Myric's Rants

Going back to your roots

2010-03-07T23:04:00.000-08:00

The phrase "Going back to your roots" to me invokes the image of a hair-metal band running out of new song ideas. That seemed to permeate the early 90's glam metal fad on MTV because Grunge was moving in, pushing the worst that metal had to offer to the side, and making a whole TV network full of one-semi-hit wonders sit up and wonder what they were doing wrong with their music. So all of them could be quoted as saying, "We're going back to our roots," and "We're writing albums with the places we came from in mind," and all sorts of other nonsense they'd been fed by their record companies' press agents to make it sound like their new music would have the unpolished feel of Grunge.

It didn't work, as the glam metal of the time was purely derivative drivel, and people were sick of the junk MTV and the record companies were trying to shove down their throats. Which, of course, would repeat itself when record companies decided "this Grunge thing" would make them money and they oversaturated the music market with yet another wave of third-rate bands that didn't have any business being part of the music business at large.

So what prompted me to rant about this was reading an article featuring a fairly successful author who used the same phrase to describe the inspiration of his soon-to-be-released novel. I had a quick vision of this seventy-something author with a huge coif of teased and hairsprayed bleach-blond helmet hair circa Sunset Strip 1986 through 1991. (Okay, too much of a stretch, but it was funny to me.)

What struck me when reading that was that all of the albums made by the glam metal bands around that time were even worse than their original material. (I know Metal, and I HATE glam metal, but being in the scene you get exposed to it while looking for real music) And, in every single instance, it was because they were chasing something that inspired them but without any hope of recapturing the feeling of what made it so special. And this author, who has written a number of reasonably successful fiction and nonfiction books, now says he needed to go back to his roots to figure out what his last several books had been missing.

Okay, what makes this a different situation is that this guy has been writing for about fifty years, earning his keep through his writing and improving his work with every book he writes. I looked into his books on Borders and Amazon and they're all well rated, with numerous praise about how thoughtful, deep and interesting the works are. He didn't write fluff, or any kind of throwaway material, unlike the glam metal bands whose albums were not only bad when they were released but have not aged well. And while the glam metal bands looked to their roots for inspiration after only a few releases, and in a few cases after only one album (!), this author has taken an entire lifetime to get to that point.

But it still makes me wonder - he is out of ideas? Did the creative well run dry? Has he burned out that part of his imagination? Those bands sure did. Arguably, they ran out of ideas while writing their albums and had a producer finish writing material for them. Maybe this author's editor finished his last book for him, or he had an assistant or ghost writer finish it for him. He didn't talk about that in the article, so who knows.

Is that inevitably what happens? As artists do we burn ourselves out searching for ideas and developing aspects of our creativity? Do those who are not truly that artistic, but instead are followers of a trend, burn themselves out that much sooner? Is this why seemingly prolific artists, who are somehow able to churn out work with startlingly regularity almost always fall into a formula where everything appears more or less the same after a while?

Something to think about as I follow that path. Maybe it's a good thing that I balance the artistic part of my personality with a technical mindset. I'm not ready to go back to my roots quite yet. That sounds like admitting defeat. And I will never surrender.

Enter The Writing Zone

2010-02-23T16:15:00.000-08:00

How long does it take you to get into The Writing Zone? Do you sit down at your computer and within seconds of opening your word processor of choice you're happily typing away? Do you need fifteen minutes? An hour of screwing around before an hour of reading what you've previously written before actually writing? Or do you just plain procrastinate about it?

Lately I've been procrastinating, and I know its because I'm in a funk. I'm not working regularly, subsisting on EDD benefits to pay the bills while I look for steady work. So when I sit down and sometimes see I have all day to write, I've been taking all day to actually write something. Anything! Even the occasional post on Facebook or review on Yelp has been more effort than I want to put forth.

As much as I wanted time to write while I was working full-time and would proactively make time to do it, I now have hardly any work but little desire to work on my material. Yep, typical procrastinator!

So today I'm taking the time to work on this post, with no real pressure, unlike my usual, "gotta get working on the book," that I've been pushing myself to do for weeks now. And maybe there's something to that - a blog post, at least this sort, is really just a short essay or diary entry to get one's thoughts out. There's no outside pressure to write a burst of eloquent inanity. There's no pressure to write something that will sell one-hundred-thousand copies in a week. The only pressure is to remember to hit "save" every now and then to make sure the work isn't lost before publishing. (clicks "save now").

And with that I've written (and saved!) my daily burst of magniloquent vacuity to clear the creative clutter and let me get back to writing my book.

Do you ever find this? How do you deal with the occasional lull in motivation? Or the occasional period of procrastination?

Maybe a deadline would help...

Over the top

2010-01-14T14:59:00.001-08:00

Why is it that the makers of TV shows and films feel the need to go over the top when they don't need to? If the story doesn't call for it, why do they do it?

