They say you can tell a lot about a person by the shoes they wear. More to the point, volumes speak of the choices they make. Most people pick their own kicks, ergo much is revealed about the choices of a particular individual by their footwear.
Choices are what make characters interesting, particularly, bad ones. Having things forcibly thrust open a character is trite and derivative. They need to be faced with decisions. They need to take matters into their own hands. But better yet, more often than not, they need to take the wrong path so they can walk away from it (hopefully), a little bit wiser.
People need to be tossed outside their comfort-zone. Only then do we see the world (and thusly, ourselves), for what it truly is -- undeniably imperfect. Forever flawed. And then we strive to do better, if only for a short while. Some stick with it. Achieving new goals everyday. Others seem content lethargically complacent (is that redundant?). Inevitably, we all return to ash. So, to each his/her own.
Psychology teaches we're all products of both genetics and up-bringing (nature/nurture). Perhaps we should add a new category: advertisement.
The other day, my girlfriend started a rant about "Wouldn't it be great if there weren't any commercials?" A brief and poetic enough statement if one there ever was. I said nothing. 'Cause when truth is truth, there ain't nothing to be said. But she probably felt abashed by my silence and then proceeded to defend her statement which rotated back to how we do, in fact, need advertisements.
That's how they trap us, with circular logic.
So now we're back to needing, wanting, coveting, buying, disposing of...and on and on it goes.
It's so hard to recycle when the city waste-removal-workers can regulate what you can and can't put in the recycling bin. Everything's recyclable. Now, they've got these large, grandiose containers. Do they still studiously scrutinize every bit of food-waste, soiled toiletry, stained effeminate hygiene products and other assorted...wait, that's trash, not recyclables. Oh, that's right, even trash can be used as a source of bio-diesel-fuel. Just my personal opinion, but I regard burning our waste as power-sources (in regulated doses, mind you), as a fairer alternative to burying it or jettisoning it into space.
Sure, there's no way either of those two alternatives could come back and take a royal bite out of our collective asses.
They say you can tell a lot about a consumer by the brands they purchase. But I say, much more is learned by observing what they don't buy. People who don't buy useless crap usually don't get baited into corporal entrapments -- usually.
There was a time when we didn't need to purchase goods or services. We built our homes to our liking, not to socialized regulatory commissioned standards. There was a time when we didn't have to shop for garb and produce. Believe it or not, once upon a time, we did things for ourselves, and had no need for outsiders telling us how to run our affairs.
I say, wouldn't it be grand if we reverted back to when we didn't need to buy anything?
I think that would instill much character within us all.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
Breaking Good
Sure, people have heard of breaking bad. No, I'm not talking about the critically acclaimed show. Although I, myself am a fan. The definition of "breaking bad", is basically, to become bad. Not to break the habit of being bad. Which, believe it or not, some people I've talked to thought it meant. But has anyone ever heard of breaking good? A quick Catholic-death-bed-rites-confession, the ol' flick of the switch, and presto, boom-o, bang-o! All your sins are forgiven.
A merry-right-bit-of tripe that is.
That might be your angle, but that ain't God's angle. At least, that's what the Jehovah's witnesses pounding on my door proclaim.
First off, you can't be forgiven by no preacher-man. Only you can allow yourself to be forgiven by God, and then humbly beg the pardon of those you've trespassed. Quite often, our olive branches are swatted to the ground in disgust ('though easily understandable). And we hate ourselves. For a long time. Even if we're forgiven by those we've wronged, somehow, we still can't let go. But that's not bad. In order to better ourselves we must learn from our mistakes.
Yeah, yeah, Walter White's a right-cool-mo-fo. His pictures and head-lines swamp the news, diverting our attention from real issues. But is that really what we should be focused on? Entertainment is meant as a form of escape, yet how we drown ourselves in its drivel.
This imitable character, this sharpened foe, this reverse Robin of the Hood, who steals from the rich and stock-piles spoils to his spawn.
I personally believe that stealing bread is justified if it's to feed your starving family. But should murder, deception, and peddling upon the ineptitude of the disenfranchised be tolerated in similar circumstances?
