouth out with soap should I allow myself fall back on the crutches of modern profanity in lieu of taking a second to think of something mildly original. I expect I'll over shoot my aims in the beginning as it will be new to me. The learning curve is steep, but the gains are greater still. I'm on a mission to expand the modern vernacular. Why would I burden myself with such an undertaking? Because if there is ever a time when words should mean something to speaker and all parties listening surely such a time is at it's peak when people feel the need for profanity.

Anyone else up to the challenge?

Non-Fiction and Fun (Or the lack there of…)

Speak, Memory by Vladimir Nabokov, A Brief History of TIme by Stephen Hawking Ph.D., Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks by Ethan Gilsdorf and Structural Power and the Construction of Markets: The Case of Rhythm and Blues by Timothy J. Dowd Ph.D., an article published in Comparative Social Research, Volume 21: of all of these, I think I enjoyed the latter the most.

I don't read a lot of non-fiction so perhaps I don't know what to look for to judge it's merits and faults, but in terms of what was the most fun, or what would I recommend to someone else, I have to go with Gilsdorf. If you make it through the free online preview without laughing, then I doubt our reading interest will ever coincide. I wish I'd taken notes while reading the Hawking, my retention would then have been much higher. I should have known that Nabokov would be the most cerebral and intellectual of the bunch with his command and elegant mastery of the English language. As for beautiful writing, Nabokov again wins in terms of prose and sheer creativity in presentation of a memoir. (I still think the, 'best' bit of writing within Speak, Memory was Nabokov's 'review' of the work at the end. It is much like the forward to Lolita except greatly expanded.)

I think non-fiction has some form of reader engagement that is, at the present, foreign to me. I can't say I ever, 'got into' any of these books except for the Dowd article--which covers a subject that I knew going into would have great immediate interest to me. Perhaps I'm going about things incorrectly and I need to follow some sort of primer as to how best enjoy non-fiction, and as always, I'm open to suggestions, but at the moment, I'm at a loss to see how book stores stay in business carrying as little fiction as they do. How does non-fiction sell as much as it does?

What am I missing? Why is the fiction market so tiny and yet that is what holds all my reading interest outside of academic writing concerning sociology? I once heard that the average person reads seventy pages in a book and then puts it down forever. If that statistic took into account non-fiction I kinda understand. I'd love to know further details of that study. To all the non-fiction lovers out there, I'm not hating, but have you heard of Arturo Perez-Reverte, John Connolly or a host of other I-have-read-everything-by-this-person-ever writers?

I've never been in with the 'in crowd' and I don't take the side of the minority 'just because,' but I'm missing (or have missed) the point when it comes to most non-fiction.

Fan Involvement in the Creative Process

I'm going to tread over thinly veiled ice in what's to follow so if you choose to keep reading, walk softly. There's a growing trend of author interaction with their fans that seems to be the new way of things in publishing. It's good, and for the most part, free marketing. On the whole I don't have a problem with it. Until it comes to fan interaction with an author.

To what degree do writer's need to listen to the voice of their fans? Readers are entitled to their opinions, and they often list all the things they want to see included in a writer's next story. They dictate what they see as a writer's strengths and weaknesses and what they should focus on in their writing. I personally don't think there is any obligation on the writer's part to listen to what is said and there should be no expectation from reader's that their opinions are being given any consideration.

This seems to be crossing a line to me. A writer is entitled to writer whatever story they want. Sometimes they get lucky and other people like it, sometimes not. I can only hope author's take these fan suggestions with a boulder-sized grain of salt, because I don't want to read published fan fiction crafted by the pen of, "Author X."

Fan service is just that. It does not need to be bound and published by Simon and Schuster. Writers, and to expand on the definition of the word, "artist" don't do their work for their fans. Does anyone really think that John Irvine cared if people read or liked Until I Find you? Sure, his feelings may have been hurt if it got crappy reviews and the book bombed at retail, but it was a book that he--as the creator--had to get off his chest and he did so to satisfy himself. The same is true for Beethoven or Michangelo or any other, 'artist' of your choosing.