I was watching a repeat of the show "Supernatural" (episode "The Real Ghostbusters") and was a little surprised at what happened at the end of the episode. The entire storyline did not set that situation up at all. And if it did, it was so subtle that I sure didn't catch it.

At the end of the show, the heroes are listening to an explanation given by two guys who risked their own lives to help fight demons. Part of the explanation is that they're really into this graphic novel and Live Action Role Playing game based on the heroes; the two guys emulate the heroes to the point that they felt they should be the ones to stand up and fight when no one else would - and, oh yeah we almost forgot to shove it into the story, POOF they're gay.

What?!

In retrospect, maybe the whole episode was supposed to be a metaphor about how gays and lesbians are brave to come out of the closet and live openly?

What does that have to do with having the courage to face danger? Was that supposed to be a subtext in the metaphor? As far as I know, being gay doesn't make you a hero - it makes you gay. I have friends who are openly gay. I have friends who are closeted gays. I don't necessarily find any one of my gay friends to be any more "heroic" than any other. But I guess I've never had to hide my orientation from my family and society at large. So am I missing something here?

But my point is not about gay or straight heroes or supporting characters in a story. If that's what makes a character who he or she is, that's great. What I'm trying to figure out is why would the show's writers and producers try to shoehorn this element into the story when they didn't need to?

What really makes me wonder is that this element is only revealed during the resolution of the story and, like I noted, didn't seem to have any real setup earlier in the show. I'm okay with the rest of the story. Everything else about these characters adds up. The two "helpers" were portrayed as being dorky (into LARP) and socially awkward (they met on a chat site related to the Supernatural LARP). To one extent or another, this was set up early on. It also explains why they stood up to fight - they take their hero worship to heart. They realize that their heroes aren't asked to be heroes, they just get up and do it because "someone" needs to. And if they really want to emulate their heroes, and live like their heroes, they're willing to be "someone" too.

But why are they gay? Is that what sets them apart from the rest of the LARP gamers? Is that why they're willing to put themselves in danger when no one else will - because they're different?

The synopsis on one of the hardcore fan sites (available here: The Real Ghostbusters) makes no mention of this at all. And when I asked a friend who is a true superfan of the show - and also gay! - he thought it was an afterthought, like something they realized they'd set up in the script as backstory and forgotten to present earlier in the episode.

Help me out here, because I'm obviously missing something.

Picking up the pieces of 2009

2009-12-25T23:15:00.001-08:00

I know it's been a while since I've last posted, and all two of my regular readers have emailed me about this a total of three times (combined) already, so here goes...

In the past month I've been picking up the pieces of 2009. Most of which relates to a "workforce reduction" (corporate speak for "we'd rather let 100 workers go than 10 executives who don't really do much but are otherwise in charge of counting beans and deciding which 100 workers by which to periodically reduce the company.") by my now-previous employer just before Thanksgiving, which was all sorts of fun, I assure you.

I realize my parentheses-enclosed quip makes me sound a little bitter, and I'll admit I have been. It's amazingly easy to blame the unseen end of the company, the people whose jobs only seem to relate to hiring and firing, or making sense of some truly convoluted cash flow in a large company. And it's easy to be embittered when looking at several of the other people who were laid-off and seeing some really talented, skilled and/or dedicated employees being released while known slackers and even troublemakers are retained - in many cases only because they make a mere 5-to-10% less wages than workers in similar positions.

Which again points to the aforementioned unseen bean counters, who don't see the day-to-day operation of the company and don't interact with anyone outside of the bean counting rooms. They only witness what workers X, Y and Z in the same department are salaried as. They don't see who stays extra hours, who comes in on weekends or is the go-to when crisis strikes. Not who is the "difficult one" or the one that no co-worker can find when they're needed.

There are numerous other factors, I'm well aware, and it's (mostly) unfair to simplify a large-scale layoff in this way, I'll admit that. And I had someone else point out that other people were suffering, just like me, so I shouldn't complain too loudly. Which might be a valid point.

But is it really a valid point when several of your now-former-co-workers have gone to your now-former boss and now-former HR department to complain that they let the wrong guy in your now-former department go? (I don't expect a call to return to work there any time soon, but it really was an absolutely awesome gesture by those people on my behalf. I've never heard of that happening before. Thanks guys!)

All things considered, I could certainly be in a much worse position. I could not have paid off almost all of my debt in the past two years. I could not have saved a not-enough-but-better-than-most nest egg just in case of a layoff. I could not have taken the time to reduce other spending (like the cable bill, phone bill, impulse purchases, luxury purchases, etc) and just blown my cash like I did ten or fifteen years ago. Had I been lazier by half, I'd be in a really rough spot right now. But with a little help from the G paying some unemployment insurance benefits I can get through the end of the year without breaking a sweat. Beyond that it'll take some belt-cinching, but we'll get to that when we get to that.

