I've heard all my life a lot of talk about this "Christ" person. For decades, I've refused to call "Jesus", "Christ", for several reasons.
There are no teachings I can find of a "Christ", just Jesus. This label Christ was actually officially given a few hundred years after the death of the man when they were trying to justify who he was. It's alleged that Peter called "Jesus" Christ, but that is in a book that was created far after that moment, the bible having been written down so long after the actual incidents that it is basically, hearsay.
And a guy named Yeshua (there are various forms of it) was actually who people call, Jesus. Which is important, what others called him, or what name he heard when someone called his name? Did he turn to look at you if you called him "Jesus"? Uh, no. Does that matter to you? Probably not. But shouldn't it? Do you want to believe in what was, or what people said what was?
Then he was so named officially as "Christ" at Emperor Constantin's Council of Nicaea in order to solidify an empire that was being torn apart by all the different religions. This creation of The Bible was a vested interesting not in seeing the truth in the book but in maintaining an Empire. Think about that for a moment. So to justify using this Yeshua guy as the focal point in their new Bible, which was becoming very popular in the realm, they scoured in the old Hebrew books for a prediction that fit Yeshua's life (and altering it wouldn't have mattered too much to them to fit the prophesies), they did indeed find one from a hundred years before "Yeshua" was born, and so they made it work. In fact they killed people to support their version.
Thus, Yeshua became, Christ, "Jesus Christ" as if that were his last name or something. But Jesus, is Yeshua and a blue eye, blond haired, white guy was actually, not that. It makes you wonder just what all is wrong in the teachings. All of which have been subverted from day one by those in control of the religion and then all the splinter groups degenerating down into even Mormonism (started by an affirmed con man) and other pretty foolish beliefs.
Constantin also saw to it that they killed any texts that made their new "Christ" figure sound too human and not God-like enough. It's why this is all such a ridiculous discussion. They put to death anyone who had any of the texts they wanted destroyed that disagreed with who they were building up this prophesied, Christ figure, the Son of God. That is why Christians, trying to justify their religion through quoting the Bible, holds little or no bearing on their argument. If you have a text that has been built to only support a created position, you are supporting your argument on a text that has little in the way of being an absolutely ironclad document on the actual history of what transpired during a time far before the text was solidified.
I truly believe if Yeshua, or whatever his name actually was, were to appear here now, he wouldn't even recognize what he had been trying to start way back when. He had a pretty simple message, few rules, mostly, be nice to one another. And think of "God' as a dad, not a mean spirited, well, all powerful spirit.
And if he were to be told about all the genocide Christianity and it's offshoots have fomented over time, he'd be horrified and simply disband the religion that grew from his original and subverted teachings. But so called Christians don't want to talk about that, they prefer to believe in their fantasy religion because the actuality of it no longer has any bearing upon what they now want to believe in.
And in a way that's understandable, because if you believe in something that is ridiculous, but you're practicing something that is basically nice and means well, why change, right? Even if these contentions are wrong, doesn't it make sense to check out what you are believing in, if you believe in Christianity or any of its bastardized forms? But probably not, realistically speaking, right?
But that is the evolution of religion. If it's not true, it really doesn't matter in the least. Does it?
I truly think the world will be a far better place once we start basing our decisions in reality, with compassion, and understanding bordering on elightenment.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
New Guinness Black
I've been a fan of Guinness for decades. Being half Irish has nothing to do with it. Okay, maybe, a little bit.
I just tried Guinness black.
At first taste, I was surprised. I wasn't sure I liked it
But then I tasted it again and I did. But it tasted like beer. This wasn't your Grandfather's Guinness.
Then I tasted it again and realized I did kind of like it.
It was weird though because I could taste Guinness in it, but it tasted like... beer.
I tasted it again.
Then it hit me.
For years I've complained about bars chilling Guinness.
Like I said, I'm Irish, and I know a full blooded guy, who is Irish but born there, I was born in Tacoma, Washington after all.
He said about cold Guinness, "Sacrilege! If you get it cold for God's sake, put it under your arm, in your armpit, what ever you have to do to warm it up before you drink it!"
Then I started seeing "cold" Guinness ads... from Guinness!
So wrong. When I asked the barkeep, he said, cold Guinness was designed to be drunk cold.
Bull!
But this Guinness black, IS different.
Guinness should be served room temperature, so that when you drink it, Americans would think, this is warm. Well it's room temp anyway. But I like it where there is just a hint of coolness somewhere within it the middle of it. Typically there is only one or two bars in town who get it "right".
But this new beer is perfect. It WAS designed to drink cold. It is in my book, the first Guinness "cold-serve beer. And, I do like it.
There was a posting on Facebook where Guinness was asking what nickname we have for Guinness. I had to say, mine is:
"Guinness".
On the Guinness web site it says: "In spite of Guinness’s many nicknames that refer to it as black, such as “The Black Stuff”, officially, Guinness is a dark ruby red color, which can be seen by tipping a partially full pint up to the light."
Anyway, I had to post this on their Facebook posting:
"I tried Guinness Black recently, by the way. I think Guinness has finally found a way for people (we trogladyte Americans) to buy Guinness and drink it cold. And be drinking it appropriately for a change. It's anethma seeing people drink Guinness cold, worse if they want to push it upon my esteemed self! But hey guys! Good job! Now we have a choice and there will be no burning in Hell for dirnking it incorrectly."
I still prefer Guinness, and at room temp.
But if I wanted a cold beer and I wanted a Guinness, well, finally(?), I think this, is it!
I just tried Guinness black.
