Hello and welcome back to our ongoing sexification of Staff past and present and hopefully present-and-future by way of deep-diving casual-reading power-lifting interview posi-sharking antics: Sputnik’s very own Meet the Spartans. Steel yourself as impossible questions are posed and the Staffers you wish you’d had the courage or attention span to acknowledge surpass your wildest expectations.

Today we embrace the softest boi of all the bois. He is wonderful, we all love him, and I am now going to think deep thoughts about hugging him instead of beefcaking up an uncomely introduction. Pleae make some candid noises of appreciation for… BlushfulHippocrene! 

Hello! 

 Salam.

 Who are you, and why does your name begin with Blushful? 

My username, BlushfulHippocrene, is a Keats reference (from ‘Ode to a Nightingale’: ‘O for a beaker full of the warm South, / Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene’). Pretty embarrassing, but aptly so I guess. I don’t remember what my thinking was; but I’d been studying Keats in high school literature, I probably thought the phrase was interesting, I forgot the p/w to my old account, I was dying of boredom in Pakistan, and I wanted to 5.0 a Bon Iver album. Hence, the first thing I could come up with: BlushfulHippocrene. I’m glad people started calling me Blush; I wince when I have to read the full thing. 

You’re one of the most floaty huggable chillpeople on the interspace. I love this, but I also love bursting balloons: what’s something unexpected that makes you lose your cool, on- or off-line? 

I’m glad I come off that way. It’s probably deliberate; I’d say, internally, I’m pretty anxious and tightly wound, so I try to be as patient and kind as I can be with other people – even online.

Golden rule and all that.

To answer your question, though: Christmas by Michael fucking Buble. 

There are a lot of folks on Sputnik whose taste origins I can roughly (if likely inaccurately) second-guess if I daydream hard enough. You’re not one of them, besides maybe a tentative mid-teen Elliott Smith phase?

Tell us about your relationship with music in formative terms: what got you started, what shaped your taste to begin with, what did you grow out of, and what have you always absolutely always loved? 

I’ve yet to have an Elliott Smith phase. I message Rowan every now and then saying I think I’m in one, but it never lasts.

In primary school, I was in love with pop music: I’d track the top 40 pretty obsessively. Usher, Akon, Chris Brown. My first CD was a Chris Brown album probably. Then shitty pop-punk/emo music: Cute is What We Aim For, The Maine, We The Kings (Paramore and Fall Out Boy, too, marginally more respectable). I fell off hard after that, started listening to a lot of piano-driven soft rock: Coldplay, The Fray, The Script.

My older brother, between his metal phases, was listening to a lot of American Football when I was in high school, which got me into emo music: as well as AF, I’d listen to a lot of The Front Bottoms and empire! empire!.

Aside from that, a lot of indie folk stuff: For Emma, Forever Ago by Bon Iver, The Wild Hunt by Tallest Man on Earth; and very typical hip hop in late high school: To Pimp a Butterfly, OutKast. My senior class really loved Childish Gambino…

I think I got into music pretty late, relatively speaking. I’m still figuring out what I like; don’t know how well I do at it, but I try to listen pretty widely. 

You have no 5s. How exciting. Could you explain why, and specifically why you sought to subtract an entire 0.3 points from Julien Baker’s Sprained Ankle, the album that still stands in my mind as the epitome of contemporary Blushfulness? 

I’m not sure I can really explain. It’s juvenile and doesn’t make much sense. But in short I have an unhealthy relationship with perfectionism, and giving an album a 5.0 feels like me setting an expectation that I’ll always experience the album when it meant the most to me, that is, when it felt most perfect or 5.0-worthy. I find that when I’ve done that – like with Sprained Ankle, which I had 5.0’d for a decent while – it’s made me really sad and frustrated when the album hasn’t lived up to that expectation. The thing will never mean as much to me as it did when I felt like I needed it, when it was the only thing I could bare listening to, and so not 5.0-ing it is my silly way of reminding myself that that’s okay?

Equally, the act of rating and writing reviews for an album on a purely online platform is super reductive, right? I don’t want to reduce my experiences of music into words and ratings, which is ironic given where we are and what we’re doing; my justification, though, is that aside from what I 5.0 I don’t really give my ratings much thought, and I try to totally forget about a review once I’ve written and published it. If I were more honest, I’d probably quit reviewing and start rating albums the way acad does – or not at all.

As to why Sprained Ankle?: well, I can’t really stand by it the way I used to, but I was 17 or 18 when I first heard it, and something about the desolation appealed to me. My current favourites – which probably deserve 5.0s – are Ghost with Skin by Corbin and ULTRACLUB4K by doves. (: 

As penance for having no 5s, please rank every decade from the ’50s to the ’10s in order of prospective 5s for the layperson. Reasons and obvious 5ables are, alas, mandatory. 

…okay, I legitimately tried answering this question, then realised it requires me to know literally anything about music. In that way, it feels like bait.

As well it should! 