And things could be far, far, FAR worse. Stuff I barely want to think about - illness, foreclosure, and so on. So I'm actually about as happy as one can be in my position. I get to do long overdue things around the house while I make a feeble attempt at finding work this time of year. I get to spend extra time with my wife (when she's not - thankfully! - working) and my dog. Hell, I've even lost five pounds just from eating home-cooked (by me) meals instead of fast food or cafeteria food at work. Maybe there's more to this not working thing than I originally considered.

I find it wondrously asinine that many people don't even do the simplest things to protect themselves, then have the audacity to complain that their problems shouldn't be happening to them. I took many steps to put myself in a better position (as I noted), and STILL I was let go ahead of other, less capable, less skilled, less dedicated and less co-worker-friendly (meaning I play well with others) employees. Not to sound like an arrogant and self-centered bastard about it all, but I have a healthy ego about my abilities and know what I'm capable of. And I have copies of my excellent performance reviews, thank you notes and emails from co-workers and a small but very valued stack of recommendation letters that I'll barrage my next potential employer with to support it.

That's my big gripe - as an employee, I'm an asset. Not only do I do my assigned tasks, I bring process improvements, outside experience and contacts, and the ability to help carry my employer into the future. When "the company" chooses to save the difference between two similar salaries without considering what each salary returns to the company beyond the bare minimum they were hired to do, I think I have the right to be a little bitter about the situation.

So I guess I was trying to make a point with my post, as I usually try to do. And I guess the moral of this story is pretty simple: If you take even a few small steps to cover your ass, it will always pay off. And if that payoff means you actually get to enjoy your layoff just a tiny little bit, well, you're golden.

"Say" and "Tell" are two different things

2009-11-24T23:23:00.000-08:00

Reading an entry about Content Mills and related sources of we-barely-pay-enough-for-a-copy-writer-to-eat at Catalyst Blogger a while back, I was prompted to post a response that really got me thinking. It was about how you can "say" something without actually "telling" someone anything. Here it is in its entirety:

"Re: Content Mills

There is absolutely an art to writing and not actually saying anything.

Open any newspaper and you'll several find filler articles that present only a few key facts about a topic and spend valuable print lines telling you how they'll be following up in coming weeks instead of filling out the article.

Look at any website that offers "thousands" of articles about a given topic and you'll find numerous 3000 word articles that essentially repeat the same minor tidbit of information over and over in ten paragraphs.

And look at any news site that is based in broadcast TV, especially the "consumer investigation" articles. These might just be the worst. In these articles, the writer will point out how there is a problem with a product or service, to check and see if you're a victim, and to follow up if you are. There is rarely information about what the problem stems from, who is responsible for a problem, who to consult about a problem, where to go or who to talk to about following up, or links to other resources concerning the issue."

Now, I posted this about a month ago, but today while sitting at home watching the news on a major network I witnessed the exact crap I was posting about. And not once, but seven or eight times. Enough that I lost count.

Time and again the news anchors tempted and threatened viewers with tidbits of upcoming stories, only to present lackluster and barely informative pieces that hardly qualified as newsworthy.

In one instance in particular, the anchor had a "breaking" story about a "potentially fatal car accident." But when the actual story was presented in what was supposed to pass as the "full" story they'd been threatening to show, every key element of information was incomplete, other than the location. The views from the helicopter camera showed a vehicle surrounded by firemen, all of whom appeared to be milling around. There was no action to help visually support the information. The anchor was left to make an attempt to relate to the audience what the details of the crash were, and had no information to relate. He said the number of victims was unknown, the extent of injuries was unknown (there was suddenly no further mention of "potentially fatal" at all), and they didn't even know if any other vehicles were involved with the accident or not. How is that a "breaking" story that needs to interrupt the planned stories?

As much as it may sound like I'm attacking the news anchor, I'm not. He's not running around town trying to get information on developing stories. He's not in the news room sorting through incoming stories from field reporters, trying to decide what to air and what to skip. Nope. That's the news editor's and producer's jobs. And they're not doing their jobs when they leave their anchors hanging. Hopefully the guy I mentioned above went back to the producer and yelled at him for being left hanging out to dry ON THE AIR by a half-assed attempt to make something of a non-story. And it seems all too often that there's very little real news the major networks will report.

Case in point, the same major network news program had a segment at the end of the newscast where they would show what was coming later in the afternoon. The clips started out as a few stories that had been reported on as "developing" earlier in the show, but then took a dramatically non-news turn by showing a fifteen second teaser of the soap opera that was following the newscast!

That's not news! That's nonsense! You mean to tell me that you think it's acceptable to waste viewers' time and advertisers' budgets on pathetic excuses for news programming and teasers for soap operas? I'm insulted on behalf of any and all others who watched that program hoping to see any of the fleeting ideas occasionally known as "real news."