I don't know. I suppose that depends on your particular predicament.
Where'm I going with this? I don't know. Maybe putting on glasses, shaving our heads, and pruning our goatees looks cool. And phony-funerals are always fun. But do we really want to emulate a fictional drug-dealing-mass-murderer?
A merry-right-bit-of tripe that is.
That might be your angle, but that ain't God's angle. At least, that's what the Jehovah's witnesses pounding on my door proclaim.
First off, you can't be forgiven by no preacher-man. Only you can allow yourself to be forgiven by God, and then humbly beg the pardon of those you've trespassed. Quite often, our olive branches are swatted to the ground in disgust ('though easily understandable). And we hate ourselves. For a long time. Even if we're forgiven by those we've wronged, somehow, we still can't let go. But that's not bad. In order to better ourselves we must learn from our mistakes.
Yeah, yeah, Walter White's a right-cool-mo-fo. His pictures and head-lines swamp the news, diverting our attention from real issues. But is that really what we should be focused on? Entertainment is meant as a form of escape, yet how we drown ourselves in its drivel.
This imitable character, this sharpened foe, this reverse Robin of the Hood, who steals from the rich and stock-piles spoils to his spawn.
I personally believe that stealing bread is justified if it's to feed your starving family. But should murder, deception, and peddling upon the ineptitude of the disenfranchised be tolerated in similar circumstances?
I don't know. I suppose that depends on your particular predicament.
Where'm I going with this? I don't know. Maybe putting on glasses, shaving our heads, and pruning our goatees looks cool. And phony-funerals are always fun. But do we really want to emulate a fictional drug-dealing-mass-murderer?
Thursday, October 24, 2013
To Write Well Pt. 3
I go through five phases when writing a book.
1.) THINKING - You gotta think about your story, mull it over, jot down notes. Basically, you want to be able to watch your story in your head at any time; just like watching a movie.
2.) WRITING - Only when you not only know what you want to say, but how you want to say it, I write a book in its entirety. I know it's tough. Just do it. You're gonna edit it later. This stage combines a bit of reading, thinking, and editing, but bear in mind, this is still writing. When finished with your masterfully crafted piece-of-wordsmenship, sigh and take a break, though we're not done yet. Far from it, in fact.
3.) READING - I can go about two weeks (tops), before my fingers start twitching, and I long to scrawl a short, poem, song, or even a scene from an up-coming novel. During that time, I read about three to six novels, depending on their length. Fiction. Non-Fiction. Poetry. Prose. News articles. Doesn't matter. Point is, I love to read nearly as much as I long to write. Whilst reading, I keep a notebook and pen handy. Anytime I come across a word that I don't know, I scribble it down. But, not just words I don't know, I also jot down words I think I know, words I know but don't use that often, and even quotes. I also study the way other authors write. I note appealing phrases, and though I don't use them verbatim, I'm greatly inspired by other authors. But, that's the point.
4.) ERUDITION - In case you didn't know, erudition means a period of deep (sometimes theological) learning; studying. After I have my vocab sheets from the books I just read, I alphabetize my words, go through the dictionary, and write down the definition. I find this method far-more effect than simply trying to memorize a myrmidon of words. I also use this time to research things. Let's face it folks, if you wanna be a writer, ya gotta know what you're talking about. And that means research.
5.) EDITING - This is by-far the most tedious and pain-staking tasks of all. You have to sit down, and read through your novel paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence, word-by-word. If you followed these instructions properly, this should be more than a few times you've read your own book. And let's face it, how many times do you really read a book? If it's simply amazing, at most, twice, or once a year as some eccentrics do. You can pay for fancy-shmansy editors, and I suggest you do (just for professional feed-back). In the end, as exasperating as it may sound, you'll want to make the final edit yourself. Why? Because it's your book, damnit! Don't you want it to be the way you always pictured it in your mind?
That's enough free advice for now.
