The new
writer suggests anything we knew before could be wiped clean.
Not exact matches
In a story headlined MOHAMED BRINGS A MOLEHILL TO THE DERBY, one newspaper
writer suggested that if Great Redeemer did
anything to compromise Spectacular Bid's chances for victory — such as accidentally swerving into him out of the gate — «then Dr. J.A. Mohamed ought to be horsewhipped.»
The question is: does RWA do
anything beyond that to
suggest that
writers ought to comply with their objectives?
A critique group isn't worth
anything if you don't give honest critiques, with
suggested solutions, to help
writers improve their craft.
These can be
anything from completing that unfinished novel to having a manuscript edited, to attending a
writer's conference (we
suggest PubSmart!)
In fact,
writer Michelle Harewood has
suggested that the palm fronds surrounding Rosenquist's studio in Aripeka, Florida, with their long leaves that alternatingly obscure and reveal
anything place behind them.
The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate
writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has
suggested stops us from preparing as though
anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.