At first taste, I was surprised. I wasn't sure I liked it
But then I tasted it again and I did. But it tasted like beer. This wasn't your Grandfather's Guinness.
Then I tasted it again and realized I did kind of like it.
It was weird though because I could taste Guinness in it, but it tasted like... beer.
I tasted it again.
Then it hit me.
For years I've complained about bars chilling Guinness.
Like I said, I'm Irish, and I know a full blooded guy, who is Irish but born there, I was born in Tacoma, Washington after all.
He said about cold Guinness, "Sacrilege! If you get it cold for God's sake, put it under your arm, in your armpit, what ever you have to do to warm it up before you drink it!"
Then I started seeing "cold" Guinness ads... from Guinness!
So wrong. When I asked the barkeep, he said, cold Guinness was designed to be drunk cold.
Bull!
But this Guinness black, IS different.
Guinness should be served room temperature, so that when you drink it, Americans would think, this is warm. Well it's room temp anyway. But I like it where there is just a hint of coolness somewhere within it the middle of it. Typically there is only one or two bars in town who get it "right".
But this new beer is perfect. It WAS designed to drink cold. It is in my book, the first Guinness "cold-serve beer. And, I do like it.
There was a posting on Facebook where Guinness was asking what nickname we have for Guinness. I had to say, mine is:
"Guinness".
On the Guinness web site it says: "In spite of Guinness’s many nicknames that refer to it as black, such as “The Black Stuff”, officially, Guinness is a dark ruby red color, which can be seen by tipping a partially full pint up to the light."
Anyway, I had to post this on their Facebook posting:
"I tried Guinness Black recently, by the way. I think Guinness has finally found a way for people (we trogladyte Americans) to buy Guinness and drink it cold. And be drinking it appropriately for a change. It's anethma seeing people drink Guinness cold, worse if they want to push it upon my esteemed self! But hey guys! Good job! Now we have a choice and there will be no burning in Hell for dirnking it incorrectly."
I still prefer Guinness, and at room temp.
But if I wanted a cold beer and I wanted a Guinness, well, finally(?), I think this, is it!
Monday, January 30, 2012
Writing for speed, for fast reading
Time. We all feel pressed for it. We want more, we have little, we try to save it, kill it, find it, or abuse it. So when we read, how does the time we have affect it?
I don't write to be read quickly. I never have. I can, I just don't enjoy it as much as letting the words flow unimpeded. I don't really like to read quickly, myself. I do it, but mostly it is for taking in data. A news article, a methodology, a new technology. But reading for pleasure? I like to enjoy it. Read a really long book if it's good, or take my time getting through it if it's short.
I write as I like to read, so that it takes some brain power to take it all in. I want to feel my mind gently massaged by the author, then have the rug pulled out from beneath me from time to time. It's not just about tension building, it's also about utilizing my mind while I'm reading. It is for me, anyway.
But I've noticed recently that author's are (and to be fair, they are being bullied into) writing so that people can read as fast as possible. Let's face it, people are lazy anymore. They want movies, not books. So the writing today has to be written more and more in a manner that is, as I've recently heard it stated, "crisp, clean and clear". That sounds great, right? But you have to ask yourself a question.
Why? Why does it have to be so clear? Sounds like a stupid question, doesn't it. But it's not, really. It's because to read fast you have to have text like that, don't you?
When I was a kid in eighth grade in Catholic school, I was taught the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics method in my Washington State History class. Back then people like JFK and learned it and his Vice Pres. LBJ, and other big time government and business people. I got up to 10,000 words per minute with 80% comprehension. This was up from 250 words a minute at 60-70% comprehension. I was shocked when I heard that, I thought I read faster and understood and retained more. They told us that 350wpm was about average. I was below average. When it came to reading something that was deep, or say a text book, you still had to slow down, possibly even back to 3-500 words per minute.
After I started to use the method, reading was like watching a movie. But after a while, I quit doing it. I quit doing it because while reading a good book, I wanted to spend time with it. I wanted it to take a week to read it, or more. I wanted to luxuriate in it. Some books were so good, I wanted to spend a month reading them, or a year. I actually limited myself to reading a certain number of pages per day so the book would last longer; so that I could have time from day to day to ruminate, to wallow in it.
But we don't have that kind of time anymore. We need everything quickly, we want everything right now, or before. And I think that is sad. I've read some books that were so deep and interesting, I couldn't get through a page very fast at all. I would even have to re-read parts several times. Something that method taught me that was important; that if you don't understand what you are reading, re-read it until you do.
But I found it was mind-stimulating, it tickled my brain, it was fun. I loved it.
And so my desire has always been to write in such a way as to enjoy the ride and not just the destination. As example the difference between Steven King and Clive Barker. King tells a good story but his prose isn't so much fun to read and sometimes it's kind of annoying and long in the tooth. He's not even a bit long in the tooth either, he's simply, long. With Clive, I almost don't care where he takes me, I just enjoy his words and how he puts them together. He is after all, an artist.
There are other author's like James Branch Cabell, with his novel "Jurgen", where it literally made me giggle in places with what he did to my mind (yes and that says a lot, I, me, giggled, that is pretty unheard of). I would have to stop at times and take a breath. Now that, is a book! I should say that others I know have read that book and didn't get a thing out of it.
But that doesn't explain the small cult following that Cabell has.
I had a friend recently read a book I'm writing. She returned it saying, "Too many words!" It was not quite the review that I was looking for. But after a day or so, it started to make sense to me on several levels. I started reading it from the beginning with as clear a mind as I could muster, having written it in the first place.