You’re one of the most prolific and insightful proof-readers on Sputnik. I feel that proofing is an interesting and underdiscussed craft that carries over quite limited methodology and (hmm) ethics from person to person – from my experience, one proofer will often look for totally different things to another, and the chances are they won’t ever confer, because why would they? Here are some proofing questions to see if we can prise a little Discourse open:

1. What are the main things you look for when you proof? Are there any lines you draw, or any areas where you consider your opinions irrelevant or inappropriate to whatever intention is driving whatever the writer is doing? 

Have you read a Wines review? The amount of dumb, ‘uh, you forgot to capitalise ‘I’ in lines 13, 19, 27, 40, and 179’ comments I’d have to make is absurd. Grand scheme, it doesn’t matter, and is ultimately characteristic of his work – his writing / that quirk came to mind immediately when I read the question, and I think that reflects well on him as a writer, even if the quirk is technically a flaw.

Granted, Wines may be the best writer on the site. And speaking of, his XXXTENTACION review has a very good and fun discussion about proofing/editing.

Answering your question: The line I draw is that I try not to point out typos/grammatical errors unless they actually get in the way of my ability to read the piece – that is, unless I find them in some way jarring. Obviously, that requires me to actually want to read and finish the review, so the writing is probably very good if I’m willing to drop a comment pointing out some silly mistake. Like, Mathias’ Noah Gunderson review was littered with little typos and some awkward expression, but it was also his first in a long while and the review itself was a bit of a ramble, so it was more than acceptable. (His review after that, covering the new Sloppy Jane? So, so good.)

I don’t proof in the comments nearly as much as I used to 1) because despite ‘Authority and American Usage’ I’m less and less convinced that it matters and 2) because I’ve seen way too many frustrating comments incorrectly and obstinately ‘correcting’ other’s grammar/punctuation/usage. (I don’t remember the context, but I think Snox called me an idiot once because I was being overly-defensive about him over-correcting a Wines or Jack review or something. Good times.) It’s very annoying and you should be annoyed when I do it. Only Jots should be allowed to correct people’s language, and we should hire him full-time to do so.

2. I often find proofing is a case of poking refinement at writers who know what’s good and bad but are short of the motivation to round things off properly (love you, neek and Phero). To what extent do you share this experience; how often is proofing really just a stern(ish) act of encouragement for you?  

I used to proof a lot of review drafts in an old Sputnik discord server. In retrospect, it was probably a waste of time and counter-productive in a lot of ways – I was doing a lot of English tutoring at the time, so I was already doing my fair share of nit-picking. That said, having a group of people critiquing the insignificant details of one another’s work definitely helped foster community as well as encourage some of the more hesitant writers who were anxious about mistakes that broadly did not matter. Proofing can definitely encourage people to be more thoughtful about their writing and deliberate with their usage. 

I used to proof Neeka’s work a fair bit (I love him), and I don’t disagree with you. At the same time, proofing is hard and does require a decent amount of motivation, so I get it. Oftentimes, a review that is scuffed in terms of typos/grammatical errors also reads rushed in terms of content, and so deserves the mocking – if the content is well-considered, though, I think it deserves a pass; this isn’t uni. 

3. Have you dealt with writers who broadly lack sensitivity as to what works and doesn’t work on paper? How do you react when it seems that your beneficiary is incorporating your notes in isolation without grasping the wisdom behind them? 

Lmao, when I was tutoring, I was tutoring mostly 10 to 15-year-old boys and they do not give a fuck. Understandably, they just want you to fix their work so they can shoot the shit till their lesson’s over and they can get back to their video game addiction. Fortunately, it’s way more difficult to gauge whether or not someone’s truly understanding your criticisms through text on a screen, so I’m not really concerned by it. I also don’t really proof drafts anymore – very occasionally Rowan, but he’s amazing; that kind of ‘proofing’ is just, like, is this okay? And the answer’s always yes, very, maybe move this comma?

You, on the other hand – I want you to answer this question. 

Paha, aight! It’d be unfair for me to provide a full answer here for fingerpointing reasons, but there have definitely been times when I’ve done my best to unpick what I view as unhelpful patterns in certain writers’ work, only to see them crop up again and again. I guess I ‘react’ by giving different versions of the same notes at various points in time and hoping for the best. I feel that every writer’s “voice” is always going to sound better aimed at an ambiguously sized room full of people than as a tangled inner monologue. Trying to turn the latter into the former is a huge part of what guides proofing for me, as well as how I try to approach my own stuff, and I think part of that comes getting out of your own head and being able to put some distance between yourself and your patterns.

4. To what extent do Sputnik writers confuse proofing with (re)drafting? 

This is a very leading question and I’d love to hear your answer. 

Twice in a row?! You cheat >:[

I think there’s very much a mentality of “okay wow I just finished a start to finish write, now help me get some varnish on it and I won’t need to work on it any harder” that makes Sputnik (and countless other places) very much a first draft zone.

I’m certainly guilty of this, and sometimes a substantive redraft is hardly necessary for the kind of reviews we see here, but I think it’s very easy to lean on proofing as a speedy troubleshoot when what a review most needs is a little structural rejig, or further exploration of certain paths of analysis, or the kind of fundamental rewiring that goes above the scope of ye humble proofreader. 

tl;dr almost all of us need to push harder and think more before phoning in our friendly editorial squads. 

