What to write about a podcast?

How do I decide what to write about a podcast? Every podcast I listen to leaves a trace, stuff I remember from the podcast, reactions in the form of associations, comparisons, questions, thoughts, appraisal and critique. Most of the time, some of this is most strong and that is what lay the basis for what I write, but i do try to stick to a couple of criteria.

If I review a podcast for the first time and especially if I expect not to go and follow and review episodes frequently, I will try to describe some general impressions about the podcast. If I intend to focus on episodes, I will be more specific. In any case I want my readers to get some idea of what they can expect. And then, I want to mention at least something what may make them like the podcast.

This is important, I decided, also for podcasts that are not exactly my taste. The aim for this blog is to help you find podcasts you like and it hardly helps you to be told this or that podcast is no good. What is no good in my ears, could very well be good in yours and what I did not like today, may appeal to me some other time. Therefore, any opinion on a podcast can never be definitive, neither good or bad. However, if I mention what is good about the podcast, you can decide for yourself whether that might work for you or not. If I give you only what is bad, you have nothing to go on.

If I have nothing good to say about a podcast, and couldn't even think of any reason why other people than myself may like it, I'd rather not write about it at all. There are millions of podcasts, there are millions of millions of qualifications I can apply to them. Why choose of all those options, the negative ones - I wouldn't see any point. Choosing the positive ones, means it might apply to some reader and it may help somebody to find what he likes.

That doesn't mean I shun being critical. Together with good points, I see no problem to mention some of the weaker aspects; anything that can give you a more complete idea. And if I have written an overall negative review (which I have done occasionally) then it is only for this reason, that the podcast would seem, off hand, to be really good and I felt I should sort of warn you. For example, there is a really good Dutch newspaper, NRC. The NRC podcast, however, is so unbelievably amateurish, you would never anticipate - so this is where I have chosen to write a bad review.

More about the blog:
About Anne is a Man,
Why don't I give ratings to podcasts?,
When do I write in my blog?,
When do I listen to podcasts?,
Time to start again.

Short Story Beginnings - The Writing Show podcast review

The latest episode of the Writing Show pays attention to that universal question of how to start a story. The title suggests it is only about short stories and that is indeed the main subject, but as a couple of side notes the ideas are applied to novels as well. The pointers are the same, but for a short story the beginning is more critical, for want of a context and a longer tolerance span of the reader.

Short stories are seldom introduced, are not delivered with a cover and a 'blurb', such as novels, but rather appear in newspapers and magazines. The reader is much less prepared to get hooked and therefore, the challenge to give a good opening for a short story is bigger. In two sentences or so, the trigger for the story must be settled. The reader must be drawn into the perspective and into the conflict or whatever tension plays a part.

Host Paula B. interviews writers Melissa Palladino and Randall Brown and they refer to couple of lists in other sources, out of which they rapidly mention some tips, not all. Of all these, some are elaborated upon, most are not. So, this podcast is indicative, but can only serve to make a beginning to your search, if you are looking for new ways to being your stories, short or not. As a tip of the iceberg, it is very nicely done.

More Writing Show on this blog:
More Jean Tennant,
Getting Published with Janice Ballenger,
Getting Published with Mark Leslie,
Psychological Aspects of Writing,
Getting published with Jean Tennant.

Old High German

When you are dealing with history, language is never far away. First of all, your sources are texts, so you are dealing with linguistic intricacies anyway. On top of that, most history is cultural and culture is expressed in language. Therefore, as we have seen in previous interviews, the German Cultural History podcast (blog) touches all the time on linguistics.

Host Tom is, I think, a linguist, so his approach is guided even more by analysis of the German language and its earliest sources. He doesn't reveal he is, but it sure speaks from the subtext. All the more this is felt in the latest issue which is mostly about Old High German. Tom tells about the various scraps of sources of old high German there are. No ordered texts, but sentences, word lists and spells, charms and vows.

It marks his character as a linguist, he ventures into actually reading the spells, charms and vows. He makes an effort, so it sounds, to carefully pronounce these utterances and it sounds really convincing. I was also very surprised to find how comprehensible this was. Tom translates most, but largely, I did not need the translation. Maybe this version of German sounds more like Dutch than English, or even modern German.

It is great stuff and very original to get, but it sure would help if Tom were to improve his sound quality and bring a wee bit of order in his tangents. This way it is just so hard to stay attentive. And this last episode took a good 50 minutes, as what happens to so many podcasters who get excited about there subjects: the issues grow longer and longer.

Previously about GCH podcast:
Sound Shifts and Umlauts,
Why Iceland,
German Cultural History - Podcast Review.

Reparing Failed States (2) - UChannel podcast review

Earlier I reported this lecture as it was posted by the LSE podcast. Now it has been released within the framework of UChannel. Fixing Failed States by Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart. Here is a repost of the review I made last June.

What we look for as the unity we live in, the law-giver, the protector of rights and obligations, the sovereignty to rule economy, organize infrastructure and education and the agent in foreign relations is that flailing fiction the state. No matter how unrealistically imagined, the state is still what we look for and if we want to have national and international order, we'd better have functioning states.