If you're going to say something under the guise of relating information, you'd better actually tell me something worthwhile. If I tune in to a local news show, I want to see the local news, not soap opera bumpers. Might there be a reason viewers are leaving the major networks in droves to watch specialized and niche programming on cable and satellite TV and on the internet?

Go to any "how-to" websites, or pick up a magazine with "how-to" articles and you'll see right away how many pay one cent per word to fill out their quotas. You will see hundreds of 1500 to 3000 word articles that cover all the pertinent information in the first two and last two paragraphs. Articles that should be 500 words, stretched out by both writer and editor to hit just the right word or page count, yet not saying anything of substance in the main text of the articles.

Just because you open your mouth or write articles doesn't mean you're really telling anyone anything. Give us facts, figures, hard information, verifiable information, and suggestions where we can find more of the same. Tell us where you did your research to quote these "facts" and "figures". And don't run us in circles by needlessly stretching your pieces out by saying the same specific thing in ten different ways.

Back in the 19th century

2009-11-06T13:34:00.000-08:00

Haven't posted in a while... here's a little ditty I was working on the other day, mostly unedited:

Power’s out in the neighborhood. No idea why. No big deal first thing, since I usually get up and play and exercise with the dog for a while before anything else – don’t need power for that, just a tennis ball and some room to run.

But after I made a quick breakfast and dropped the dog off at the groomer, I caught myself thinking I should check my email, update my fantasy football rosters, write something witty for my Facebook status and romp through all the minutiae of my electronic day.

I realized “I can’t.”

Without missing a beat I went for the remote and figured I’d see what was on History Channel, Discovery Channel, HBO and see what Sports Center on ESPN had to say about the weekend’s NFL matchups.

I realized I couldn’t. Again.

So I poured a cup of leftover coffee from the jug in the fridge (at least the refrigerator was still fairly cold) and sat down at the computer to check my email again.

Damnit, no power!

I turned to the laptop. Mine’s old, so I don’t get much time out of the battery, two hours tops on a full charge.

Still no email. No wireless networks within range to connect to. Duh, still no power in the neighborhood.

Got me to thinking that I’ve grown up in a society, in a world as I know it, where if you want to do something you just plug it in. TV, Radio, Internet, video games; a vast selection of information and entertainment all at our fingertips. Until the power goes out.

Then we’re back in the 19th century.

Made me wonder where the old phone was, the three dollar, corded, no-power-required thing built in Taiwan fifteen years ago that we kept in case of emergency. No clue. And I couldn’t tell you where the battery powered emergency radio wandered off to, either. So much for keeping that handy. Guess I’d better make amends before things determine that I really do need those items.

(On that thought, I wonder if anyone manufacturers battery-powered coffee makers? I have a tough time without access to the bean. Maybe that’ll be my invention of a lifetime…)

And as I sat there at my laptop (beginning this journal entry in fact) watching the battery level tick down, it occurred to me that I had hours before I had to go to work with nothing to do. Well, I had plenty to do (email, Facebook, et al) but couldn’t do any of it. I love to read, and I have several magazines and books within reach (which I’ll be taking advantage of after finishing this) so it’s not like I’d sit around staring at the floor for three hours before leaving for work.

But I think I have been so well-trained by the words from our sponsors to be barraged by their advertising that it feels deeply wrong to want to do anything else without their influence. It’s an interesting form of anxiety, similar to the anticipation of someone coming over, or waiting for a flight to take off. Not like, “Oh God, did I leave the stove on full blast before I left for the Bahamas?” That’s terrible; it’s not like that at all. It’s more like when you chug that first cup of coffee in the morning and the surge of caffeinated power starts to surge through your veins.

Looking outside I can see a few neighbors standing on their front steps talking. If I felt any remote connection to them – hell, if I spoke Spanish with any fluency – I’d probably be more willing to join in.

The Laundromat on the corner is empty, so is the taco shop and the little grocery store. Our neighborhood is quiet. Remarkably so.

It occurs to me it’s not very 19th century of me not to have the morning newspaper handy.

Reading and Writing is Weird, Part Two

2009-09-25T11:32:00.001-07:00

The more I write, the more I read and the more I read about writing, the weirder my reading and writing gets.

Huh?

Part Two

To quote myself, “I read voraciously – books, magazines, Wikipedia, cereal boxes, L.A. Times online, several blogs, you name it.” More than a week of not having something regular to read (a novel in progress, etc) and I start to go nuts. But with all the reading I do, I sometimes stumble upon something that screws up how I write.

“How does reading something screw up your writing?” you might ask. Well, quite often “artistic types” are interpretive. In many ways, and in many cases, we create by taking in information and experiences, assimilate them, stir everything up and channel them into our work. Books, music, painting, whatever. And sometimes you experience something that has such a powerful subconscious effect that it overwhelms whatever it is you’re trying to create.