I found that I had simply made it too hard, and she is very bright, intelligent. If it was hard for her, it was hard. I had made the text, but more so, I had made the overall story, too inaccessible. There was no lead up to the hard stuff. No slide to open with, just a hill. More a wall perhaps. There is writing to slow things down, and there is throwing up a wall. I didn't want a wall, I wanted a hill, but not right at the beginning. After for any reader, you have to sell their continuing on. So at the beginning, I wanted a slide. The art of this is in skiing smoothly along that fine line between the two.
Think of it as being on an exercise machine with variable speeds. You don't want to start with the hardest settings, you want to start easy, then have a variable hard and easy program to make it the most effective. But you also don't want it hard or easy all the way. Giving yourself rest periods is the most effective and you will get in shape the fastest and in the most healthy way possible.
So I took the book and reviewed it. I figured it out in the end that if I reversed the timeline, to make the beginning easier, more accessible, I would draw the reader in, get them invested. Then, I would offer them the harder stuff, the deeper stuff. By then, they would be invested enough that they would not find it easy to put down. Then, they would want to finish it. I would have opened enough doors that they would want to learn enough to close them all in hopefully, an ending that would be cathartic and rewarding.
In doing that one thing, reversing the timeline (as I saw it), it changed the book completely. Of course, then I had to massage the prose into an appropriate form to make it flow. I had to write new material to link it all together and in that process I got a new book out of it that I found pretty amazing.
But that also put me at 678 pages and that brought up another issue. Length. eBooks on Amazon, Createspace and elsewhere, have limitations on the size. And now again, we're into that speed issue. What are readers looking for in their Kindles, their eReaders? They want easily accessible writings they can read on the bus, pick up at a moment's notice and start off where they left off.
That means, you can't really be reading a very deep piece of work. And so we need to write more shallow content. Don't we?
Is that what we really want? Or, need? Need in the way of our minds really need? Or simply need in the way of our time constraints?
When I was young, my grandmother, a guiding light in my life, told me that when you read books, you should pick a book that will teach you something, change you in some way. Challenge you. She said that every other book you read, should be above your level, difficult to read; you shouldn't even understand some of it. Then you can read a book for fun for your next book.
But now a days, we have gotten into simply reading for fun. We have become a world, or at least a nation, of fun seekers. Life is about fun, we think. That is the most important thing in the world (to us).
On a side note, I was asked the other day by a new writer how I would write a novel. I said there are three ways to do it. Write an outline, then keep filling it in until it is a novel. Clive Barker once told me that was how he was writing his books. Another is to write multiple essays and link them together in some way. Chelsea Handler has written her New York Times Best Sellers that way. The other is simply to write, then fix it as you rewrite it, reorganize it. This latter is how I write short stories. The essays are how I write longer pieces or for instance, the novel I'm working on. But in the end, you have to choose your own method, one of those or another; whatever works for you, though.
So, I'm left in a conundrum. They say, write how you write, that is how the great writers have done it. But some of them have the Van Gogh syndrome and have become famous after death. Am I into posterity, or making a living? Bettering the quality of my somewhat difficult life now, or to be venerated after I pass on? I assume it is a fine line between those two things.
My decision? Simply to continue doing what I've been doing. I write something for myself, then for the masses. Perhaps who knows, maybe one day I will find a way, become a good enough writer, for it all to come together.
Now, all that being said, either way of reading is just fine. Whatever makes you happy. I merely wanted to point out that I think we've lost taking our time in reading, enjoying the prose as well as the story. Enjoying not just the ride as well as the destination but the quality of the vehicle we're riding in.
But there is one thing that bothers me. The first short story I ever got published I wrote for myself. My friends were complaining about my stories being too confusing. So I promised to write easier to read stories, after, I wrote just one more where I could let it all hang out. I wrote above the standard 9-12th grade level, as newspapers and magazines, at least, were written back then in 1991. I wrote it to purge myself, knowing I would then have to start writing only in a much more simple way. Then, I sent it out to magazines and it became my first published fiction story.
So what do you learn from that? Don't listen to your friends?
It wasn't very supportive of the theory that I needed to write more simply, more directly. Still, it is all kind of up in the air until you find your voice; perhaps more so, until you find your audience; and I am still at that junction. I've tried short stories, but you can't really make a living at just writing those. I've been writing screenplays and that is coming along well, but really it has little to do with prose. So, perhaps the novel is where I should have been all this time. I guess I will just keep doing what I am doing, and one day, it will all fall together.
Time will tell, after all.
I don't write to be read quickly. I never have. I can, I just don't enjoy it as much as letting the words flow unimpeded. I don't really like to read quickly, myself. I do it, but mostly it is for taking in data. A news article, a methodology, a new technology. But reading for pleasure? I like to enjoy it. Read a really long book if it's good, or take my time getting through it if it's short.
I write as I like to read, so that it takes some brain power to take it all in. I want to feel my mind gently massaged by the author, then have the rug pulled out from beneath me from time to time. It's not just about tension building, it's also about utilizing my mind while I'm reading. It is for me, anyway.
But I've noticed recently that author's are (and to be fair, they are being bullied into) writing so that people can read as fast as possible. Let's face it, people are lazy anymore. They want movies, not books. So the writing today has to be written more and more in a manner that is, as I've recently heard it stated, "crisp, clean and clear". That sounds great, right? But you have to ask yourself a question.
Why? Why does it have to be so clear? Sounds like a stupid question, doesn't it. But it's not, really. It's because to read fast you have to have text like that, don't you?