I once read a book by my favorite author and hated it. From start to finish, I didn't have anything positive to say. It was because of what I deemed a bad book from a writer that I thought so highly of and expected so much from that led me to think, "I can do better than this," and start writing myself.

Input is one thing, and well made suggestions/criticisms are always appreciated, but to see some of the commentary today on author websites, "You betrayed me!" and so on is nauseating. I don't think fans can be betrayed; let down, sure but that's the extent of it. No writer is obligated to write works that will please fans of their previous efforts. (Don't even get me started on pseudonyms.) It's not as if there aren't a few thousand other books published in a year that you might enjoy, times the thousands of other books for all the previous years that publishing has been around.

It seems I've adopted my 'rant' voice. Perhaps that what is to come in the internet age: an endless cycle of complaints in varying degrees of expression.

Shaking hands and signing books at a reading is all well and good, but I don't think that any creative process is collaborative, and so I do get a little bit nervous when see running commentary from a writer to their fans. It seems to me if you don't want to read a story that's written there's plenty of other material out there that may be of interest to you. And if we lived in a different age, a time long out of human memory know as, 'twenty years ago', complainers wouldn't even have had a vehicle to voice their disgust.

Oh, wait a minute… I guess that last bit goes for me too.

A wasted opportunity

So I watched It Might Get Loud the other day. The title may well be the best thing about the film. It is supposed to be a history of the electric guitar told by three rock guitarist of different generations. Perhaps it succeeded on this front, but not really in my eyes.

Even if it did, it could have been so much more. There can be conflict in a documentary and there can be expression; only don't look for them in this film. I felt they asked Jimi Page, The Edge, and Jack White to 'interview' each other, rather than have someone with a storytelling agenda press forward with certain issues. It's not exactly as if any of the three are journalist...

The best underused content to me was Page saying--out loud-- "Pop music is rubbish," and then all parties involved let a comment like that die... even the lead guitarist from a 'pop band' like U2.

It could have been so much more.

Short Story Poseurs

I've made it a point to read short stories this year and it has been an effort that I have greatly enjoyed. However, one aspect of short story anthologies that I have been running into that really bothers me is novel excerpts posing as short stories.

Sometimes this is unavoidable. A writer writes a piece, finishes it, and it turns out to be of 'short story length' only to expand upon it at a later time and develop the work into a novel. But the blatant inclusion of the these not-short-stories in the hopes of getting readers to purchase a collection on the off chance they only want to read author 'X' is offensive, and will probably turn reader off from reading more short stories in the long run when they see author 'X's' new novel out; now with eighty percent more of the short story you already enjoyed for twice the price sandwiched between chapter nine and eleven.

If you want to publish a collection of related novel excerpts, then do so and market them as such, but don't mislead and imply that an excerpt and a short story are one and the same. Very few of these novel excerpts can stand well on their own, hence the reason they are novels. From the editors stand point it looks good to put "Neil Gaiman's" name or whomever on the cover. As a reader, it pisses me off and I feel it does damage to the collection as a whole. Anyone care to call me out with a contrary argument?

Tangent: the spelling of the word poseur gave--and still gives--me a bit of trouble. It seems 'poser' is totally wrong yet completely acceptable. Which really makes me wonder about 'y'all,' a third person plural contraction that is found in an large number of languages yet is frowned upon in English as improper 'southern grammar.' As a southerner I'm offended and as an American speaking English (armour, honour) I'm confused. Latin retention seems a bit arbitrary, archaic for the hell-of-it, and wholly unneeded.

Semantically confused, and hating all you posers…

Chad.

All too familiar fantasies

I’m about to shut the door on the fantasy. Trying to find something outside the parameters of “heroic/epic fantasy” is turning into a full-time job. Especially considering every publisher out there list their books as being something greater than they are; with promises to transcend genre and change preconceived ideas of what fiction is.

I’m going to start and finish Brandon Sanderson's Hero of Ages soon and then I’ll be placing a lot of faith in Jay Lake’s Green. I don’t know why I am doing this but I am. Perhaps it’s the cover. Maybe because it’s written in first person which seems to me a rarity in fantasy. Perhaps it’s because it’s not a standard fantasy trilogy. Perhaps it’s this excerpt.

