As a blissfully freelance, St. Louis-based writer of copy, content and entertainment, I’m thinking big and living large. At least in my own imagination. Luckily, my imagination is also my livelihood. (Whew!) See a few scenes from my typical writing day of writing, brainstorming and pacing in the video above. Then examine the resulting creative work throughout this site, with examples of my:
Part One: What I Believe.
Originally published as the editorial in Slightly Bent Comics #1.
I BELIEVE in music, I BELIEVE in love. But not necessarily in that order.
I BELIEVE for every drop of rain that falls, one is leaking into my basement.
I BELIEVE before the end of time, the title of every pop song ever released will also be used as the title of a movie.
I BELIEVE civilization reached a peak with the invention of the prescription swimming goggles.
I BELIEVE on of the best titles ever for a comic book is “Mysterious Suspense” (Charlton, 1968), because mysterious suspense is truly the best kind of suspense.
I BELIEVE in the universal, healing power of sarcasm.
I BELIEVE George Reeves (TV’s Superman of the 1950s) was a great actor. So you can synchronize your aesthetic tastes to mine right now, as long as you know mine are correct.
I BELIEVE it’s not what you can do, it’s what you can repeat.
I BELIEVE it’s not what you can do, it’s what you can repeat.
I BELIEVE it would be inappropriate to foist my vegetarian beliefs on others, so if you want to slaughter sentient mammals just to have a heart-clogging bacon-burger, I will give you no grief.
I BELIEVE the glass is half empty and half full. We call this reality.
But I BELIEVE the half-full part is a lot more fun.
I BELIEVE being alive is a caper. We’ve stolen existences from the vaults of the Carbon-Based-Life-Form Bank & Trust and zipped off in the getaway car of biology. I’m giddy about it.
But then, I BELIEVE exuberance should be the default emotion for human beings. We should all snap back to it when not otherwise engaged, like when, you know: working.
I BELIEVE those who can find exuberance in their work are lucky dogs.
Or other lucky domestic pets of your choosing.
Part 2: What I Don’t Believe
Originally published as the editorial in Slightly Bent Comics #2.
I DON’T BELIEVE I caught your name. I’m Walt.
I DON’T BELIEVE everything I read, which is odd, because I do believe everything I smell.
I DON’T BELIEVE in ghosts, except for Capser, ’cause he’s friendly. In fact, I say this with authority: he’s the friendliest ghost in town.
I DON’T BELIEVE my personal life is anybody’s business but my own, except for maybe a few close friends, family and oh yeah, “The E True Hollywood Story.”
I DON’T BELIEVE in fairy tales. I mean: a pig? Who can make a “house” of straw? A “house” that gets, like, blown down? By a wolf? Yeah, right. Who do they take us for?
I DON’T BELIEVE how good you look! Are those new glasses? And you’ve lost weight! HOW? You must tell me! Treadmill?
I DON’T BELIEVE you should write checks in grocery store lines, unless you don’t have cash or credit cards, and if you don’t have cash or credit cards, please, don’t go grocery shopping.
I DON’T BELIEVE there’s anything more beautiful than a sunset, except for a sunset in the background of a Victoria’s Secrets catalog photo.
I DON’T BELIEVE in government conspiracies. Conspiracies require competence and coordination.
I DON’T BELIEVE you ignore that whole “Wag the Dog” thing, though.
I DON’T BELIEVE in not believing.
I DON’T BELIEVE in spreading bad Karma, hatred, intolerance, paranoia, gossip or flu germs.
I DON’T BELIEVE you paid attention all this time.
But I’m glad you did.
Walt Jaschek means that.
Get ready for hot, sexy comic strip action: 1976-style!
Just kidding. What you’re about to see is, by today’s standards, quite tame.
But in November, 1976, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (and about 20 other newspapers around the country) made an editorial decision to withhold publication of a 5-day run of the Doonesbury™ comic strip, and replace it with reruns.
At the time, I was a 21-year-old feature columnist for The Current, the student-run newspaper at the University of Missouri – St. Louis. I was also a crazed comics fan. Realizing I could fill a column, provide a “public service,” and see the blacked-out strips myself (not easy, pre-internet), I pitched then-editor Tom Wolf: “Let me ask Universal Press Syndicate if they’ll let us run ’em. For free.”
Tom and the syndicate said, “Do it.” We printed the strips with my article, which you can read below.
First, of course, you want to see the strips.