P.S. I've noticed some of you eAuthors have been trying to get a hold of me (not literally of course). Somehow, readers can send me emails directly (or filtered to), my personal email account. But I don't know who these savvy, young folken are. I simply receive a message and am proffered the opportunity to reply. Please send links to your sites. I love reading (and reviewing). By-the-by, as I've stated in a previous blog, if I review your work, and it's not sterling, don't get all huffy. This is free advice (which I paid a hefty sum for), and am doling out to you.
Take it or leave it.
1.) THINKING - You gotta think about your story, mull it over, jot down notes. Basically, you want to be able to watch your story in your head at any time; just like watching a movie.
2.) WRITING - Only when you not only know what you want to say, but how you want to say it, I write a book in its entirety. I know it's tough. Just do it. You're gonna edit it later. This stage combines a bit of reading, thinking, and editing, but bear in mind, this is still writing. When finished with your masterfully crafted piece-of-wordsmenship, sigh and take a break, though we're not done yet. Far from it, in fact.
3.) READING - I can go about two weeks (tops), before my fingers start twitching, and I long to scrawl a short, poem, song, or even a scene from an up-coming novel. During that time, I read about three to six novels, depending on their length. Fiction. Non-Fiction. Poetry. Prose. News articles. Doesn't matter. Point is, I love to read nearly as much as I long to write. Whilst reading, I keep a notebook and pen handy. Anytime I come across a word that I don't know, I scribble it down. But, not just words I don't know, I also jot down words I think I know, words I know but don't use that often, and even quotes. I also study the way other authors write. I note appealing phrases, and though I don't use them verbatim, I'm greatly inspired by other authors. But, that's the point.
4.) ERUDITION - In case you didn't know, erudition means a period of deep (sometimes theological) learning; studying. After I have my vocab sheets from the books I just read, I alphabetize my words, go through the dictionary, and write down the definition. I find this method far-more effect than simply trying to memorize a myrmidon of words. I also use this time to research things. Let's face it folks, if you wanna be a writer, ya gotta know what you're talking about. And that means research.
5.) EDITING - This is by-far the most tedious and pain-staking tasks of all. You have to sit down, and read through your novel paragraph-by-paragraph, line-by-line, sentence-by-sentence, word-by-word. If you followed these instructions properly, this should be more than a few times you've read your own book. And let's face it, how many times do you really read a book? If it's simply amazing, at most, twice, or once a year as some eccentrics do. You can pay for fancy-shmansy editors, and I suggest you do (just for professional feed-back). In the end, as exasperating as it may sound, you'll want to make the final edit yourself. Why? Because it's your book, damnit! Don't you want it to be the way you always pictured it in your mind?
That's enough free advice for now.
P.S. I've noticed some of you eAuthors have been trying to get a hold of me (not literally of course). Somehow, readers can send me emails directly (or filtered to), my personal email account. But I don't know who these savvy, young folken are. I simply receive a message and am proffered the opportunity to reply. Please send links to your sites. I love reading (and reviewing). By-the-by, as I've stated in a previous blog, if I review your work, and it's not sterling, don't get all huffy. This is free advice (which I paid a hefty sum for), and am doling out to you.
Take it or leave it.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Curse Words
It's true. It's finalized. It's legit.
Cursive is no longer being taught in public schools. As for private institutions, time will tell.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. At first I thought, "That's ludicrous. Yet, another fine example of our tax dollars at work that seem to dissipate into thin air."
But, what-with modern publishing relying on technology, and Luddites fearing learning that cursed script; do people need to know cursive? The short answer -- yes. How else are you going to sign your name? With an X? I shudder at the very thought of the repercussions of such lethargic penmanship.
Does anyone still write in cursive? Hell yeah. I do. All the time. In fact, I, like most writers, have notebooks chock-full of scribbled and scrawled glyphs only discernible to me.
Think about this, if you had a diary (the contents of which you wanted to remain private), then wouldn't it benefit you more if the only one who could read it was you?
Instead, most people hurl their most intimate cerebrations into hyper-world-wide-main-stream fodder, and should be so lucky as to have their peers pass over their posts, pix, and selfies in ennui.
Leonardo DiVinci wrote backwards, up-side-down, in loops, broken pieces scattered among notebooks, and encoded.