It’s not a happy feeling to learn that the genre that prompted an interest in reading within me is falling out of favor.

A terrible book

I want to be absolutely clear that when I say terrible I am referring to the book’s manufacturing: the construction of the book. As for the words on the page, I haven’t read them yet.

If you go to amazon and search for Lud-in-the-Mist by Hope Mirrlees you will find a few results. The first to come up is the one I purchased. Printed by CreateSpace, which is, as best as I can tell from their website a POD/self-publishing subsidiary of amazon.

I have nothing against such presses but this does raise some questions, least of all how they acquired the rights to print the book. The cover has a zoomed in pixelated picture that looks to be an extreme close up of the cover art from a previous Del Ray mass market paper back and is without doubt a copyright violation of some sort. (As Del Ray is more than creditable, for three dollars a used copy of that edition is probably preferable to the Createspace edition.) When the book is opened there is no library of congress catalogue listing, nor copyright information of any sort. All that is said before the table of contents is the title, the author and, “First published in 1926,” which combine to make for a very poor title page. Perhaps public domain is in effect, but even so that does not explain the reproduction of the cover art--no matter how altered it may be--without permission or accreditation.

The paper is standard office stock, the binding is laughable. I think it would be apparent to the untrained eye that this book was made in someone’s basement. I have seen many and own a few self-published books. All of them were more professionally done than this. If you are a lover of books and enjoy creating your own library I have no doubt that my complaints will become your own should you purchase this edition. The alternatives are an edition by the now defunct BORGO PRESS, Cold Springs Press (which amazon reviewers have also bashed in terms of quality of book construction) and the apparent diamond-in-the-rough Wildside Press.

I do not own any books printed by Wildside but judging from their website and the authors they represent I think they are legitimate, though I would welcome any feedback from any who know. I searched for this book on amazon’s Canada site to seek alternatives after seeing what arrived in the mail and was fortunate enough to stumble across Wildside. For whatever reason, they do not appear on any page of the amazon US site. Sadly, they do not have a “look inside” option to check out the formating. Should you be interested in Lud-in-the-Mist, THIS, is the edition you should purchase. Without seeing it, I have full confidence it can't any worse than the competition and judging from the books they publish I have a feeling it will be infinitely better.

I don’t expect all the books I buy to posses the master craftsmanship of Random House’s Everyman’s Library, but I do expect a lot more than this for my hard earned money. Having only gleaned the first few pages I have no doubt that I will have better things to say concerning the content of the book than the quality of it’s construction and I look forward to saying those things shortly.

Finding a New Office

There are fourteen libraries in Gwinnett county which at one point in time was the fastest growing county in the nation. The services they offered were wonderful and the facilities were some of the nicest to be found in a public library system. Seems as if their heyday is over and the reality of budget constraints are affecting everyone.

The staff cutbacks are sad and I feel for those who have been let go, but--on to more selfish concerns--the hours being so heavily cut in the evenings is something I may have to protest.

I can blog and freelance about anywhere, but when I write my own fiction I enjoy being able to get of my apartment to do so. (And no, I'm not that pretentious guy you see at a coffee house with a notebook, laptop, more pens and pencils than needed surrounded by cups of tea.) The comforts of home are too tempting for me to properly focus on anything that is truly important to me. The library was a perfect outlet: an office of sorts, for me. They used to close at nine so there was a timeline that was imposed by someone else that I was working under; a great motivator. The silent reading room was deathly quiet. Most of all it felt like an office to me. No, TV, video games, I turned my phone off and Wi-Fi, and in that room I was surrounded by other people that, in one form or another were there to work. It was an environment that I found very conducive to making progress.

Sadly there isn’t another option quite like it that comes to mind. So it seems that I have either a couple more weeks before I’ll have to learn how to write at home or find a new safe haven for creative thought.

Who cares about Holden Caulfield?

Catcher in the Rye is being talked about a lot these days. (Perhaps it’s time I read that book…) I feel that I can understand Salinger’s feelings and I think he has a legitimate grip. What I think needs further evaluation is the relevancy of Catcher in today’s literary canon.