Too many states are failing though. It has been the topic of many other podcasts, also reviewed below, and it came up again at LSE, where Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart were invited to speak. The subject was the repair of failing states, as was the subject of their recently published book: Fixing Failed States; A Framework for Rebuilding a Fractured World. Ghani and Lockhart are claimed specialists on the nuts and bolts of state - what makes states succeed. From that insight they have drawn conclusions as to what are the recipes for repairing failed states.

The lecture is not terribly accessible, if not for the slightly dull speakers' tone than for the rather technical nature of the subject. The bottom-line is, what make states succeed is healthy finances and proper infrastructure and the way states can be helped is by programs that build these, but not any which way - the change must be sustainable. The importance is huge though, needless to say.

More UChannel:
The Collapse (Republicans and America),
New Map for the Pentagon,
Slavery and the Supply Chain,
Iran 2009,
The denials of yesterday.

More on states and international politics:
The Post-American World,
Nuts and bolts of empire,
The State in The International System,
A century of geopolitics,
History of the International System.

Martin Simek - Marathon Interview

Hier is een marathon interview waar ik heel lang op heb zitten wachten totdat hij eindelijk in de feed zou komen. In 1991 sprak Djoeke Veninga met Martin Simek. Daarmee zit Simek aan de andere kant, die van de geinterviewde, want als interviewer ken ik hem al zo lang van de podcast Simek 's Nachts, wat de allereerste podcast is waar ik ooit mee begon. (label: Simek)

Martin Simek in 1991, de 43 jarige, is merkbaar jonger dan de man op leeftijd die interviewt bij de RVU. En met je kennis van de podcast Simek 's Nachts in het achterhoofd weet je dat deze ongebonden man, uiteindelijk toch zal trouwen en kinderen krijgen. Dus als hij beweert dat hij zich kan binden, al heeft hij het nooit langer dan 5 jaar gedaan, dan voel je de scepsis bij Veninga en weet je als luisteraar dat het waar is wat Simek zegt.

Gelukkig laat Simek zich niet teveel afleiden door Veninga, want ik weet niet of ze hem wel zo sympathiek vond. Het schaadt enigszins haar kracht als interviewer, maar Simek gaat lekker zijn eigen gang. En dus krijg je in iets meer geuren en kleuren te horen wat er in kleine brokjes al uit hem gekomen is in zijn eigen podcast. En je kan iets langer meevaren op zijn gevoelsmatige stijl. En dan kan je ontdekken dat hij wel degelijk altijd naar een pointe gaat. Ook al laat hij zich ogenschijnlijk door zijn eigen gedachtes weer wel afleiden.

Halverwege is er de emotie, als Martin over het heeft over het afscheid van zijn vader - 1968 in de trein, 1981 aan het sterfbed. Aan het eind komt er plotseling ook wrevel. Veninga verklaart dat Simek uitgesproken reacties oproept; of de mensen houden van hem, of ze moeten hem niet. Vervolgens geeft ze citaten die overwegend negatief, en nogal klein zijn. Simek laat zich niet verleiden tot al te zeer tegensputteren, al gebruikt hij zijn eigen typische jargon om terug te slaan (dit verveelt me). Uiteindelijk begint hij abrupt uit eigen werk te citeren. En daarmee is het interview afgelopen.

Het grote verschil tussen Simek zoals ik hem van de podcast ken en dit interview is dat hij hier veel meer woede ten opzichte van Nederland, Nederlanders en de Nederlandse cultuur heeft. De latere Simek is milder.

Meer Marathon Interviews:
Abram de Swaan,
Jan Vrijman,
Maarten van Rossem,
Louis Th. Lehmann,
Marita Mathijsen.

Meer Simek 's Nachts op dit blog:
Marjan Berk en Johnny Kraaykamp jr.,
Brigitte Kaandorp,
Heleen Mees, Maarten van Roozendaal,
Barbara van Beukering, Gert Dumbar,
Jaap van der Zwan.

The humane working place - SRR podcast review

I used to listen to every chapter of Shrink Rap Radio, but this podcast publishes at least weekly and I manage to squeeze in only a monthly listen. The backlog grows larger and large and as a consequence, the episode I have picked up to review today, stems from a long time ago: #151 - Relationships in The Workplace (May 2nd, 2008)

Dr. David van Nuys interviews Bob Murray and Alicia Fortinberry about their work with corporations dealing with good relations at the workplace. The title was originally misinterpreted by me; I thought they would speak about people getting privately involved with one another at the workplace. I was expecting issues of abuse of power and mixed interests, but the issue was much more general: all relationships in the working place. That is, the professional relationships and as a consequence how to make and keep them good. In my own words I'd say, Murray and Fortinberry help companies build a healthy working environment.

They are hired by all sorts of companies, including such consulting giants as PWC. What they seem to propagate sounds like the basis for a truly humane atmosphere at work. What surprises me a bit, is how clear they see the working place easily slides into a nasty jungle of kicking down and kissing up, of office politics and divide and conquer management. I have experienced this myself in a couple of working environments and I hear most of my acquaintances complain about it. So what is happening here? Are we all naggers, or do so few companies really listen to the likes of Murray and Fortinberry and implement what they teach?

As usual a great and interesting podcast by Dr. Dave. Check out his site, there are hundreds of splendid others to be found.

More Shrink Rap Radio
Nirvana and the Brain,
Psychoanalysis - Shrink Rap radio review,
Conscious Living,
The Happiness Hypothesis,
Sign language for babies.