Here they are, as printed in the December 2, 1976, edition of The UMSL Current.
Warning: they are very safe for work.
Doonesbury™ by Garry Trudeau
The Doonesburys You Didn’t See
By Walt Jaschek
Most St. Louisans will never know how good Joanie Caucus is at breakfast.
There were were, Tuesday, Nov. 11, breathlessly watching as Joanie makes her final moves on Rick Redfern. Eating dinner in his apartment, Rick compliments Joanie on the meal she had made. “Thank you, Rick,” she says. “I’m pretty good at breakfast, too.” Rick’s face contorts. Joanie thinks to herself: “As the kid goes for broke.”
The next day, we were intrigued further, as Virginia Slade — having just withdrawn from the Senate race — dials Joanie’s apartment in the morning… and gets no answer!
The day after that, we were suddenly and mysteriously back on the familiar football field with Captain B.D., no mention made of Joanie’s romantic adventure.
It was enough to drive Doonesbury fans zonkers, so to speak. Local fans of the terse, explosive, provocative comic strip realized The St. Louis Post Dispatch had substituted alternate episodes rather than finishing the Joanie and Rick sequence.
We called Joan Dames, features editor at the Post, and she was quick to clarify this comic strip tease, AKA the Doonesbury dilemma.
“The editorial board of the Post decided to take out the sequence that showed Joanie Caucus and Rick Redfern in bed,” said Dames. “We thought it inappropriate for a family page.”
But the Post wasn’t alone in blacking out the strip.
Lee Salem, a representative of Universal Press Syndicate (which distributes Doonesbury to 450 newspapers) said about 20 papers dropped the sequence. But those papers, including the New York Daily News, make up a large chunk of circulation. Most of them just dropped the Nov. 13 strip.
Riding out this controversy, as he’s done before more than once, is Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau, the most electrifying force on the contemporary comic art scene.
As an undergraduate in 1968, Trudeau started drawing a strip for the Yale Daily News called “Bull Tales.” It introduced a cast of rich, mimetic characters like Mark Slackmeyer, Zonker Harris and Mike Doonesbury. When Universal Press offered to syndicate the strip nationally, it was dubbed after the persona presumably closest to that of Trudeau.
In its short history, the strip’s virtual world has developed and diversified, the characters shuffling, the concepts sharpening. Trudeau’s insights, pacing and crisp characterizations have enthralled legions of readers, while giving them some of the gutsiest comic strip humor since Walt Kelly’s Pogo.
The Joanie and Rick affair is just the latest of Doonesbury’s envelope-pushing concepts. While their sex life may be casual, the establishment of it — and the reaction to it — wasn’t.
“We only got about 20 letters and about as many calls, but some are very angry,” said Post features editor Dames.
“Most kids don’t read Doonesbury. But parents do get upset when this type of material appears on the comics page. We thought it wasn’t appropriate,” she said.
With a smile in her voice, Dames added: “Listen, we live in Sex City, U.S.A. We’ve got Masters and Johnson here, and even they say that sex without commitment isn’t that exciting.”
“Trudeau said that he did this because he wanted everyone to take a stand on pre-marital sex,” said Dames. “So I guess the Post took a stand. But we’re really not bluenose about this. Just today (Nov. 18, 1976), we ran a story contraceptives. Take a look at it.”
At Universal Press, Lee Salem emphasized that his syndicate carefully reviewed the strips.
“With Garry, as well as with all the creative people we do business with, the material is gone over carefully,” he said. “With this particular piece, we had a long session over the phone with Garry, and we thought, considering Joanie’s character and that of Rick Redfern, the sequence is justified.”
The sequence was certainly justified to those readers who have shared Joanie Caucus’ long and winding road to happiness.
Joanie worked hard in Slade’s campaign, but times turned bleak when Virginia decided to throw in the towel so that a third candidate could successfully beat the incumbent. The only light in the darkness for Joanie — who only weeks before had been hurt by a guy who was gay — was political reporter Rick Redfern.
That’s where we came in, remember?
Trudeau has said it is the challenge of the cartoonist to, among other things, “invite the reader to involve himself in a new reality set up as a sustained metaphor for his own; to let the small meanness and foolishness of life face each other in distortion … and to seek out the vignette that speaks to the lives of many.”
Joanie got to make her “good breakfast.” That is her small pleasure.
We got permission to print the blacked-out strips.
That is ours.
Walt Jaschek hopes you have enjoyed this frisky flashback to the sexy 70s.