Some books, like Catcher are time sensitive: Notes from Undergroundwhat I think is Dostoyevsky's most intelligent work , and the more recent The Reluctant Fundamentalist are two others that come to mind. It is not to say that these books are irrelevant to later generations but the bulk of their clout is going to be felt be readers at the time of the works writing. While I always think that Catcher will be regarded as a great work for reasons I hope to experience for myself shortly, I do think it’s star is fading.

Salinger is ninety and in declining physical health. The readers that the novel so heavily affected aren’t to far behind. With this passing of a generation I wonder about the credence given to a work like Catcher. To those who read it within a few years of it’s publication especially readers around Holden's age they were moved and felt they found a spokesman of sorts: some one who thought like them and expressed everything they couldn’t and acted as they wish they had the guts to do. Those same readers make the best teachers to todays generation when it comes to explaining the novel and it’s appeal. Because of that strong connection and identification that they experienced they can better relate the message of the novel to other young readers. It’s a bit like listening to someone in their late fifties tell you about the how great the Beatles were. (Well perhaps not, Salinger’s writing actually does have substantial merit.)

My contention with classics of the arts in any medium: be it literature, music, or visual art--is that in today’s age of declining interest in classical arts the classics do more damage than good. We make kids today read Catcher and Wuthering Heights because they are great and everyone should appreciate their quality. Twenty years ago that may not have been a big deal but today getting kids excited to read a book is a chore in itself; tell them they are reading a “Classic of Western Literature” and watch the eyes roll and try to gauge their boredom in metric tons. What faster way to turn off interest in reading is there?

If we are going to force kids to read give them something they want. Let them read all the pulp fiction that they can get their hands on. Let them enjoy it before we turn them off to it. Everyone’s taste change in time, some even mature. You can’t force escargot on an eight year old and demand that they like because it is fine dining. (An extreme example; I know.)

Furthermore, has there been absolutely nothing of note written since Catcher that may have literay merit and appeal to todays youth? Perhaps coming of age stories are dead--I sure as hell don’t like the genre. Perhaps children today come of age earlier in life than in Caulden’s time. Yeah, I can see how the internet would work like that.

I’m not saying bury the classics but with the constant forcible promotion of, “This is a great book goddamnit!” I feel we are doing more to stunt the interest in reading than promote it.

Words I don't Like

This is a sensitive matter. I think my taste in fiction has changed. Perhaps in my seemingly vain attempts at publication my writing skills have helped to make me a more discerning reader, or I’ve matured in what I call ‘quality writing’ as I’ve exposed myself to more literature. I’d like to think it is a combination of the two.

My quandary at the moment is Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn. A few years after the final book’s entry and I’m just now making it around to reading the series. I loved Elantris when I read it a few years back and sang Sanderson’s praises. That’s why with Mistborn I was hoping for something… not necessarily different, but more substantial and not quiet so genre fantasy.

In addition to Sanderson’s writing, I’m heavily inclined to liking him as a person. I passed up on meeting him in person at some convention that had to deal with Robert Jordan, but I have written the guy; he wrote back. Not an in depth correspondence but honest communication on multiple occasions. He encouraged me in my writing efforts, was very humble about my praise of his, and as best I could tell seemed like a regular guy who has a great gig going for him. Someone that I admire.

We are a good ways away from being family, in truth not even ‘friends’ outside of a couple of causal emails, but I still find it hard to say anything negative about him.

I’ll be finished with Mistborn ,The FInal Empire book one by this Friday. (While I don’t intend to start doing reviews in a traditional sense I will write more on this book upon completion, as I plan to do for the other two entries.) In every possible way I feel this book is a step back for Sanderson’s writing when compared to his previous work in Elantris. If I didn't know otherwise, I would guess that Elantris was written after Mistborn.

The dialogue is regularly cringe inducing: characters talk about things that are common knowledge to the people they are talking to. The repetition--both repetition of words, and ideas--is either offensive or I'm supersensitive to it. The subtleties that made me wonder about events in Elantris are all explicitly spelled out for me in Mistborn. The general intrigue and uncertainty that drove event’s forward in Elantris seems to be missing in Mistborn.