And yet, we think we know all of his works?
...sorry. Was I rambling again?
Anyway, what do I think of schools no longer teaching cursive?
I predict in ten years, handwriting will be nerdy. But not in the cool way. In fifty, only the elderly shall posses such skills (if their arthritic hands manage). Something the Neo-punks poke fun at. I bet they'll even have some slang term that associates the decrepit with cursive. Something like, "Look at the ol' scribbler, (scrawler, or scripter).
All I can say for those poor souls no longer receiving their right-due-proper education we all were granted as youths, (unless your parents step in), "I know something you don't know. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nahh."
Seriously people, is handwriting something we really want to become a dead language. What if our beloved grid goes down?
Cursive is no longer being taught in public schools. As for private institutions, time will tell.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. At first I thought, "That's ludicrous. Yet, another fine example of our tax dollars at work that seem to dissipate into thin air."
But, what-with modern publishing relying on technology, and Luddites fearing learning that cursed script; do people need to know cursive? The short answer -- yes. How else are you going to sign your name? With an X? I shudder at the very thought of the repercussions of such lethargic penmanship.
Does anyone still write in cursive? Hell yeah. I do. All the time. In fact, I, like most writers, have notebooks chock-full of scribbled and scrawled glyphs only discernible to me.
Think about this, if you had a diary (the contents of which you wanted to remain private), then wouldn't it benefit you more if the only one who could read it was you?
Instead, most people hurl their most intimate cerebrations into hyper-world-wide-main-stream fodder, and should be so lucky as to have their peers pass over their posts, pix, and selfies in ennui.
Leonardo DiVinci wrote backwards, up-side-down, in loops, broken pieces scattered among notebooks, and encoded.
And yet, we think we know all of his works?
...sorry. Was I rambling again?
Anyway, what do I think of schools no longer teaching cursive?
I predict in ten years, handwriting will be nerdy. But not in the cool way. In fifty, only the elderly shall posses such skills (if their arthritic hands manage). Something the Neo-punks poke fun at. I bet they'll even have some slang term that associates the decrepit with cursive. Something like, "Look at the ol' scribbler, (scrawler, or scripter).
All I can say for those poor souls no longer receiving their right-due-proper education we all were granted as youths, (unless your parents step in), "I know something you don't know. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nahh."
Seriously people, is handwriting something we really want to become a dead language. What if our beloved grid goes down?
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Botox
Has anyone heard of this new super-Botox they discovered?
Where do I begin?
First of all, these so-called scientists didn't just "discover" this new hybrid of clostridium botulinum. Okay, right there, botulinum. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like botulism? If you don't know what botulism is, open a text book. No, don't just Wikipedia that shit. Apply yourselves, people.
The word Botox isn't a word at all, it's short for botulinum toxin. That's right, toxin. Botulinum toxin stems from a rod-shaped obligate anaerobe. Oxygen is poisonous to its cells. When oxygen is introduced, like say when you inject botulinum into your lips, the anaerobes catalyze a paralytic enzyme. That's why you can't move your lips after a procedure. This new Botox secretes a neurotoxin so powerful, the smallest of micrograms could...well, you've heard the news.
Botox originated when some guy you've never heard of but could easily research, tried to home-cure ham.
Let's jump to the side for a second. The reason pork is forbidden by those of Jewish faith and practices is because way-way-back-in-the-long-long-ago pork was virtually impossible to prepare without risk of falling ill. And back then, when one grew sick they usually died.
Back to the here-and-now. After a time, those meddlesome scientists harnessed the power of those precious, precious anaerobes. They derived a method of culturing clostridia in a TSC (tryptose sulfite cycloserine) environment with less than 2% oxygen. Some mathematical, bio-chemical formula, where the Botox you shoot in your face is "relatively" harmless because it's fabricated in a laboratory, and studiously scrutinized with test and control experiments until the point they deem something that leaks paralytic perspirations as "safe for consumer consumption".