Example: I was slogging through borrowed copies of the most recent installments (the last two, books 11&12 or 12&13 or something, I forget) of Robert Jordan’s “Wheel of Time” series. A book series that looked to be the modern day heir of the epic fantasy crown worn for so long by Lord of the Rings that turned out to be an overextended study in character, long-term setup and taking advantage of your audience’s willingness to buy books.

The first three or four, and maybe even the fifth book were fun, a semi-fresh take on epic fantasy but with an excellent cast of characters and some really exciting sounding places for the story to go. And I mean that in both fictional locations and in plot twists. After a certain point though, things just stopped happening. The genre fiction mega-series turned into wordy literary nonsense about the minutiae surrounding the cast of thousands that had developed and the story just fluttered along, seemingly without any point and without any climax or resolution in sight. Truly a fine example of how to write 600 pages and have almost nothing happen except a repeat of every character's quirks and an expression of the opinions they've shown unchanged since Book 3. Stagnant writing that would not get most authors published, unless of course they'd already sold millions of copies of books.

(RIP Mr. Jordan, it's nothing personal. And I don't know how much your publisher or some bean counter at the publishing house had to do with pushing the magnitude of stagnation in your last few WOT books, but they really were more like unwanted homework than the enjoyable read the first several were.)

Inadvertently, that's how my writing was starting to look. My subconscious saw that someone could actually get paid to say nothing - for two hundred thousand words! - and started leaning me in that direction. Thankfully the editor of the technical magazine I was writing for at the time reigned me in.

For a change of pace I started reading something completely different: Tom Robbins’ “Another Roadside Attraction” and my prose was suddenly an absolute mess for weeks. That book was such a departure from the mainstream genre standards I’d been reading without interruption for so long, one of my writing muscles was strained. Missing was the standard formula I’d been so used to, and expected in almost everything I read. Robbins’ words flew off the page in a series of seemingly random tangents that, little did I realize at the time, would all tie together nicely by the end of the book. And mixed in I found the narrator adding philosophical statements that connected into the ongoing story. If I didn’t know better, I would have said I was experiencing contact highs by reading the book every time I picked it up – my first impression was that it was written by a stoner, for stoners, and with no one else in mind. And it was good - stuff actually happened! Characters grew and changed. The story moved in a roundabout and "we're-really-stoned" way, but it had a conclusion in mind and headed for it.

What happened almost immediately, I noticed my emails at home and at work began coming out funny. Ideas rushed forth from my fingers to the keyboard, but somewhere between my brain and my fingers they’d get jumbled into weird arrangements. Things would make sense, but only if you read them kinda’ sideways-like. And when I sat to work on one of the stalled beginnings for my first novel I’d make notes, or free write, or brainstorm and when I looked back at what I’d written it was really confusing. Nothing looked what I thought it would look like when I was thinking about it while typing or scrawling in my notebooks. It was really, really weird.

I looked back at some pre-Roadside-Attraction short stories and a technical article I’d written, and they looked a little bland. A little predictable. A little run-of-the-mill. As I noted before, more like the stretched out Wheel of Time books than a Roadside whirlwind. I got where I was going, but I was sure taking my own sweet time to get there.

I compared some of the work to what was shaping up to be the introduction, teaser or first chapter (however you want to look at it) of my novel and it struck me – I could see my own development as a writer, right then and there. I watched as my voice changed – my writer’s voice, that is - during the course of the first chapter. My work started to look fresh and exciting, not just a rehash of what had come before. That's what had, until that point, been bogging me down in my work - I felt like my much of my creative material was just a recycling of my influences.

That brought me to question how many writers can actually look at their work and pinpoint several spots where they developed? Could they see where they started to find their own voice? I thought that was interesting: I knew that by shaking up my reading routine I'd learn and grow a little, but that sudden, dramatic change was far from what I expected.

Things have since been edited down in the first few chapters, and once again my writing sounds like "me" but the point remains: often as artists what we take in can and will influence what we're creating. And it's funny that something can unexpectedly break how you do things. When you push yourself you can change, but push too hard and you might burn yourself out. And sometimes, you take a chance and look at things from a different direction and you're motivated anew.

Reading and Writing is Weird

2009-09-25T11:25:00.000-07:00

The more I write, the more I read and the more I read about writing, the weirder my reading and writing gets.

Huh?

Part One

I'll start here: I notice a few things about my reading habits in the past few years, ever since I started getting serious about my writing. I read voraciously – books, magazines, Wikipedia, cereal boxes, L.A. Times online, several blogs, you name it. Occasionally I’ll get on these kicks where I pick up a book by an author I've never read, enjoy the book, then go out and pick up two more. But by the time I have finished reading the second book I've figured out the writer's formula and don't always want to read the third one. This has happened several times now, and it's becoming a little too regular for my tastes.