I understand that all of my gripes are personal and that others may disagree. I encourage everyone to read the books and make up your own mind. I don’t want to be the gospel for anyone concerning what is good or bad to read.

I’ve said my piece on books in a series many times. Mistborn is not helping me feel good about starting other fantasy trilogies like Joe Abercrombie First Law or Patrick Rothfuss’ Name of the Wind. The latter of which has been heralded as the greatest thing since rum.

I guess my predisposition to liking fantasy, Elantris, and Sanderson makes it harder than it should be, but I was really expecting something more ‘literary’ from Mistborn. (There. I said it.) Perhaps it kicks in later...

Anyone have suggestions on literary fantasy?

The threat of accountability

We’ve all been on both sides of this: the offender and the offended.  You’re at work; someone comes in or calls and asks you to do something.  Before they leave/hang up, they throw out a seemingly harmless question: “And your name please?”  Depending on your means of conversation there is only one correct way to respond.  If on the phone, hang up.  If you are talking in person, punch them in the face.  

It is always stated as a casual closing comment, one that precedes “Goodbye” or “Have a nice day.”   However it is anything but casual and far from indifferent.  When that question is asked, you are being called out.  Even if you’ve only know the person you are talking to for a few seconds your character is impugned and the, assume-you’re-dealing-with-a-douchebag-until-proven-otherwise mentality is put in full effect.  

Nobody likes being called out, by definition it is confrontational, let alone how good does it make you feel to be called out before you supposedly don’t so something?  I understand getting someone’s name in a business situation is very helpful when it comes to following up and staying in contact, but what I am referencing is a different matter entirely

What are people really saying when they ask you name in this context?  They are saying, "If you don't follow through, I'm on your ass.'  Surely there are exceptions but by and large this is the rule.   

How did we get to point where this is not only acceptable but expected practice?  Do we really have that many apathetic degenerates in the work force?  Because if it is these same apathetic degenerates getting laid off all the time, I’m not sure I mind.  I don’t know what I find more offensive: when someone I’ve never met expects me to slack in my efforts due to a precedent I didn’t set nor uphold or that it may be necessary to do so in todays work environment.

Out of Touch

I am currently living in a bygone era.  I have sailed backwards on the ocean of time to juncture where rapid access telecommunication aren’t possible.  You’d be amazed how much you can accomplish in life without a cell phone.

How many of our day to day conversations of any length or topic are truly necessary?  Would you be a different person with out the endless meaningless text that we use to justify the “unlimited” plan on our cell phone bill?  How would you spend your time differently among people you are going to have dinner with if you hadn’t already spoken to them eight times via phone call or text in the past few hours?

I am only in day two of life without a phone.  It is not on silent, nor am I willfully ignoring it, rather it has ceased to draw breath.  After four years of ardent, faithful service and withstanding my abuse in dropping it on the floor, in the washing machine and throwing it at the wall I say to my dearly departed phone of old, “Well done thou good and faithful servant.”  

And as I prepare for life to begin anew with a delivery tomorrow of a phone that promises to cut my hair, put the laundry in the dryer, and dispense cold ginger beer I find myself wondering if I want to upgrade my life via phone--something I previously thought to be necessary--or find contentment with my current rustic ways.

Life without a cell phone has been a bit like a bender without the booze: You are alone and in full awareness of you solitude but there is no inconvenience on your part; only if anyone else should wish to contact you.  Much as my 48 hour unplugged experience has affected and made me re-evaluate my relationship with others it has had the strongest effect of me.

There is so much time in the day, that I felt I was losing to god-knows-what-I was talking about on the phone before.  Thus far, life without a cell phone has harkened no catastrophes or acts of God I would have associated with the lack of cell phone possession.   I was able to wake up on time for work with out a phone, work has yet to be impeded in anyway, and anyone that I truly needed to talk to has found a way to get a message through.  (I understand that computers help me cheat the true old school experience.)   What I’ve gain is a bit harder to measure in terms of tangible benefit but it is nothing I’ve missed: an endless amount to text that would have been entertaining for a 5 second period, a few dozen random solicitations for unknown phones numbers, and an automated phone call from my gym letting me know my membership is two days past due.  Oh yeah, and no one from work can call me on the weekend.  No one from work can call me when I leave work.  No one from work can call me: ever.  Does any of that justify not having a cell phone?  No, and yes.