When I was a kid in eighth grade in Catholic school, I was taught the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics method in my Washington State History class. Back then people like JFK and learned it and his Vice Pres. LBJ, and other big time government and business people. I got up to 10,000 words per minute with 80% comprehension. This was up from 250 words a minute at 60-70% comprehension. I was shocked when I heard that, I thought I read faster and understood and retained more. They told us that 350wpm was about average. I was below average. When it came to reading something that was deep, or say a text book, you still had to slow down, possibly even back to 3-500 words per minute.
After I started to use the method, reading was like watching a movie. But after a while, I quit doing it. I quit doing it because while reading a good book, I wanted to spend time with it. I wanted it to take a week to read it, or more. I wanted to luxuriate in it. Some books were so good, I wanted to spend a month reading them, or a year. I actually limited myself to reading a certain number of pages per day so the book would last longer; so that I could have time from day to day to ruminate, to wallow in it.
But we don't have that kind of time anymore. We need everything quickly, we want everything right now, or before. And I think that is sad. I've read some books that were so deep and interesting, I couldn't get through a page very fast at all. I would even have to re-read parts several times. Something that method taught me that was important; that if you don't understand what you are reading, re-read it until you do.
But I found it was mind-stimulating, it tickled my brain, it was fun. I loved it.
| Clive back when Pinhead wasn't so well known |
There are other author's like James Branch Cabell, with his novel "Jurgen", where it literally made me giggle in places with what he did to my mind (yes and that says a lot, I, me, giggled, that is pretty unheard of). I would have to stop at times and take a breath. Now that, is a book! I should say that others I know have read that book and didn't get a thing out of it.
But that doesn't explain the small cult following that Cabell has.
I had a friend recently read a book I'm writing. She returned it saying, "Too many words!" It was not quite the review that I was looking for. But after a day or so, it started to make sense to me on several levels. I started reading it from the beginning with as clear a mind as I could muster, having written it in the first place.
I found that I had simply made it too hard, and she is very bright, intelligent. If it was hard for her, it was hard. I had made the text, but more so, I had made the overall story, too inaccessible. There was no lead up to the hard stuff. No slide to open with, just a hill. More a wall perhaps. There is writing to slow things down, and there is throwing up a wall. I didn't want a wall, I wanted a hill, but not right at the beginning. After for any reader, you have to sell their continuing on. So at the beginning, I wanted a slide. The art of this is in skiing smoothly along that fine line between the two.
Think of it as being on an exercise machine with variable speeds. You don't want to start with the hardest settings, you want to start easy, then have a variable hard and easy program to make it the most effective. But you also don't want it hard or easy all the way. Giving yourself rest periods is the most effective and you will get in shape the fastest and in the most healthy way possible.
So I took the book and reviewed it. I figured it out in the end that if I reversed the timeline, to make the beginning easier, more accessible, I would draw the reader in, get them invested. Then, I would offer them the harder stuff, the deeper stuff. By then, they would be invested enough that they would not find it easy to put down. Then, they would want to finish it. I would have opened enough doors that they would want to learn enough to close them all in hopefully, an ending that would be cathartic and rewarding.
In doing that one thing, reversing the timeline (as I saw it), it changed the book completely. Of course, then I had to massage the prose into an appropriate form to make it flow. I had to write new material to link it all together and in that process I got a new book out of it that I found pretty amazing.
But that also put me at 678 pages and that brought up another issue. Length. eBooks on Amazon, Createspace and elsewhere, have limitations on the size. And now again, we're into that speed issue. What are readers looking for in their Kindles, their eReaders? They want easily accessible writings they can read on the bus, pick up at a moment's notice and start off where they left off.
That means, you can't really be reading a very deep piece of work. And so we need to write more shallow content. Don't we?
Is that what we really want? Or, need? Need in the way of our minds really need? Or simply need in the way of our time constraints?
 |
| My Gramma with George Liberace at the Tacoma Elks Lodge |
But now a days, we have gotten into simply reading for fun. We have become a world, or at least a nation, of fun seekers. Life is about fun, we think. That is the most important thing in the world (to us).
On a side note, I was asked the other day by a new writer how I would write a novel. I said there are three ways to do it. Write an outline, then keep filling it in until it is a novel. Clive Barker once told me that was how he was writing his books. Another is to write multiple essays and link them together in some way. Chelsea Handler has written her New York Times Best Sellers that way. The other is simply to write, then fix it as you rewrite it, reorganize it. This latter is how I write short stories. The essays are how I write longer pieces or for instance, the novel I'm working on. But in the end, you have to choose your own method, one of those or another; whatever works for you, though.
So, I'm left in a conundrum. They say, write how you write, that is how the great writers have done it. But some of them have the Van Gogh syndrome and have become famous after death. Am I into posterity, or making a living? Bettering the quality of my somewhat difficult life now, or to be venerated after I pass on? I assume it is a fine line between those two things.
My decision? Simply to continue doing what I've been doing. I write something for myself, then for the masses. Perhaps who knows, maybe one day I will find a way, become a good enough writer, for it all to come together.
Now, all that being said, either way of reading is just fine. Whatever makes you happy. I merely wanted to point out that I think we've lost taking our time in reading, enjoying the prose as well as the story. Enjoying not just the ride as well as the destination but the quality of the vehicle we're riding in.
 |
| Graphic for my first published short story |
So what do you learn from that? Don't listen to your friends?