The first book I'll usually get because I want something new to read and I've been trying to broaden my reading choices. In reading the first one, it usually piques my interest in the writer's voice, the new story and characters, and it feeds the need to be immersed into a story.

The second book I'll usually get because once I've finished the first I'm not ready to give up that feeling of reading something new and exciting, and being taken away by a new story. When it’s part of a series the second book is always fun because the adventures of the characters from the first book that you’ve invested yourself into are about to continue. But about halfway through the typical Book 2 I've started to discern how the author paces things, drops hints, and structures their plot. And while the story might be good, I'll catch myself piecing the end of their story together much earlier than I did in Book 1. And by the end, my sense of surprise and satisfaction in how the story turned out has been a bit tarnished. And not because the plot and story hints have dictated how the book needs to end and I didn't agree, but because I've somehow seen through the storyteller's veil. Kind of like when you see the behind-the-scenes before you see the actual film. You might see how the filmmakers created some amazing special effects that would have taken your breath away before you knew how they used common household objects and cheated something with the camera to make them.

And then Book 3 becomes something of a chore. It's not always that much fun to read once you see story elements coming like signs on the freeway.

One notable example is my doing this with Dan Brown's books. Like the rest of the masses I dove into "The DaVinci Code" and enjoyed it immensely. With hardly a day between I'd picked up and jumped right into "Angels and Demons". Now, unlike some of what I just explained, I was so interested in the story that I completely overlooked much of the story's mechanics and had a great read. I saw the ending coming, but the subject matter was interesting enough that, really, I just didn't care.

But then, for Book 3, I started on "Digital Fortress". Within the first ten pages I was already predicting the plot. It was like when Neo in "The Matrix" stops seeing the inside of the Matrix as just an offshoot of the real world and recognizes it for what it really is. And while "Digital Fortress" was an decent read (not quite the same writing skill and interesting subject matter as "The DaVinci Code" or "Angels and Demons"), I had the story plotted in the back of my head and knew exactly what was going to happen and why, almost as clearly as if I'd written it myself. Not that I'm a master writer (yet!) or some sort of literary genius, but I think I was so closely in the zone of that particular author that I couldn't help but interpret that story that quickly.

I can see that this all stems from overdosing on one author. Not allowing enough time between books to digest them. Not reading enough of a different author before getting involved with the previous one again. And even though I get it, I keep repeating the process – the excitement of the new read overpowers all else.

Next up are authors James Rollins (a few books from the Sigma Force series) and Michael Connelly (the Detective Harry Bosch novels) to get a better idea how thriller and cop mystery/thrillers are paced. I’m already planning to stagger their books so I don’t get burned out. I’ll let you know how that turns out.

Review from the future

2009-09-17T12:44:00.000-07:00

Review from the future, 2016:

"Aliens" - a remake of the 1986 film

From the original, via imdb.com:

"After colonist, Ellen Ripley survived her disastrous ordeal, nobody believed her story about the "Aliens" being on the planet LV-426. However, approximately 50 years later, the colony on LV-426 was completely destroyed. The government has decided to send Ripley out of cryostasis and to aid a team of tough, rugged space marines into the desolate planet to find out if there are aliens, or survivors. But, what Ripley will begin to realize that her worst nightmare is about to come true."

Excerpts from the review of the remake:

Inspired casting and smooth direction make this film the must see of the 2016 summer, the 30th anniversary of the original film. Though hardly re-written at all, the remake follows the original director's cut and adds even more alien blood than ever before.

Space Marine Corporal Hicks (expertly portrayed by Elmer Fudd), who takes it upon himself to guard the team's advisor "Wipwey", quickly takes over as one by one his fellow Marines are killed by "nightmawish cweachiz". Early in this carnage-filled remake, the Marines have found themselves in the outpost's power plant and are commanded not to use their pulse rifles, as the bullets might pierce the reactor. While other Marines switch their rifles for flamethrowers, the perfectly cast Fudd revisits a scene from the original as Hicks pulls a shotgun off his back and loads a shell into the chamber. He notices his partner Pvt. Frost comparing his low-powered sidearm to the shotgun. Hicks almost brags, "I wike to keep this handy... for cwose encowntuhz."

In one of the most tense and telling scenes late in the film, most of the platoon has been killed. Corporal Hicks (Fudd) creeps down a destitute corridor with Wipwey and Newt in tow, searching for an escape. Newt slips and her doll clatters against the deck plates, reverberating down the metal hallway. Ever-present shotgun in hand, the dauntless Fudd turns to Newt and Wipwey with a finger to his lips and whispers, "Be vewy, vewy qwiet, we're hunting awiens."

Daffy Duck assumes the role of Private Hudson, the platoon technician, with a refreshing take on Bill Paxton's original. In a Hollywood Reporter interview, Duck said he felt he needed to capture the spirit of the character, with a definite nod to Paxton's portrayal, and put his own spin on Hudson. Though he repeats many of the classic lines ("Game over, man! Game over!"), and does them well, he truly shines in a few examples the role.