Ah, numbered lists! As content, they’re proven link-bait; they’re merciful on readers’ eyes; and they’re an easy, go-to structure – maybe a little too “go-to” – for me and my fellow content writers. Here are 11 signs we might be addicted to writing list posts.
1. We keep a list of list posts we intend to write.
2. We tell our spouses or partners, “Here are six things you can do to turn me on tonight – and one you’ll have to figure out yourself.”
3. We’d rewrite the title of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” to “Four Weddings and A Funeral You Won’t Believe.”
5. We are bummed Listly.com is already taken. It was on our “domains-to-buy” list.
6. We get a secret thrill when Microsoft Word automatically puts a numeral or letter in front of our lists. How does it know?
7. We spend lunch thinking of “50 New Ways to Leave Your Lover.” But we can’t get further than #22, “Use the Lyft app, Hap.”
8. We try to recall the exact list of reasons “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
9. We are envious of recipe posts because they by nature get to include ingredient lists. Damn them!
10. Our Bucket Lists include doing a podcast of Celebrity Bucket Lists. (Actually, I’d listen to that.)
11. To see this last, surprising sign, download my ebook… Just kidding. I don’t have an ebook to download.
Walt Jaschek has #11 on his list.
After decades of writing marketing copy and content in every medium in our time-space continuum, including branded fortune cookies (really,) I have been asked about my “copywriting process.” For visual learners, I try to capture it in this bar chart.
Wow, look at all that red. I guess self-pity is the most colorful kind of pity.
Oh, I’m kidding, for the most part.
But not the whole part.
Walt Jaschek promises more process charts soon. Let’s hope his short-term memory holds out.
Here are two stories in a series of articles on modern breakthroughs in science, commissioned by Sigma-Aldrich for an enewsletter. Target audience: cliients in academia and scientific research. I tried to speak in the language of the audience, but to employ a style warm and human.
Ginseng: “A Virtual Drugstore”
It has no lighted parking, no drive-through pharmacy and no giant displays of shampoo, but make no mistake: ginseng is a drugstore.
“A virtual drugstore,” clarifies Laura Murphy, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology at Southern Illinois University Carbondale School of Medicine. Dr. Murphy’s research lab has released a series of groundbreaking findings relating ginseng to the slower growth of cancer cells.
“Ginseng has 30 different ginsenocides, supponent glycosides, polysaccharides, plus fiber and protein,” says Dr. Murphy. “There are 50 different compounds that affect the body, all through unique mechanisms. Working with ginseng is complex and challenging.”
Tan and gnarled, ginseng root has a forked shape, resembling human legs – hence its original Chinese name renshen, or “man root.” Central to Eastern medicine for 4,000 years for its many alleged healing properties, the chemically rich Panex quinquefolius is now under the microscope in labs throughout the world – notably in Dr. Murphy’s own.
But her recent news-making headlines about ginseng started years ago with another herb altogether. “In the 90s, we started doing research on the neuroendocrine effects of cannabinoids,” says Dr. Murphy, editor of a book on the subject. “We were treating animals with marijuana and looking at effects on male copulatory behavior.” (Side note: They have an inhibitory effect.)
“In putting together that cannabinoids paper, we saw that ginseng was anecdotally reported to stimulate libido. We extended the project to include it and I couldn’t believe the results. We did it two more times, same results.”
Newly intrigued by ginseng, Dr. Murphy tightened her focus on the science of the storied root. She learned Asian researchers were doing most of the recent clinical work, and most of that was about ginseng’s effectiveness in treating cancer cells. “It made me wonder if the discussed cancer-affecting qualities could be confirmed in the research lab.”
An endocrinologist, Dr. Murphy began her lab’s project with a supply of human breast cancer cells grown for researchers. When she and her students treated some of these cells with an American ginseng extract, they found this: the higher the doses, the slower the cancer cells grew. With a high enough dose, they could actually stop the cells from growing.
“It was consistent and repetitive,” says Dr. Murphy. “A very clean result.”
With similar findings came increased funding: from the university, the Department of Defense, the National Cancer Institute, the Penny Severns Fund, and the National Center for Complementary Alternative Medicine. The work expanded quickly.
“We wanted to see if we could get the same results in an animal as we got in a Petri dish, and we did. It was the first time an effect in animals has been document,” Dr. Murphy says.