It wasn't very supportive of the theory that I needed to write more simply, more directly. Still, it is all kind of up in the air until you find your voice; perhaps more so, until you find your audience; and I am still at that junction. I've tried short stories, but you can't really make a living at just writing those. I've been writing screenplays and that is coming along well, but really it has little to do with prose. So, perhaps the novel is where I should have been all this time. I guess I will just keep doing what I am doing, and one day, it will all fall together.
Time will tell, after all.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Our Strange Culture and the Patriot Act
Before I get started, allow me a moment to wish you all a Happy Chinese New Year of the Dragon. Gong Xi Fa Cai (Mandarin) and Gong Hey Fat Choy (Cantonese)! I hope this new year becomes a happy event for all.
Now to get started. We do have a rather "Strange Culture" anymore, from what I know of it, anyway. First, let me just say outright that we need to repeal the so very unpatriotic (and so called), "Patriot Act".
I see nothing Patriotic in it. In fact, it strikes me as a rather cowardly, fear mongering act of a bunch of "cowboys" who were in office at the time (cough, cough, Bush, Bush....).
We do not now have a culture like we did when that act was being discussed, nor like when it was passed, nor even afterward. IF there are "terrorists" out there trying to get us, I have two things to say about that. One, we have laws covering this already. Two, if there is a culture in the world where people want to kill us, we need to be adult about it, intellectual about it, figure out what the problem is, and fix it. Or simply draw faster then they do.
Also, this is what we have "intelligence" agencies for. If you cut their resources so they have no money to do their job, as they started doing in the 80s, then this is the situation you will find yourself in. But you don't throw out the constitution because this is hard on us. That, is what I find "cowardly".
Otherwise, the Patriot Act is simply yet another American easy way out method of "fixing" our troubles.
I just watched a documentary called, "Strange Culture". What a strange thing it was. Strange, scary, irritating. Remember when the government used to fun the Arts? Why did things go so wrong, that this is a no go any longer? Who was mismanaging our Government so that we cannot afford to move forward on the path to more leisure for our citizens, and more arts and sciences? And not sciences solely for the benefit of the corporations.
The "Strange Culture" documentary is about an art Professor and professional artist woke to find his wife had died in bed. She was young in her forties, attractive, and fully supportive of her husband and the art collective he was involved in. When the paramedics came to their home, they saw part of the new art project he was working on and called someone. Soon, the FBI got involved.
It's a cause and a situation that had brought in the likes of actress Tilda Swinton as Hope, Jay Ryan as Steve, along with Peter Coyote and Wallace Shawn Thomas.
From Wikipedia:
"Steve Kurtz is a professor of art at the SUNY Buffalo, former professor of art history at Carnegie Mellon University and a founding member of the performance art group, Critical Art Ensemble. He is known for his work in BioArt, and Electronic Civil Disobedience, and because of his arrest by the FBI in May 2004. His work often deals with social criticism."
Rather than simply first listening to what the artist had to say and checking it out, they became proactive and rather than check out intellectually, using "intelligence" (in the information gathering sense, as well as in the use your damn head, sense) to discern what he had actually been doing, which would also have saved the US citizen millions I'm sure, they instead treated the Professor like he was a "terrorist".
This man, who was distraught over the death of his wife, was harangued, harassed, indicted, and put on trial. A process that lasted several years and cost him his money, time, energy, and nearly his sanity and his health and could have ended him up in prison. For having done, nothing, illegal.
Is this the kind of America we want? Because it seems to me that if it is, then we aren't any longer the tough, self-assured kinds of American I've always known us to be. Rather we have somehow morphed into a bunch of school girls, fearful of the playground bullies.
Steve's friends started a petition when all this started up. Some of his art students signed it. But some were afraid to. Why? Why, were US citizens, of the "greatest country in the history of the world", afraid of their own government, of speaking out under the First Amendment, of standing up to say they believed someone was innocent? Innocent until proven guilty. Unless someone labels you as a "terrorist".
And what is a terrorist? Is it someone you "think" might be one, or do something that makes them one, or is it someone who has done a terrorist act? Yes, it would be nice to catch terrorists before they act. But look at what it's gotten us. People afraid to speak out when they know someone is innocent.
Why?
The "Patriot Act".
恭禧發財
Now to get started. We do have a rather "Strange Culture" anymore, from what I know of it, anyway. First, let me just say outright that we need to repeal the so very unpatriotic (and so called), "Patriot Act".
I see nothing Patriotic in it. In fact, it strikes me as a rather cowardly, fear mongering act of a bunch of "cowboys" who were in office at the time (cough, cough, Bush, Bush....).
We do not now have a culture like we did when that act was being discussed, nor like when it was passed, nor even afterward. IF there are "terrorists" out there trying to get us, I have two things to say about that. One, we have laws covering this already. Two, if there is a culture in the world where people want to kill us, we need to be adult about it, intellectual about it, figure out what the problem is, and fix it. Or simply draw faster then they do.
Also, this is what we have "intelligence" agencies for. If you cut their resources so they have no money to do their job, as they started doing in the 80s, then this is the situation you will find yourself in. But you don't throw out the constitution because this is hard on us. That, is what I find "cowardly".
Otherwise, the Patriot Act is simply yet another American easy way out method of "fixing" our troubles.
I just watched a documentary called, "Strange Culture". What a strange thing it was. Strange, scary, irritating. Remember when the government used to fun the Arts? Why did things go so wrong, that this is a no go any longer? Who was mismanaging our Government so that we cannot afford to move forward on the path to more leisure for our citizens, and more arts and sciences? And not sciences solely for the benefit of the corporations.
| Hope Kurtz |
It's a cause and a situation that had brought in the likes of actress Tilda Swinton as Hope, Jay Ryan as Steve, along with Peter Coyote and Wallace Shawn Thomas.