Okay, I totally agree, and I am guilty of the exact same. Once I feel like I’m finished with a review, I do not want to look at or think about it ever again. I’d say it’s a function of the platform: oftentimes, no one will notice the difference between the present draft and a more refined, more structurally sound one, and so, given we’re not paid or anything, nothing’s really got out of fine-tuning the piece to make it as good as possible. In that case, rather than proofreading, I think what a person needs is honest feedback about what works and doesn’t work – which is much harder to give. 

No lie there. Moving onwards, your writing usually gives me the sense of wandering through a fragrant meadow of mild uncertainties, over the course of which I usually snag my jeans on enough sticky seedpods of relatability to feel like I’ve almost accidentally developed a Perspective by the end (this is a compliment lol). Do you think this is fair or intentional? How planned vs. stream of consciousness vs. redrafted does your process tend to be? 

To be brutally honest, while this is known to me, it is not intentional, and it is what I hate most about my writing. I have fairly strong feelings attached to music, but I’m very uncertain in the way I express them, and my thinking is often unclear and lacks order. I think that’s reflected in my writing, and I am not a fan. At the same time, it’s the only way I know how to write – wring out, painfully, words that look and sound right, and hopefully convey or at least touch on what I actually mean – and I feel this compulsion to write, so I still do it. I delete more reviews than I publish. Most are incomprehensible messes, and don’t say what I really mean to say. The ones I do publish I hope people enjoy, even just a little. 

I had a hot, confidential tip-off that you’ve made a fair amount of music that no-one online will ever hear. Care to confirm? What’s the story? 

Unreliable source if ‘making’ requires recording. A fair amount of shitty angsty guitar mumbling that no one will ever hear, not even me. 

You strike me as one of the Staffers most likely to be good in the kitchen. What would you guess is the basis of this impression, how accurate is it, and what are your favourite dishes to cook? 

Hm… I am a horrible cook, but I love food. I’m not sure where the impression came from; have you seen a photo of me maybe. That said, my partner is a magician in the kitchen. In terms of food I love to eat: there’s a lot of cheap Afghani and Chinese-Vietnamese food around me, and I am ever-grateful for it. 

I see. Do you have any pets? If not, do you want any? 

My sister has a little dog that’s very cute. I love animals, but I feel awful when they’re not receiving attention. Maybe when I’m older I’ll want one. A cat would be ideal, but I’m allergic.  

Who do you think will be the next Staffer to get hitched, and why? 

Wines because he is handsome, and I am picking out a ring as we speak. In earnest, though, there are already a lot of unacceptably hot dads in staff.

What are your thoughts on the current way the Staff team is organised and collaborates (userbase fyi: we team up for the year-end lists and recruitment cycles, but otherwise everything is very decentralised and individually driven)? Do you think we do enough together, or is the freedom one of the major perks for you? 

The mods’ handling of the lists and stuff is incredibly organised. Likewise, your use of the blog, and your organisation of these interviews is very impressive. That said, what’s best for the site is (usually) the stuff that attracts the most and biggest variety of user comments, and I think, unfortunately, things like the quarterly playlists (which, I’ll be honest, I love contributing and then reading/listening to) don’t. Nor would a more centralised, collaborative approach by the staff, unless those efforts also actively involved the users. I don’t know what I’m trying to say; I guess I think staff operates well enough as is, largely due to the efforts of the mods and individual staff members. We’re just users who are expected to write reviews, and who can rate by smaller increments. Anything that brings the community together is positive for the site, and literally anyone/everyone can contribute to that. 

What kind of change do you think you’ve brought to Sputnik in your time, and what more would like like to do? Don’t you dare be modest. 

I have fond memories of my contributor days. I think there was some really fantastic (albeit amateurish, which goes w/o saying; most of us were fresh out of high school) writing going on in that pool – esp., eg, by Jack and Claire and Ramon – and obviously that’s a credit to them, but I think there was also a lot of encouragement and a real solid sense of community which I believe encouraged a lot of writers at the time and which I hope I helped contribute to. 

Snap takes on the following, please:

Tom Ford

Nocturnal Animals? Fucked up and fantastic.   

The Maldives 

Their food looks amazing.

Leni Riefenstahl

Triumph des Willens? Fucked up and— well, yeah, fucked up.

Florentine biscuits 

Nix the sultanas. 

Musical diarism 

Mount Eerie live post-Now Only was magnificent (even Ramon enjoyed him, and he’s the least pretentious person I have ever met). Post-MeToo Kozelek is unbearable. 

Foucault 

Beautiful dome, is what I got out of his Chomsky debate. 

Goon of Fortune

Only exists to reminisce about the days we were small enough to swing off those things. 

Anything else to add? 

I don’t know who’d be interested in reading this. Cheers, though, your questions were real thoughtful, and I enjoyed thinking about them. 

Thank ye, Lord Hippocrene for your time! 

…and thank you for your readership; please stay tuned for our next instalment! 

Previously on Staff Wars:

Dewinged・DrGonzo・Trebor・Xenophanes・Sowing・Winesburgohio・Pon・BlushfulHippocrene