One of the many positive fallouts for me, regarding Eastercons, is the renewed interest and focus on my works that I gain. Often this takes the form of mentally digging out some of my older, unfinished, pieces that I've been stuck on and thinking through them again with the goal of getting back to what I'm most interested in, instead of sidetracking myself with other projects.
This year, such renewed attention paid some nice dividends for both a short story and a novel. Without giving too much detail away (you'll have to wait until their published!):
For the short story, in the alternate future genre, I always had an opening page that I quite liked. It set the tone, setting, characters and conflict up well... I just didn't know where it should go from there. This was two years ago now, and finally after Eastercon this year I revisted the story only to hit upon the perfect theme. I even know the ending. Now it just remains to finish writing the thing.
With another long standing novel project, a fairly far future of humanity tale, the 'eureka' moment wasn't as story breaking as with above, but it was significant. With my novels, bits and pieces often fall into place over long periods of time. And this was no different (truth be told, I started this story in 2003!). One small part of the story revolves around a true AI (AGI = artificial general intelligence). I had a backstory and had even written the scene describing the meeting of the AGI with the protagonist. Only... I wasn't conviced. I couldn't justify why my AGI was doing what it was doing. Even to me, my explanation seemed lame at best and cliche at worst. But finally, in the week after Eastercon, the pieces came together and I came up with what I think is an interesting, credible reason that fits well with the backstory.
Two story problems resolved in one week. Thank you Eastercon (and thank you family, for giving my some piece by visiting the inlaws that week). They're little victories, but they're still victories.
Insight and longevity.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Eastercon Blog-a-day 4: Debut Authors
Day 4, the final day of Eastercon 2013. There wasn't much interesting on the final day, so rather than the hastle of dragging my luggage, and all my artwork, around for the sake of seeing one panel discussion, I left for home early.
Those of you who are particular astute ( ;-) ) will notice that I'm writing this from a little in the future, as I found myself unable to properly complete my 1-a- day blogs from Eastercon. The benefit of time and separation, however, is clarity and, in this particular case, the clarity of knowing which part of the 2013 Eastercon experience stayed with me the most.
Overall, the 2013 Eastercon was a much more positive experience than I had anticipated going in to it. On the personal side, I feel I cracked the art show wall by managed to sell four of my desktop acrylics (more sales than my previous total combined sales at the last four Eastercons). My Eastercon showings in the future will, therefore, consist of a few canvases with mainly small 3D artwork like desktop acrylics, magic mugs, laptop skins, etc. I have also begun to feel a little more like I belong. this may sound weird to anyone who's not attended a con, but they do come across as a bit cliche-ey, which is even more off-putting for an introvert like myself. But I think largely due to feeling more a part of the artshow, I came away with a sense that I'm starting to belong to this Eastercon thing. Now, if only there was a way of socializing at these things that didn't involve alcohol.
Overall, however, the most positive single feature of the Eastercon for me was the debut author panel moderated by Bella Pagan (commissioning Editor of Tor UK). Put a group of five authors who have recently had their first novel published, in a room with an audience full of hopefuls and there's got to be a positive vibe. Even moreso since I've known of several of the debut authors for a few years now. To see them finally get their work out there was a very positive experience.
For the record, and because you should read their stuff (I am), the debut authors and their books are:
Francis Knight: Fade to Black (Orbit Books)
Stephanie Saulter: Gemsigns (Jo Fletcher Books)
Emma Newman: Between Two Thorns (Angry Robot)
Adrian Faulkner: The Four Realms (Anarchy Books)
Naomi Foyle: Seoul Survivors (Jo Fletcher Books)
Even now, weeks after Eastercon, I'm still left with the afterglow of that event. Things I've learned or had reconfirmed from listening to the authors are:
1) the notion of the 10 year 'overnight' success. i.e no one is really an overnight success. Everyone has worked hard and paid their dues.
2) There is no secret to cracking the market except writing a good book. Which often means writing a lot of mediocre ones first.
3) There are no shortcuts, but there are many different paths to full authorhood (and self-published fiction still doesn't count. Hint: generally much worse editing/critiquing than traditional published work).