From Wikipedia:
| Steve Kurtz - Really, this guy is a Terrorist? |
Rather than simply first listening to what the artist had to say and checking it out, they became proactive and rather than check out intellectually, using "intelligence" (in the information gathering sense, as well as in the use your damn head, sense) to discern what he had actually been doing, which would also have saved the US citizen millions I'm sure, they instead treated the Professor like he was a "terrorist".
This man, who was distraught over the death of his wife, was harangued, harassed, indicted, and put on trial. A process that lasted several years and cost him his money, time, energy, and nearly his sanity and his health and could have ended him up in prison. For having done, nothing, illegal.
Is this the kind of America we want? Because it seems to me that if it is, then we aren't any longer the tough, self-assured kinds of American I've always known us to be. Rather we have somehow morphed into a bunch of school girls, fearful of the playground bullies.
Steve's friends started a petition when all this started up. Some of his art students signed it. But some were afraid to. Why? Why, were US citizens, of the "greatest country in the history of the world", afraid of their own government, of speaking out under the First Amendment, of standing up to say they believed someone was innocent? Innocent until proven guilty. Unless someone labels you as a "terrorist".
And what is a terrorist? Is it someone you "think" might be one, or do something that makes them one, or is it someone who has done a terrorist act? Yes, it would be nice to catch terrorists before they act. But look at what it's gotten us. People afraid to speak out when they know someone is innocent.
Why?
The "Patriot Act".
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Special Ed. - Update on 1/18 from Fight for the Future
I received this in an email yesterday about the 1/18 blackout:
[Yesterday] was nuts, right?
Google launched a petition. Wikipedia voted to shut itself off. Senators' websites went down just from the sheer surge of voters trying to write them. NYC and SF geeks had protests that packed city blocks.
You made history today: nothing like this has ever happened before. Tech companies and users teamed up. Tens of millions of people who make the internet what it is joined together to defend their freedoms. The free network defended itself. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is clear: from today forward, it will be much harder to mess up the internet.
The really crazy part? We might even win.
Approaching Monday's crucial Senate vote there are now 35 Senators publicly opposing PIPA. Last week there were 5. And it just takes just 41 solid "no" votes to permanently stall PIPA (and SOPA) in the Senate. What seemed like miles away a few weeks ago is now within reach.
But don't trust predictions. The forces behind SOPA & PIPA (mostly movie companies) can make small changes to these bills until they know they have the votes to pass. Members of Congress know SOPA & PIPA are unpopular, but they don't understand why--so they're easily duped by superficial changes. The Senate returns next week, and the next few days are critical. Here are two things to think about:
1. Plan on calling your Senator every day next week. Pick up the phone each morning and call your Senators' offices, until they vote "no" on cloture. If your site participated today, consider running a "Call the Senate" link all next week.
2. Tomorrow, drop in at your Senators' district offices. We don't have a cool map widget to show you the offices nearest you (we're too exhausted! any takers?). So do it the old fashioned way: use Google, or the phonebook to find the address, and just walk in, say you oppose PIPA, and urge the Senator to vote "no" on cloture. These drop-in visits make our spectacular online protests more tangible and credible.
That's it for now. Be proud and stay on it!
--Holmes, Tiffiniy, and the whole Fight for the Future team.
___
P.S. Huge credit goes to participants in the 11/16 American Censorship Day protest: Mozilla, 4chan, BoingBoing, Tumblr, TGWTG, and thousands of others. That's what got this ball rolling! Reddit, both the community and the team behind it, you're amazing. And of course, thanks to the Wikimedians whose patient and inexorable pursuit of the right answer brought them to take world-changing action. Thanks to David S, David K, Cory D, and E Stark for bold action at critical times.
P.P.S. If you haven't already, show this video to as many people as you can. It works! http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
[Yesterday] was nuts, right?
Google launched a petition. Wikipedia voted to shut itself off. Senators' websites went down just from the sheer surge of voters trying to write them. NYC and SF geeks had protests that packed city blocks.
You made history today: nothing like this has ever happened before. Tech companies and users teamed up. Tens of millions of people who make the internet what it is joined together to defend their freedoms. The free network defended itself. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is clear: from today forward, it will be much harder to mess up the internet.
The really crazy part? We might even win.
Approaching Monday's crucial Senate vote there are now 35 Senators publicly opposing PIPA. Last week there were 5. And it just takes just 41 solid "no" votes to permanently stall PIPA (and SOPA) in the Senate. What seemed like miles away a few weeks ago is now within reach.
But don't trust predictions. The forces behind SOPA & PIPA (mostly movie companies) can make small changes to these bills until they know they have the votes to pass. Members of Congress know SOPA & PIPA are unpopular, but they don't understand why--so they're easily duped by superficial changes. The Senate returns next week, and the next few days are critical. Here are two things to think about:
1. Plan on calling your Senator every day next week. Pick up the phone each morning and call your Senators' offices, until they vote "no" on cloture. If your site participated today, consider running a "Call the Senate" link all next week.
2. Tomorrow, drop in at your Senators' district offices. We don't have a cool map widget to show you the offices nearest you (we're too exhausted! any takers?). So do it the old fashioned way: use Google, or the phonebook to find the address, and just walk in, say you oppose PIPA, and urge the Senator to vote "no" on cloture. These drop-in visits make our spectacular online protests more tangible and credible.
That's it for now. Be proud and stay on it!
