I just read an article about physicists in Sweden who have developed a formula to find an author’s “literary fingerprint.” Here’s the gist of what they found:

As the researchers write, “These findings lead us towards the meta book concept — the writing of a text can be described by a process where the author pulls a piece of text out of a large mother book (the meta book) and puts it down on paper. This meta book is an imaginary infinite book which gives a representation of the word frequency characteristics of everything that a certain author could ever think of writing.”

Apparently this is an alternative to a 75 year old linguistic theory that has something to do with a universal pattern of word usage.

To those who could care less about linguistics (probably most of you reading this), this is gibberish. To those of you who are authors, you’re probably bristling like I am at the concept of what we do being reduced to a research paper hypothesis.

On the one hand, I suppose it’s flattering that the writing process is mysterious and exciting enough to warrant decoding, like DNA. On the other hand, where’s the magic in that? People (except research scientists) don’t interact with DNA because they like it or relate to it on an emotional level. But when you strip writing down to its elements you take away the personal connection, the power of the story, and the human experience that went into crafting it … all the things that make reading enjoyable.

I guess it’s a step in the right direction that at least this latest development in science is allowing writers individual creativity, but maybe some things are better left out of the lab altogether.

No, it’s not because I’m Jewish (cue South Park’s Lonely Jew on Christmas song).

Nor is it because of the agoraphobia-inducing crowds around any place where money can be spent.

It’s not the carols that are so ubiquitous they embed themselves in your mind with brainwashing efficiency. And I’ll  never understand eggnog, but hey, I’m not one to begrudge others their holiday traditions, especially since I come from a gefilte fish background.

My Christmas Pet Peeve is this whole “Season of Giving” concept.

Charity and compassion are not seasonal phenomena. At least they shouldn’t be. The whole concept of being generous and considerate to your fellow human beings really shouldn’t be chained to one month a year. Whoever is on your holiday donation list — whether it’s animal shelters or environmental causes or cancer research or the local soup kitchen — their needs are year-round, too.

I’m not saying to unleash your road rage on holiday shoppers or anything like that. After all, ’tis the season of higher-than-usual suicide rates, so people can use a little patience and understanding this time of year. It also won’t help to tear up your tax-deductible checks to your favorite organizations because they’ve come to rely on the slew of December donations to pay for the good work they’ve been doing all year.

I just wish more people would roll that holiday spirit into their New Year’s Resolutions (except make this one the kind that’s kept past February), and pledge to keep on giving long after the fruitcake has decomposed. Be that person who keeps their lights up all year if it’ll keep you in the spirit.

That’s why I love The Grinch. I always hope he’ll shove December – stress and all – into his bag and haul it off to his cave … leaving behind the compulsion people have this time of year to make a difference in the world.

Whenever there’s a debate over whether an “aggressive” dog could, or should, be “saved,” such as the recent case with a certain cookie-named dog, I always wonder how much people actually understand dog aggression. Based on the number of arguments along the line of “I rescued an abused dog once that just needed to learn to trust people,” I’m guessing the average knowledge library on this issue has some seriously empty shelves.

Aggressive dogs aren’t just distraught children who need a hug. Dogs are faster, stronger, and have much sharper teeth than humans. A dog bite is not the same as your puppy nipping you in play. It’s painful and can do serious damage. Despite all the things that are wrong with way the media reports dog bites, the potential damage is not a lie and is not unique to just that one dog. I wonder how much people really realize this when they’re so quick to want to release a dog deemed aggressive into society. I wonder if they’ve ever met a truly aggressive dog. Maybe some have, but I’d bet many haven’t (which is a good thing because if aggression was that common, we’d have a problematic relationship with our best friend).

Aggression is a deviant behavior, meaning it’s outside the normal reaction you’d expect. That doesn’t mean all types of aggression can’t be managed or that you have a “bad” dog (for instance, aggression toward other dogs*), or that aggressive dogs don’t deserve a chance. But the difference between certain types of “regular” dog behavior and aggressive behavior is an important distinction because a lot of people assume they’ve witnessed aggression when they haven’t. Read the rest of this entry »