But the best advice I came away with regarding my own career was to (1) have a plan. This includes not only structure for writing, but specifically, a plan of attack, so to speak, for your approach to getting published. I could simply be to shop the story around for 2 years and then self-publish if unsuccessful at getting an agent. Or it could be to start on the next book while shopping the first around. I could be to network like crazy, because word of mouth still works. Whatever it is, you need a plan. Number (2) comes about naturally from the other points mentioned. Namely, work on a project you believe in. Because you're not going to want to put in the kind of time and energy required if you don't believe in what you're writing.
So, largely because of this Eastercon, I've had my interest and focus renewed. Moreover, it's convinced me to approach my writing with a purpose, a structure, and specific goals.
Now to get to it.
Insight and longevity.
Those of you who are particular astute ( ;-) ) will notice that I'm writing this from a little in the future, as I found myself unable to properly complete my 1-a- day blogs from Eastercon. The benefit of time and separation, however, is clarity and, in this particular case, the clarity of knowing which part of the 2013 Eastercon experience stayed with me the most.
Overall, the 2013 Eastercon was a much more positive experience than I had anticipated going in to it. On the personal side, I feel I cracked the art show wall by managed to sell four of my desktop acrylics (more sales than my previous total combined sales at the last four Eastercons). My Eastercon showings in the future will, therefore, consist of a few canvases with mainly small 3D artwork like desktop acrylics, magic mugs, laptop skins, etc. I have also begun to feel a little more like I belong. this may sound weird to anyone who's not attended a con, but they do come across as a bit cliche-ey, which is even more off-putting for an introvert like myself. But I think largely due to feeling more a part of the artshow, I came away with a sense that I'm starting to belong to this Eastercon thing. Now, if only there was a way of socializing at these things that didn't involve alcohol.
Overall, however, the most positive single feature of the Eastercon for me was the debut author panel moderated by Bella Pagan (commissioning Editor of Tor UK). Put a group of five authors who have recently had their first novel published, in a room with an audience full of hopefuls and there's got to be a positive vibe. Even moreso since I've known of several of the debut authors for a few years now. To see them finally get their work out there was a very positive experience.
For the record, and because you should read their stuff (I am), the debut authors and their books are:
Francis Knight: Fade to Black (Orbit Books)
Stephanie Saulter: Gemsigns (Jo Fletcher Books)
Emma Newman: Between Two Thorns (Angry Robot)
Adrian Faulkner: The Four Realms (Anarchy Books)
Naomi Foyle: Seoul Survivors (Jo Fletcher Books)
Even now, weeks after Eastercon, I'm still left with the afterglow of that event. Things I've learned or had reconfirmed from listening to the authors are:
1) the notion of the 10 year 'overnight' success. i.e no one is really an overnight success. Everyone has worked hard and paid their dues.
2) There is no secret to cracking the market except writing a good book. Which often means writing a lot of mediocre ones first.
3) There are no shortcuts, but there are many different paths to full authorhood (and self-published fiction still doesn't count. Hint: generally much worse editing/critiquing than traditional published work).
But the best advice I came away with regarding my own career was to (1) have a plan. This includes not only structure for writing, but specifically, a plan of attack, so to speak, for your approach to getting published. I could simply be to shop the story around for 2 years and then self-publish if unsuccessful at getting an agent. Or it could be to start on the next book while shopping the first around. I could be to network like crazy, because word of mouth still works. Whatever it is, you need a plan. Number (2) comes about naturally from the other points mentioned. Namely, work on a project you believe in. Because you're not going to want to put in the kind of time and energy required if you don't believe in what you're writing.
So, largely because of this Eastercon, I've had my interest and focus renewed. Moreover, it's convinced me to approach my writing with a purpose, a structure, and specific goals.
Now to get to it.
Insight and longevity.
Eastercon Blog-a-day 3: Art show
Day 3 of Eastercon 2013 and the main event (for me) is the art show. If you're a connie and haven't seen it... why not?
A nice show this year. Not quite as many biggies as there have been in recent past shows, but some nice work on display nevertheless. Personal favourites at the show were Jim Burns, Andy Bigwood and Chris 'Fangorn' Baker, but there were many others worth mention also.
The auction is held from noon 'til 2pm Sunday and, after the first year, I haven't attended. Maybe it's a case of nerves, maybe I just prefer knowing all the details at once so the excitement or disappointment is over quick, like ripping a bandage off.