--Holmes, Tiffiniy, and the whole Fight for the Future team.
___
P.S. Huge credit goes to participants in the 11/16 American Censorship Day protest: Mozilla, 4chan, BoingBoing, Tumblr, TGWTG, and thousands of others. That's what got this ball rolling! Reddit, both the community and the team behind it, you're amazing. And of course, thanks to the Wikimedians whose patient and inexorable pursuit of the right answer brought them to take world-changing action. Thanks to David S, David K, Cory D, and E Stark for bold action at critical times.
P.P.S. If you haven't already, show this video to as many people as you can. It works! http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Special Ed. - SOPA and PIPA Protest
January 18th, 2012 is the largest online protest in history, to stop theinternet censorship bills, SOPA & PIPA. Join in by blacking out your siteand urging everyone you can reach to contact Congress now.
I was actually against the internet becoming money based way back in the 80s when we thought it (information) should be free. We were right, we were wrong. We had no idea it would turn into what it has, back then. Good things have happened on the web, I have to admit. But there is still plenty of room for it to remain free and open. Yes, we have to protect intellectual properties. But not to the exclusion of what we thought was its original purpose: to serve the people; to protect the people from their own government and that of others; to make the arts, information and knowledge free to all (or at least that in the public domain, and thanks wikipedia); to bring Humankind closer together; to make that which is hidden from us, more transparent. It has now also, and was starting to be apparent back then, been made obvious that the biggest threat to the people is from corporations in capitalistic countries and the government leaders in communist and dictatorial countries. So far so good (Arab Spring). So let's not let it slide into the dark any further than it has already.
I was actually against the internet becoming money based way back in the 80s when we thought it (information) should be free. We were right, we were wrong. We had no idea it would turn into what it has, back then. Good things have happened on the web, I have to admit. But there is still plenty of room for it to remain free and open. Yes, we have to protect intellectual properties. But not to the exclusion of what we thought was its original purpose: to serve the people; to protect the people from their own government and that of others; to make the arts, information and knowledge free to all (or at least that in the public domain, and thanks wikipedia); to bring Humankind closer together; to make that which is hidden from us, more transparent. It has now also, and was starting to be apparent back then, been made obvious that the biggest threat to the people is from corporations in capitalistic countries and the government leaders in communist and dictatorial countries. So far so good (Arab Spring). So let's not let it slide into the dark any further than it has already.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Original screenplay, or adaptation?
I'm going through some changes as I've explained in my page on this blog. So from now on, I'll be shooting for only Monday morning blogs. There may be others now and again but I plan to maintain my Monday blog as my main one.
Now, to the point.
Someone asked the other day if you should write a novel before a screenplay, or just write the screenplay. The question was also asked whether the novel adaptation didn't give you more copyright protections.
Frankly, about copyright, I'm just not that concerned for various reasons. Register your screenplay with the US Library of Congress, and/or, the Writers Guild. Now, move on. There is however, in the book field, more of concern now a days about having a platform. Those who are buying would be more interested in your work if you already have followers. If you have a novel, you'll need readers; better yet, followers of your novels, then it's going to be easier to get attention to sell your screenplay.
Writing an original screenplay is fun, hard work and has great amount of freedom. But it can be daunting, especially for a new screenwriter; there are simply too many options to choose from. Adapting a novel however, even your own, supplies you with a ready made road map so you can possibly move faster. Adapting someone else's novel, has it's own built in issues.
For one, it's not the best thing to send in to a screenplay contest, send in one that is original and fully yours. They will want to know you for what you can do, not how you can write someone else's work, transliterating it into screenplay format.
If you are adapting your own novel, it's much easier. If it is someone else's that brings up other issues, including the obvious interpersonal ones. Adapting a novel eliminates some of the need for building and planning. But that brings up issues since what works in a book, won't always work on the screen. You could almost say it seldom works on the screen.
If you've ever seen a film adapted from a book and you didn't like their choices, it can either be lack of skill on the part of the screenwriter, or simply that most books just don't lend themselves easily to screen, unless you tear them apart and rebuild them. At which point you lose some of the readers. But then, if a good movie comes of it, it may be worth it.
After adapting two novels in a row last year, by two different authors, I found it a great pleasure to get back to writing my own original screenplay. It can be pretty frustrating at times adapting a novel because you may find you have to change a single element that can change the entire dynamic of the story, requiring you to go back to the very beginning, to start over. You may at that point want to, or have to, abandon it. On the other hand, that just makes it more of a challenge.
When I got to the end of the screenplay of the second novel I adapted, I realized the story was fundamentally flawed and at that point I had to drop it. Since I had too much other work that I had to get to, I got it to a complete, cleaned up point and laid it down. I may go back to it later, since I put so much work into it, but for now I don't have the time to restructure it. Because it's another author's novel, I felt an obligation to them to try to maintain the original story line as much as I could. The changes I did make, I felt were warranted and actually made the story better. I did what I could to make it work in the time I had to work on it.
Since I need their permission to use their novel before I could sell it, that can run into issues. You certainly can get the paperwork drawn up first so that you can do what you want, but I hadn't done that as I wanted us both happy with the final product. If I was getting paid up front for it, then the paperwork becomes much more important.
I have yet to adapt my own novel but I'm finishing one now that I will later build into a screenplay. As I am the author it will be so much easier to argue with myself over how I'm ruining the book. Hopefully in the end, it will be worth it. Also with it being my own adaptation, I can clearly see the entire thing in depth, unlike with another author's novel.