The first, early in the operation, the fresh-from-the-academy Lt. Gorman plans to enter the area secured by the Marines and calls in a command to Cpl. Hicks to meet him at the south lock. The sarcasm oozes from from Daffy Ducks words as he comments, "He'th comin' in. I feel thafer already." Shortly after, the Marines have had their first serious fight with the Aliens, and suffered heavy losses. In response to the platoon's confusion and dismay, he cries, "Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current eventth, but we jutht got our atheth kicked, pal!

And again, in a serious and remarkably intense moment for the oft-comedic Daffy Duck, his true acting chops appear. The remaining Marines have learned that Weyland-Yutani representative Carter Burke planned to use Ripley and Newt to carry alien embryos back to earth to use as the basis for biological weapons. Angered at this betrayal, Hudson (Duck) grabs a stunned Burke, slams him into a wall and holds his pulse rifle against the man's head. "I thay we greathe thith rat-fuck thon-of-a-bit-thh right now!" he growls, the vehemence absolutely palpable.

What makes that scene in the medical bay truly amazing is the Burke character is still played by the original film's Paul Reiser. Through new techniques in 3d computer constructs, much of his original footage from the film was able to be re-used, almost seamlessly. When you realize Daffy Duck is acting across from a blue-suited stunt man, how violently he throws him around, and how well the visual effects compositors were able to integrate the footage, it is for this scene in particular Duck may find himself a Best Supporting Actor nominee and the effects artists may see an effects nomination.

In another nicely cast role, Foghorn Leghorn fills in as the no-nonsense Sergeant Apone. After awaking from cryostasis on the voyage to LV-426, he enthusiastically runs with his duty: "All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast, I say, breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I love, I say, I LOVE the Corps!"

Yosemite Sam, sans his signature moustache and ten gallon hat, makes a fine appearance as Private Drake, one of the platoon's heavy gunners.

Lance Henrikson again reprises his role as Bishop, the artificial person.

(a nod of thanks to Eric Nyquist for the inspiration)

Where did this hate come from?

2009-09-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

(Edited to protect the semi-innocent)

What do you do when someone you know starts spouting hate? I don't mean like when you stub your toe really badly and all you curse the world for putting a dresser in the same space as your little toe. I mean hate speech that is truly intolerant of any different religion, race, nationality and political leanings.

I know someone who moved to (state far away from California) for work about two years ago (I'm still in LA). Before he left, we'd have regular discussions on music (of course...), politics, history, etc. He leaned right, I'm middle of the road politically. One reason we'd get into these discussions was not necessarily to convince each other of our "correct" thinking, but to compare ideas and learn from one another. Good stuff, especially when you're talking with someone open-minded enough to consider your ideas about a topic that they would normally feel they're 100% sure about.

But since he moved, things have changed. I knew he was an occasional church-going Baptist, I knew he was pretty conservative. But he was intelligent and would always listen to opposing points of view, if even just to find more things to contest, but he'd always listen. Now, he's a different person. We've emailed back and forth for some time about various things, and I can practically chart his descent into right-wing extremism. We've occasionally talked on the phone, and he's visited LA with the family and we've met up for beers. But, now, gone is the person who would hear someone's opinion out. Gone is the person who would say, "I don't agree completely, but that's an interesting idea," or "I'd never thought of things that way," or even "You might have changed my mind about that."

The last time we spoke he regularly cut me off, saying, "I don't need to hear that," and "Those are all lies," and "You must have read that in the Liberal media." He said he'd refused to read my emails with concerns and ideas about national health care, and comparisons to what's done overseas, writing back, "It'll never work, I don't see why you're wasting your time with this." Which is funny, because he told me he didn't have any insurance - not even life insurance, and not even for his kids! - and asked me if I really felt I needed insurance in the first place.

Wow.

We drained our glasses and he said he needed to go pick up the family for early evening services before getting on the plane to go home and asked me where the local church was. Before I could draw in breath to answer, he said, "Oh that's right, you're an Atheist, you don't care about God's love." He practically spat in my face with the word 'Atheist' before putting his hand out to shake mine and saying it was good to see me again and he'd email in a few weeks.

I was stunned. What the hell happened to this guy? Is this what happens when you move to a primarily right-wing and highly religious area? Was he infected by the locals, or by something in the water that made him conform? Or did he move to (state far away from California) because the general mentality in LA freaked him out? LA is a pretty mixed area - politics, races, religions, nationalities, ideas. You can see a synagogue, church, temple, mosque, and storefront altar all next to each other on the same block. And the food - Mexican, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Italian, BBQ, Donuts, Thai, Burgers, Japanese, Armenian, Brazilian; the wide selection is everywhere because LA is so mixed up.