Since I'd not sold much in the previous Eastercons, I changed strategy this year. With all the big name competition for selling canvases at this particular con, I decided to focus my attention on smaller items. This year it was desktop acrylic pics. There are several companies that make them and they turn out quite nice. I brought nine different images and set them at the take-home price of £15.
Checking back after the post-auction chaos had settled, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four of them had sold. Even more pleasant was the knowledge that three of them had multiple bids. This latter bit, for me, is the real measure of worth because it means there's not just someone buying a piece on a whim, but people are actually willing to compete for it.
So, until my artwork becomes more well know at least, I think I've developed a useful strategy for selling at Eastercon. Now it's just up to me to keep learning, improving and making quality pieces that are interesting and inspiring.
Insight and longevity.
A nice show this year. Not quite as many biggies as there have been in recent past shows, but some nice work on display nevertheless. Personal favourites at the show were Jim Burns, Andy Bigwood and Chris 'Fangorn' Baker, but there were many others worth mention also.
The auction is held from noon 'til 2pm Sunday and, after the first year, I haven't attended. Maybe it's a case of nerves, maybe I just prefer knowing all the details at once so the excitement or disappointment is over quick, like ripping a bandage off.
Since I'd not sold much in the previous Eastercons, I changed strategy this year. With all the big name competition for selling canvases at this particular con, I decided to focus my attention on smaller items. This year it was desktop acrylic pics. There are several companies that make them and they turn out quite nice. I brought nine different images and set them at the take-home price of £15.
Checking back after the post-auction chaos had settled, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four of them had sold. Even more pleasant was the knowledge that three of them had multiple bids. This latter bit, for me, is the real measure of worth because it means there's not just someone buying a piece on a whim, but people are actually willing to compete for it.
So, until my artwork becomes more well know at least, I think I've developed a useful strategy for selling at Eastercon. Now it's just up to me to keep learning, improving and making quality pieces that are interesting and inspiring.
Insight and longevity.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Eastercon blog-a-day 2: Colonizing Mars
Just another day for you, you and me in Eastercon.
A number of interesting panel discussions today, but I've selected some interesting insights from one called:
Building a Mars Constitution
This panel discussion was, no doubt, instigated by the fairly recent announcements by Space X founder that they are drafting plans for a Martian colony with flights to start in the early 2020's. The idea we were encouraged to discuss was, what would a Martian constitution involve.
The session started with a description of constitutions and a bit of a rant against the US constitution and why the Magna Carta was better. Whatever. This was to set the stage for the idea that we would need a democracy, and one that probably started early on in the existence of the colony, so that it would set the ground work for structuring the entire colony's future.
As such a discussion is want to do, it degenerated numerous times, into mini-conversations on such tangents as primary vs. secondary colonists, how to construct a Martian colony, the moon is more practical unless we intend to teraform Mars, radiation and other biological considerations, and many more.
One of the more interesting asides to me was on how the colonists would be selected, and how the colony social structure would evolve. e.g. would there be drug dealers, prostitutes and police and if so, how soon? I found it especially interesting because it highlights the ideas that people have about society and how the real vs. ideal perceptions.
For example, one panelist was convinced that a starter colony of engineers and scientists would be an ideal colony of people that would be the best and most dedicated of humanity and, apparently, could not succumb to human weaknesses. He seemed to find it impossible to believe that such a colony would develop, e.g. their own drugs, or prostitution.
Apparently, some people have never met scientists or engineers.
Fortunately, most of the audience was somewhat more world-wise and we were pretty unanimous in our agreement that, when you leave scientists alone for several years with nothing to do for recreation, these highly skilled and capable people will make their own drugs and other recreational activities.
In short, while we may like to imagine nice, sterile, research colonies. The truth is that, if people are stuck there for the rest of their lives, they will create their own recreation with what they have available, and that Schwarzenegger's Total Recall is not that unlikely.
Insight and longevity.
A number of interesting panel discussions today, but I've selected some interesting insights from one called:
Building a Mars Constitution
This panel discussion was, no doubt, instigated by the fairly recent announcements by Space X founder that they are drafting plans for a Martian colony with flights to start in the early 2020's. The idea we were encouraged to discuss was, what would a Martian constitution involve.