As to the question, writing a novel first gives you a great back story, depth of story and character; of course, same with another author's work. You can also of course, write the screenplay and later write the novelization of it. I suppose it can work either way and both have benefits.
I like the freedom I have in writing an original screenplay without a novel first. But I see value in both. I don't think I would ever always write a novel first and then adapt it. It only takes doing it once to see why. But neither would I never adapt a novel. But then I'm kind of like that. I enjoy the variety and the challenge.
What I've found however is that by writing in one format and adapting to the other, you flesh out elements you wouldn't normally notice in only a single format. Then adding that, if it's useful, to the other format, you will have a more complete story. And story is what it's all about.
As an example, I have a short story "Sarah". I originally wrote it as a short story but I've written it to screenplay format. I've since gone back and forth between formats updating it as it developed from within one format to the other. After all that, last night I found an ending that was perfect and I wouldn't have found that, I'm pretty sure, if I had not been going back and forth like that.
In the end, it's all good. Try many different things. The more you do, the more you learn. That goes in any field. That's why liberal arts degrees give you a more rounded background in the end. But eventually you will need to settle on what is going to get you the furthest. Consider you only have so much time and energy. Put it into what will push you along in your efforts the furthest.
Basically, write. Write a lot.Write all the time. And send it out. No manuscript or screenplay ever got sold sitting in a dusty closet being forgotten.
Now, to the point.
Someone asked the other day if you should write a novel before a screenplay, or just write the screenplay. The question was also asked whether the novel adaptation didn't give you more copyright protections.
Frankly, about copyright, I'm just not that concerned for various reasons. Register your screenplay with the US Library of Congress, and/or, the Writers Guild. Now, move on. There is however, in the book field, more of concern now a days about having a platform. Those who are buying would be more interested in your work if you already have followers. If you have a novel, you'll need readers; better yet, followers of your novels, then it's going to be easier to get attention to sell your screenplay.
Writing an original screenplay is fun, hard work and has great amount of freedom. But it can be daunting, especially for a new screenwriter; there are simply too many options to choose from. Adapting a novel however, even your own, supplies you with a ready made road map so you can possibly move faster. Adapting someone else's novel, has it's own built in issues.
For one, it's not the best thing to send in to a screenplay contest, send in one that is original and fully yours. They will want to know you for what you can do, not how you can write someone else's work, transliterating it into screenplay format.
If you are adapting your own novel, it's much easier. If it is someone else's that brings up other issues, including the obvious interpersonal ones. Adapting a novel eliminates some of the need for building and planning. But that brings up issues since what works in a book, won't always work on the screen. You could almost say it seldom works on the screen.
If you've ever seen a film adapted from a book and you didn't like their choices, it can either be lack of skill on the part of the screenwriter, or simply that most books just don't lend themselves easily to screen, unless you tear them apart and rebuild them. At which point you lose some of the readers. But then, if a good movie comes of it, it may be worth it.
After adapting two novels in a row last year, by two different authors, I found it a great pleasure to get back to writing my own original screenplay. It can be pretty frustrating at times adapting a novel because you may find you have to change a single element that can change the entire dynamic of the story, requiring you to go back to the very beginning, to start over. You may at that point want to, or have to, abandon it. On the other hand, that just makes it more of a challenge.
When I got to the end of the screenplay of the second novel I adapted, I realized the story was fundamentally flawed and at that point I had to drop it. Since I had too much other work that I had to get to, I got it to a complete, cleaned up point and laid it down. I may go back to it later, since I put so much work into it, but for now I don't have the time to restructure it. Because it's another author's novel, I felt an obligation to them to try to maintain the original story line as much as I could. The changes I did make, I felt were warranted and actually made the story better. I did what I could to make it work in the time I had to work on it.
Since I need their permission to use their novel before I could sell it, that can run into issues. You certainly can get the paperwork drawn up first so that you can do what you want, but I hadn't done that as I wanted us both happy with the final product. If I was getting paid up front for it, then the paperwork becomes much more important.
I have yet to adapt my own novel but I'm finishing one now that I will later build into a screenplay. As I am the author it will be so much easier to argue with myself over how I'm ruining the book. Hopefully in the end, it will be worth it. Also with it being my own adaptation, I can clearly see the entire thing in depth, unlike with another author's novel.
As to the question, writing a novel first gives you a great back story, depth of story and character; of course, same with another author's work. You can also of course, write the screenplay and later write the novelization of it. I suppose it can work either way and both have benefits.
I like the freedom I have in writing an original screenplay without a novel first. But I see value in both. I don't think I would ever always write a novel first and then adapt it. It only takes doing it once to see why. But neither would I never adapt a novel. But then I'm kind of like that. I enjoy the variety and the challenge.
What I've found however is that by writing in one format and adapting to the other, you flesh out elements you wouldn't normally notice in only a single format. Then adding that, if it's useful, to the other format, you will have a more complete story. And story is what it's all about.
As an example, I have a short story "Sarah". I originally wrote it as a short story but I've written it to screenplay format. I've since gone back and forth between formats updating it as it developed from within one format to the other. After all that, last night I found an ending that was perfect and I wouldn't have found that, I'm pretty sure, if I had not been going back and forth like that.
In the end, it's all good. Try many different things. The more you do, the more you learn. That goes in any field. That's why liberal arts degrees give you a more rounded background in the end. But eventually you will need to settle on what is going to get you the furthest. Consider you only have so much time and energy. Put it into what will push you along in your efforts the furthest.
Basically, write. Write a lot.Write all the time. And send it out. No manuscript or screenplay ever got sold sitting in a dusty closet being forgotten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)