Next up for her lab: studies on the relationship between ginseng and chemotherapy. “We submitted a grant proposal to the NCI that would involve us looking at ginseng’s chemo-preventive effects. Can ginsengs be used concurrent with chemotherapy drugs?”
In all her with with ginseng and cancer, Dr. Murphy cites a challenge within a challenge: molecular pathway management. “As the ginsenocides and polysaccharides act on the cancer cell, a lot of pathways are affected. We use Panorama arrays from Sigma-Aldrich. It provides a system which deals with signal transduction pathways, cell signaling and apotois. The Panorama arrays are quite specific to the pathways we’re looking for.”
As our interview was concluding, we just had to know: does Dr. Murphy herself take ginseng?
“Yes. I make a tea from the raw root,” she says, laughing. “I like the taste of it and believe in its restorative properties. I believe if you’re a healthy person, it’s good for you, and if you’re unhealthy, it will make you better.”
Ah. If only a real drugstore made it that easy.
DNA Breakthrough Over Dinner
“Would you people pleeeeeeeease quit talking about work?”
You can almost hear teenage Emily Nicolet of Davis, California, beseeching her parents across the dinner table.
Her mother, Peggy Farnham, PhD, Associate Director of Genomics at the University of California-Davis, says it’s not an uncommon plea. Dr. Farnham and her husband, Charles M. Nicolet, PhD, are also colleagues: Dr. Nicolet is Manger of the DNA Technologies and Gene Expression Core Facilities at UC-D, and both of Emily’s parents are distinguished for their groundbreaking work at the institution’s Genome Center. Conversations between them can quickly turn molecular.
At one such dinner in 2006, Dr. Farnham was the one complaining. She remembers criticizing the quality of data her lab was getting from the then-existing techniques of amplifying DNA from chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) samples for hybridization to a genomic tiling array (ChIP-chip assays.) One technique – linker-mediated PCR (LMPCR) – was providing too great a signal-to-noise ratio. Another, pooling 50 replicated ChIP samples, was not feasible for multiple genome-wide analyses.
Between bites, her husband offered a suggestion. “Have you considered trying one of the WGA amplification methods they’re using in the lab performing Comparative Genomic Hybridizations? Somebody over there just gave me a pamphlet.” Dr. Nicolet handed it over.
Dr. Farnham saw the potential immediately. “Nobody’s tried this on ChIP-chip assays,” she recalls saying. “Let’s do it!”
It was probably about that time daughter Emily lobbed her mid-meal protest.
But the dinner dialogue proved an important catalyst.
Today the Farnham Laboratory at UC-D, a leader in genome-wide characterization of transcription factor binding sites and chromatin modifications, has abandoned the LMPCR and pooling methods and has completely switched over to the WGA technique for its research, getting what Dr. Farnham calls “really quite amazing” data from increasingly smaller cell samples.
“This level of amplification is critical to having enough material to put on the arrays,” Dr. Farnham says. “Using WGA, we just did a whole genome tiling of 38 arrays, going through every base in the genome, looking for a particular factor, and the data is really beautiful. We’ve done 200 arrays in the last six months and it works just as well for any of the factors we’ve tried.”
Miniaturization – getting more from less – is the trajectory of DNA research, Dr. Farnham says. The possible applications are many, but are particularly relevant to the future of medical science, where the ability to extract more sophisticated information on defects and disease from even the smallest biopsy could lead to more evolved diagnosis and cures.
It was in 2004 that Drs. Farnham and Nicolet and their daughter Emily moved to Davis from Madison, Wisconsin, where Dr. Farnham was professor of oncology at the University of Wisconsin. “We all had great friends and colleagues there, but this was a chance to do something new and different at the Genome Center. It’s exciting to be part of a group thinking on this scale. Everybody has these great, genome-wide assays to talk about. The energy is high and the opportunity for collaborations is fantastic.”
In fact, Dr. Farnham’s most recent scientific paper, the latest of many published findings released this year by the Farnham Laboratory, has a collaborative twist. One of the co-authors of Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for ChIP-chip Assays is also her frequent dinner companion and husband, Dr. Nicolet. “This is our first paper together,” Dr. Farnham says of the work, which compares three ChIP sample preparation methods differing in background noise and reproducibility of binding site identification.
And to think: this influential Farnham/Nicolet collaboration crystallized with that seemingly innocuous “Have-you-considered?” conversation in their dining room months prior. The incident supports this simple, three-part conclusion:
Some scientific advances occur over years.
Some, over decades.
And some, over dinner.