The session started with a description of constitutions and a bit of a rant against the US constitution and why the Magna Carta was better. Whatever. This was to set the stage for the idea that we would need a democracy, and one that probably started early on in the existence of the colony, so that it would set the ground work for structuring the entire colony's future.
As such a discussion is want to do, it degenerated numerous times, into mini-conversations on such tangents as primary vs. secondary colonists, how to construct a Martian colony, the moon is more practical unless we intend to teraform Mars, radiation and other biological considerations, and many more.
One of the more interesting asides to me was on how the colonists would be selected, and how the colony social structure would evolve. e.g. would there be drug dealers, prostitutes and police and if so, how soon? I found it especially interesting because it highlights the ideas that people have about society and how the real vs. ideal perceptions.
For example, one panelist was convinced that a starter colony of engineers and scientists would be an ideal colony of people that would be the best and most dedicated of humanity and, apparently, could not succumb to human weaknesses. He seemed to find it impossible to believe that such a colony would develop, e.g. their own drugs, or prostitution.
Apparently, some people have never met scientists or engineers.
Fortunately, most of the audience was somewhat more world-wise and we were pretty unanimous in our agreement that, when you leave scientists alone for several years with nothing to do for recreation, these highly skilled and capable people will make their own drugs and other recreational activities.
In short, while we may like to imagine nice, sterile, research colonies. The truth is that, if people are stuck there for the rest of their lives, they will create their own recreation with what they have available, and that Schwarzenegger's Total Recall is not that unlikely.
Insight and longevity.
Eastercon Blog-A-Day 1: writing aliens
Why is it so difficult to write believable Aliens?
Firstly, I'm aware that this should have been prepared yesterday and that, technically, today is day 2 of the EightSquared Eastercon 2013. But, well, anyone who's been to a con knows what day one is like. 'nuff said.
Anyway, this Eastercon is no different from most in that they feature a program stream for writers, and day one had a panel discussion on that writers' bugbear of characterization. This is something non-trivial and deserves a post or many on it's own, but I'm going to leave you to do that research for yourselves. In very brief, the most important part of characterization is making your characters believable. This is not only to lend credibility to your story, but so that your readers can relate to your characters.
At the end of the session, one woman asked how you write aliens (implying intelligent aliens) because she had some in the book she was writing. The unanimous answer was "I don't". Or, if they were used, it was only to serve a plot purpose, not as full characters in their own rights. If one looks at aliens in literature, this is the general way they are dealt with (just think of that lovable Spock, who represents the pure logical, emotion-suppressed version of humanity).
So, why is this the case?
In brief, because, it most people seem to forget that aliens are, well, alien. In other words, it's not only their biology and culture that will be different, but their very thinking itself. So, first off, trying to imagine a completely alien thinking is incredibly difficult. Imagine different ideas of relationships, different thoughts of what may be important to life, different ideas of jobs or economy, or socio-political heirarchy. And all this with only humans as a sample set. Then, if you successfully manage, you have the challenge of conveying that to your reader, remembering that they've had much less time thinking about it then you have.
If you don't believe me on how hard it is, try it. I challenge you to create a truly alien alien. Once you do, have a close look. Are you sure your alien isn't just some caricature of humanity, some creature that highlights you most or least favourite human trait?
This is precisely why virtually all fictional aliens are intentional caricatures. Because, with a sample set of precisely ZERO aliens to use as examples, a caricature is the best fictional use of an alien.
But I'd still love to see your attempts, so feel free to drop them in the comments.
Insight and longevity.
Firstly, I'm aware that this should have been prepared yesterday and that, technically, today is day 2 of the EightSquared Eastercon 2013. But, well, anyone who's been to a con knows what day one is like. 'nuff said.
Anyway, this Eastercon is no different from most in that they feature a program stream for writers, and day one had a panel discussion on that writers' bugbear of characterization. This is something non-trivial and deserves a post or many on it's own, but I'm going to leave you to do that research for yourselves. In very brief, the most important part of characterization is making your characters believable. This is not only to lend credibility to your story, but so that your readers can relate to your characters.
At the end of the session, one woman asked how you write aliens (implying intelligent aliens) because she had some in the book she was writing. The unanimous answer was "I don't". Or, if they were used, it was only to serve a plot purpose, not as full characters in their own rights. If one looks at aliens in literature, this is the general way they are dealt with (just think of that lovable Spock, who represents the pure logical, emotion-suppressed version of humanity).