So, let me get this straight, scientists who've been tinkering at a molecular level with something they know secretes neurotoxins just haplessly stumble upon a super-deadly version of it? And then, in order to keep people safe, they announce this discovery and declare it a world-wide secret?
People, open your eyes. Something nefariously shady beyond my comprehension is a-foot.
Where do I begin?
First of all, these so-called scientists didn't just "discover" this new hybrid of clostridium botulinum. Okay, right there, botulinum. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like botulism? If you don't know what botulism is, open a text book. No, don't just Wikipedia that shit. Apply yourselves, people.
The word Botox isn't a word at all, it's short for botulinum toxin. That's right, toxin. Botulinum toxin stems from a rod-shaped obligate anaerobe. Oxygen is poisonous to its cells. When oxygen is introduced, like say when you inject botulinum into your lips, the anaerobes catalyze a paralytic enzyme. That's why you can't move your lips after a procedure. This new Botox secretes a neurotoxin so powerful, the smallest of micrograms could...well, you've heard the news.
Botox originated when some guy you've never heard of but could easily research, tried to home-cure ham.
Let's jump to the side for a second. The reason pork is forbidden by those of Jewish faith and practices is because way-way-back-in-the-long-long-ago pork was virtually impossible to prepare without risk of falling ill. And back then, when one grew sick they usually died.
Back to the here-and-now. After a time, those meddlesome scientists harnessed the power of those precious, precious anaerobes. They derived a method of culturing clostridia in a TSC (tryptose sulfite cycloserine) environment with less than 2% oxygen. Some mathematical, bio-chemical formula, where the Botox you shoot in your face is "relatively" harmless because it's fabricated in a laboratory, and studiously scrutinized with test and control experiments until the point they deem something that leaks paralytic perspirations as "safe for consumer consumption".
So, let me get this straight, scientists who've been tinkering at a molecular level with something they know secretes neurotoxins just haplessly stumble upon a super-deadly version of it? And then, in order to keep people safe, they announce this discovery and declare it a world-wide secret?
People, open your eyes. Something nefariously shady beyond my comprehension is a-foot.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
To Write Well Pt.2
I've been reading and reviewing a lot of books on Smashwords lately, as now is the time where I'm in between writing. I read free books mostly. Why not? Most authors who publish something for free are novices just trying to make a name for themselves. Why not give those email authors and thoughtful bloggers a chance to have their voices heard? The thing with most free eAuthors, is they lack proper editing. Sure, their stories are entertaining enough, but (for whatever reason), didn't have their eBooks properly edited. I myself go through a book literally dozens of times before publishing, and still I look back and cringe; pondering, if only I could have written then as I do now. That's the big thing here. If you want to be a writer, you gotta work at it. But I'm skewing slightly off tangent here.
As Heath Ledger's indelible portrayal of the Joker proclaimed, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
But even the ol' drug dealers axiom holds true to this day, and is fastidiously adhered to by businessmen of all calibers: Only the first one's free. After that, it's gonna cost ya.
But just because you're going to depart on your voyage into authorhood doesn't mean you shouldn't take the time, effort, and sometimes fat-stacks, to make sure your masterpiece is as tight and polished as possible.
I see too many writers using the phrase "it was", not only in sentences, but also at the start of paragraphs. "It" is unclear to the subject. Overused, it incipiently becomes confusing and even worse, lazy. Used sparingly, "it was", can have a profound impact. Furthermore, never conjoin "it was" and "to be" in a sentence, as "was" is the past-tense form of "to be". Essentially, coupling the two is redundant.
I read far too many: there was, it was, he was, she had, had been. It's passive voice. The phrase, "had taken a seat", isn't nearly as powerful as, "then he sat with a plop, and dust swirled about his pear-shaped frame." He had caught should simply be, he caught. So on and so forth.
I know, it sounds anal, but these little details determine whether your reader gambols gleefully through pixeled pages, or totters among a sea of verbose jargon.
Don't get me wrong, it's impossible not to use "was" and "had". Still, overuse is trite and lethargic. Often, we say, "Screw it. I like it. My friends like it. My family likes it. So what do I care if someone I don't know thinks unkindly of it?"