There are certain things I can't disagree with him on, like bias in the media (though he refuses to believe Fox News is biased, claiming they're the only truthful news organization in the US; he also doesn't believe their owner, Rupert Murdoch, is Australian, since "we all know he's a good ol' boy"), a perfect example of which is hardly any major news services (other than Fox) reporting on the demonstrations in D.C. last week over government spending, health care reform, etc. But there are suddenly hundreds of things that I cannot agree with him on, like not hearing someone's views.

And don't get me started on his new-found hardcore religious views and his ideas about the anti-Christian movement.

I'm not sure it was so nice to see him last time. And I'm not sure I want to talk to him again. I'm not sure I even want to email with him again. Might just have to un-friend him on Facebook, since his status updates are regularly concerning extremist conservative and extremist Christian views on the world.

Anyone have any opinions or ideas on this one? I think this is one friendship lost.

Jesus can have him.

Facebook Fatigue

2009-09-12T12:22:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently sent me a funny article about "How Facebook Can Ruin Your Friendships" which has mirrored many of my thoughts for the past several weeks.

Since I joined, Facebook has been a fun time-killer. I've got connections to current friends and co-workers, some former co-workers, a few non-profits, bands I like, you name it. I've made connections to some old friends I'd fallen out of touch with and had been thinking about for quite some time, not sure how to find them without paying a private investigator.

But then came a slew of old acquaintances all requesting I add them as a friend - in most cases, people I'd fallen out of contact with for a reason. Might have been my reason, might have been theirs, doesn't matter. Made me wonder what was proper Facebook etiquette, adding them to pad my number of friends and never actually reconnecting with them, or just ignoring the request. For the most part I ignored them. I'll admit I added a few people who sort of drifted away after high school or college, thinking it'd be nice to see what these people were up to now that we've all grown up.

But then a few of them never responded to my inquiries.

So why the friend request if you're not going to correspond? Padding your number of friends? Why send me a friend request if you don't actually want to say anything, even once? Not once.

To see what might happen, I cut a few people from my friends list. Only one made a new friend request, asking "What happened? I thought we were friends."

"Um, let's see... it's been two months and you're yet to email me back about what you've been up to since we last saw each other after I sent you a synopsis of my last ten years. In fact, other than this email now, you haven't sent anything beyond a friend request. That's what happened."

"Sorry, I've been busy. Since college I... blah blah blah."

Yeah, one person.

Seems kind of rude to me. Maybe if you're thirteen and just trying to max out the number of friends Facebook allows you don't care. And the other five hundred people you are "friends" with don't care either.

(side note: I had a similar issue with LinkedIn. Why add me to your LinkedIn contacts if you're not willing to stay in touch about our similar carreer paths, tech developments, contacts, and so on? Is it because being connected to my resume makes yours look better? Is it because you want me to get you a job because you're too lazy or too afraid to look for one on your own? Sorry. Anyway.... back to my rant about Facebook.)

The other odd thing I notice about friends on Facebook is there's a few people I added who have started pummelling me with friend suggestions. Most Facebook friends have sent me a suggestion or two, which is great. There's always someone you've forgotten about that, when reminded, you're happy to talk to again. And I know I've sent a few suggestions to other people under the same pretenses, and that all seemed good.

A week ago I logged in and I suddenly had 98 friend requests! All suggestions from the same person. Why would someone suggest more than half of their friends list? Because I already knew most of the other half? I mean, come on! I didn't know, at all, probably 80 of the suggestions. No question there.

Another 10 I had seen once and never knew their name, or had been introduced at a party and never seen again, or was a friend of a friend of a friend kind of thing. A few of which had tried to add me in the past and I declined. Skip 'em. (One exception was a hot chick I'd kicked myself for being too shy to pursue at the time, but now that I'm married that's just bad news waiting to happen. Or maybe good news waiting to happen. Hmm... Never mind.)

Of the remainder, I guess another 6 of which I'd recieved friend requests from in the past and declined, being some of the "I remember you and didn't want to add you for a reason" requests I mentioned earlier. No adds there.

But the last two, I was emailed by the Suggestor, were people I just "had" to add. They wanted to talk to me "so badly" and "finally found a way to get back in contact" with me. They're people I have no real opinion about. Not good, not bad, hardly even neutral. Truth be told, I sorta' don't even care. To this day they sit in my requests box, waiting for a response. And the Suggestor has emailed me twice, saying they want to know why I haven't added them yet.

Is it just me, or is this Facebook thing turning into more work than it's worth? What do you think?

Rebirth of the rants!

2009-09-05T12:21:00.000-07:00

Time for the rebirth of Myric's Rants. My intention is to post semi-regularly about various topics, including short quips, essays and writing experiments to keep my writing skills sharp. Or sharpen them, as the case may sometimes be.

Enjoy.