So, why is this the case?
In brief, because, it most people seem to forget that aliens are, well, alien. In other words, it's not only their biology and culture that will be different, but their very thinking itself. So, first off, trying to imagine a completely alien thinking is incredibly difficult. Imagine different ideas of relationships, different thoughts of what may be important to life, different ideas of jobs or economy, or socio-political heirarchy. And all this with only humans as a sample set. Then, if you successfully manage, you have the challenge of conveying that to your reader, remembering that they've had much less time thinking about it then you have.
If you don't believe me on how hard it is, try it. I challenge you to create a truly alien alien. Once you do, have a close look. Are you sure your alien isn't just some caricature of humanity, some creature that highlights you most or least favourite human trait?
This is precisely why virtually all fictional aliens are intentional caricatures. Because, with a sample set of precisely ZERO aliens to use as examples, a caricature is the best fictional use of an alien.
But I'd still love to see your attempts, so feel free to drop them in the comments.
Insight and longevity.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Janet Jackson Superbowl 'Wardrobe Malfunction' Revisited.
'Sup? Raging against social insanity
Music: Just Dance by Lady Gaga
This time of year always brings me 'round to thinking about religion in all its craziness. For some reason this time I was thinking about how religion breed prudishness and just why would a universe-spanning omnipotence care whether we sleep with someone we're not married to, run around naked, or show a woman's nipple in public. The last, of course (?!), relates directly to that infamous 2004 superbowl event that has now been consigned to history. Yes, Janet Jackson's infamous 'wardrobe malfunction'.
Just to recap: during the finale of her superbowl show with Justin Timberlake, he sang 'I'll have you naked by the end of this song', then pulled off part of her jacket revealling a pastied breast. Regardless of the fact that the nipple was almost impossible to see even in the video, prudes and religious right all across America freaked. Like, in a big way. And, as has become all to common latsely, the media completely dropped the ball by playing along (oh for news shows with some metaphorical cajones).
Now, I'm not here to resurrect a nine year old controversy. What I am going to do is point out something that I don't recall was discussed in the fervorous hubbub of moral indignation. Namely, gender equality.
You see, given the type of music and the show (which I had never watched before) I was curious about something. Were there any male nipples showing?
That's right, in this age of gender equality and feminism, surely male nipples must be equal to female nipples in their shamefulness (or, more realistically, their lack thereof).
So I dug up the video on YouTube (trivial to find, so check it yourself) and watched it. LO, what did I find. Not one male nipple, but FOUR!! That's right, for the entire song, TWO men dance shirtless. THE SHAME!!! Four male nipples on display for the entire show, and one incredibly brief glimpse of a female nipple gets all the attention.
If that's not a dispicable example of gender inequality, I don't know what is. Why is it that women get all the pleasure of watching bare male chests, but we males are robbed of this, or made to feel like perverts for wanted to see female flesh? It's dispicable.
I DEMAND EQUALITY!!
Or at least reason.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Just Dance by Lady Gaga
This time of year always brings me 'round to thinking about religion in all its craziness. For some reason this time I was thinking about how religion breed prudishness and just why would a universe-spanning omnipotence care whether we sleep with someone we're not married to, run around naked, or show a woman's nipple in public. The last, of course (?!), relates directly to that infamous 2004 superbowl event that has now been consigned to history. Yes, Janet Jackson's infamous 'wardrobe malfunction'.
Just to recap: during the finale of her superbowl show with Justin Timberlake, he sang 'I'll have you naked by the end of this song', then pulled off part of her jacket revealling a pastied breast. Regardless of the fact that the nipple was almost impossible to see even in the video, prudes and religious right all across America freaked. Like, in a big way. And, as has become all to common latsely, the media completely dropped the ball by playing along (oh for news shows with some metaphorical cajones).
Now, I'm not here to resurrect a nine year old controversy. What I am going to do is point out something that I don't recall was discussed in the fervorous hubbub of moral indignation. Namely, gender equality.
You see, given the type of music and the show (which I had never watched before) I was curious about something. Were there any male nipples showing?
That's right, in this age of gender equality and feminism, surely male nipples must be equal to female nipples in their shamefulness (or, more realistically, their lack thereof).