Let's face it, going over and over and over something is like boring a nail in your head when only a screw will do. Is that too esoteric? Sorry. Anyway, I myself face the very same problem of overusing "was" and "had". And the last edit of anything I publish is me tediously reading (not scrolling), through my document and eliminating as many of these pesky buggers as possible. Here's why: "John had on denim shorts. They were ripped and faded." isn't as poetic as, "John wore denim shorts frayed and tattered where his boney knees protruded."
Say it once, and say it well.
That's enough free advice for now.
That reminds me, if I review your book and it's not sterling, don't be all like, "Screw that asshole, what does he know?" I'm just offering a bit of free advice. And as crafters of wordsmenship, aren't we all looking over previous material ('cause let's face it, we've always been writers of something), and said, "You know what, I think I can make that a little better."
As Heath Ledger's indelible portrayal of the Joker proclaimed, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
But even the ol' drug dealers axiom holds true to this day, and is fastidiously adhered to by businessmen of all calibers: Only the first one's free. After that, it's gonna cost ya.
But just because you're going to depart on your voyage into authorhood doesn't mean you shouldn't take the time, effort, and sometimes fat-stacks, to make sure your masterpiece is as tight and polished as possible.
I see too many writers using the phrase "it was", not only in sentences, but also at the start of paragraphs. "It" is unclear to the subject. Overused, it incipiently becomes confusing and even worse, lazy. Used sparingly, "it was", can have a profound impact. Furthermore, never conjoin "it was" and "to be" in a sentence, as "was" is the past-tense form of "to be". Essentially, coupling the two is redundant.
I read far too many: there was, it was, he was, she had, had been. It's passive voice. The phrase, "had taken a seat", isn't nearly as powerful as, "then he sat with a plop, and dust swirled about his pear-shaped frame." He had caught should simply be, he caught. So on and so forth.
I know, it sounds anal, but these little details determine whether your reader gambols gleefully through pixeled pages, or totters among a sea of verbose jargon.
Don't get me wrong, it's impossible not to use "was" and "had". Still, overuse is trite and lethargic. Often, we say, "Screw it. I like it. My friends like it. My family likes it. So what do I care if someone I don't know thinks unkindly of it?"
Let's face it, going over and over and over something is like boring a nail in your head when only a screw will do. Is that too esoteric? Sorry. Anyway, I myself face the very same problem of overusing "was" and "had". And the last edit of anything I publish is me tediously reading (not scrolling), through my document and eliminating as many of these pesky buggers as possible. Here's why: "John had on denim shorts. They were ripped and faded." isn't as poetic as, "John wore denim shorts frayed and tattered where his boney knees protruded."
Say it once, and say it well.
That's enough free advice for now.
That reminds me, if I review your book and it's not sterling, don't be all like, "Screw that asshole, what does he know?" I'm just offering a bit of free advice. And as crafters of wordsmenship, aren't we all looking over previous material ('cause let's face it, we've always been writers of something), and said, "You know what, I think I can make that a little better."
Trucks
A couple weeks ago, the state police pulled this massive sting-operation where they pulled over big-rigs. When I first heard this, I thought the truckers were being cited for exhaust emissions. Turns out, they were pulled over due to faulty air-brakes, though the news report failed to specify exactly what the problem was. How do the police know there's something wrong with the air-brakes? Those things are tested and certified at the factory, if any problem discovered later, the factory would issue a recall. Who is a police officer to just spot a truck and pull them over because of the braking system? Are they mechanical engineers? How can they simply detect a problem with the brakes when a vehicle is still in motion? The entire premise of such an operation is egregiously absurd, and it my personal opinion that those police officers should be cited for pretending to be mechanical inspectors when they are, in fact, not. There should be a law against that.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Book 2
I apologize to any of my blog readers for not posting in a while. The Chronicles of Dog and Troll: Book 2 - The Diary of Myriam Star, is out. Hurray!
Pretty tired now. Think I'll go home.
Expect blogs to resume as normal.
J.S.F
Pretty tired now. Think I'll go home.
Expect blogs to resume as normal.
J.S.F
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)