There are those who have told me that an iphone will change my life.  I don’t doubt that it can.  However, after spending a few days without a cell phone after having one for years, I’m not convinced I want my to change back to the way it was. 

Change brings more of the same

In this article by Mr John Blake I felt the feelings of Barbara McKinzie echoed those of my own heart, yet were vastly underrepresented if not completely brushed aside as fiction.

What is wrong is the perception of the black family in America in the eyes of black Americans.

“Obama didn't shout at his wife, Michelle, to shut up. The first lady didn't roll her eyes and tell Obama to act like a man. No laugh track kicked in, no one danced, and no police sirens wailed in the background.”

Was any other black American offended by that? To think that the above is the default perceived behavior for a black American husband and wife? I am a black American male, and the above is anything but my vision of a black family in America. When did people lower their expectations to the point of accepting what was shown to them on TV as reality? I’m aware of the culture, the lingo, and stereotypes... I also live in the real world where none of that surrounds me. I don’t watch the programs that portray blacks in that light, nor do I listen to the music that reflects upon those aspects. Once all of that is trimmed away there is a plethora of outlets from black Americans that more realistically reflect my reality; material that I wouldn’t be ashamed to watch or listen to among non-blacks.

Of course the Obamas aren’t here to entertain us. The fact that anyone ever thought they were is degrading. Perhaps that's your point Mr. Blake, but I should hope not. The perception of the Obamas should not be that of a standard bearer for a new way of being in terms of how a black family is seen in America, rather it should reinforce all the good that so many blacks have achieved that goes unheralded. The standard of the Obamas as the ideal black American family exist in the eyes of many Americans today, black or otherwise.

“America has often viewed the black family through the prism of its pathologies: single-family homes, absentee fathers, out of wedlock children, they say.”

Without having demographics to support me, I’d go out on a limb and say that the average television show Mr. Blake referenced with the exception of “The Cosby’s” is marketed to black Americans and isn’t kept on the air by the legions of Caucasian viewers. So using the above quotation as an example, who exactly is, “America” referring to?

If the Obamas are to the be new stars of the ideal black family–as it seems they are destined to be–then I would be correct in thinking that any who support a media that sends up these pathologies ( all of which are negative ) would be in serious decline. Now that Obama is in office surely “America” will start thinking twice when ever these pathologies come up in the context of blacks on television or in print and ask themselves, “Gee, I wonder if Barack and Michelle would be watching this?”

I don’t know who the above “they” are but the pathological problems that plague many black families are averted by just as many others, furthermore there are many wonderful success stories from blacks that grew up with such pathologies, and overcame the difficulties.

This new version of black intimacy that so many in Mr. Blake’s article supported was borderline comical: what prey-tell was the old version? Please, spell it out for me. Intimacy is a word; a noun to be specific. The definition does not change with the modification of ethnicity. That intimacy is expressed differently in different races, I don’t doubt, but is their an American ideal of what intimacy is regardless of race, age, religion or possibly even pathological upbringings? It would seem that nouns are less affected by influence and prove to be more structurally sound than some would believe.

I feel Mr. Blake is deceiving himself if he truly believes the “street lit” he mentions is sold or read en masse by anyone other than blacks. “The American public” as he states is not subjected to “Project Chick.” Without any evidence to support me, I will affirm that the buyers of those books are predominately, if not exclusively, black. Black intimacy and the perception of the black American family does need to change; mainly in the eyes of black Americans. Most importantly I would state that this perception--be it by black Americans, “America” as so vaguely defined by Mr. Blake, or anyone else for that matter--needed to change regardless of President Obama. He has many burdens and he is not the President of black America, or “America”, rather all of us as a collective whole ( for those of you who don’t understand subtleties, the entire USA ).