So I dug up the video on YouTube (trivial to find, so check it yourself) and watched it. LO, what did I find. Not one male nipple, but FOUR!! That's right, for the entire song, TWO men dance shirtless. THE SHAME!!! Four male nipples on display for the entire show, and one incredibly brief glimpse of a female nipple gets all the attention.
If that's not a dispicable example of gender inequality, I don't know what is. Why is it that women get all the pleasure of watching bare male chests, but we males are robbed of this, or made to feel like perverts for wanted to see female flesh? It's dispicable.
I DEMAND EQUALITY!!
Or at least reason.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Writing for Young Adults - The Parent Trap
'Sup? Prep'ing for the next ice age
Music: Judas by Lady Gaga
There's no denying that the Young Adult (YA) market is one of the hottest book markets of the last decade. Kicked off by the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and followed by the more genre-defining stories of the Twilight (Stephane Meyers) and Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins) series, YA is talked about in all the writing circles (probably even the literati, where it's no doubt derided for being mind-mush and the cause of much of our youths' social problems). Everyone in the industry either loves it, hates it, or want to write it.
It it not within the scope of this post to discuss the merits and negatives of the YA genre. As a recent writer and, by extension, reader of YA, I'm here to discus some observations I've had regarding a specific aspect of the genre, namely, parents. I may discuss other aspects in future posts, but parents is where I'll start because, love'em or leave'em, parents are a big influence on any teens life.
The first thing you should know about YA is that there are no hard and fast rules. While the genre has some tropes that seem guarenteed blockbusters, it is too early to tell whether they will continue. My guess is that, like our young themselves, the genre will constantly and quickly continue to evolve and what is a blockbuster today will be passee in a decade. Or less. For this reason, you need to make your own opinion on what I'm saying based on your own reading, and your own decision on how to approach your novel, if you're a writer. What I will do here is provide you with what seem to be current trends and rules, specifically regarding the existence of parents in YA stories, how to deal with them and what it means to the story. After all, you must know the rules before you can break them.
With that said, let's move on to Parents in YA or, The Parent Trap.
Why The Parent Trap? because contrary to what teens may think, the presence or absence of parents has a vitally imporant influence on the them. It affects everything from their economic status and health (mental and physical), and therefore what resources they have at hand, to their curfews and dress codes. In writing terms, what they can and can't do without conflict, in the literary sense.
Since conflict is the heart of any story, and parents are major gatekeepers for a teen's access to conflict, it's vitally imporant that the author decides how to use the parents in the story. For example, a teen who's parents give them everything and constantly bail them out from all trouble will have an entirely different set of conflicts from the teen who's parents don't pay any attention to them or argue all the time with them.
Essentially, the level of control or permissiveness of the parents' influences, is chosen to support the type of story. As a general rule, the more fantastical a story, the less the need or desire for the parents to be around in a supporting role (however, there still seems to be a lot of room in the genre for parents to be direct villains, but it would have to be done well so as not to seem farcicle). Whereas, the more literary or mundane a story, the more persistance and direct influence the parents are likely to have.
Of course, while it might be obvious, it bares mentioning that the parent becomes a plot device for creating, but never resolving conflict. These are YA stories and the teen MUST be directly instrumental in the final plot resolution, perhaps even despite the parents.
This same rule applies to all other adults in the story. As a general rule, adults are (1) usually the villains, (2) occassional helpful, but (3) commonly, a hinderance to the YA protagonist.
Here are a few general considerations and means for dealing with parents and adults in a YA story. Each has been used in popular novels, in some cases multiple techniques have been used (see especially Metawars 1.0, Jeff Norton).
Death
A very common way of removing one or more parents from the story is through their deaths, either when the protagonist was born, or shortly before the story. Usually such a death relates directly to the story's plot. The death of Harry Potter's parents at the hands of his mortal enemy Voldemort are probably the most well-known deaths of any characters in a children's/YA series. Their deaths set the stage for Harry's entire life. Not only forcing him to live with his nasty muggle in-laws, but setting up his role in the prophecy and creating a connection between him and Voldemort. His mother's sacrifice even posthumously saved him from Voldemort's minion when getting the philospher's stone.
Disappearance
Parental dissappearance is obviously not as final as death, and therefore it always leave open the possibility of return. It's nature leads to multiple possible plot uses.
One example would be separation of the parents such that the protagonist lives with only one. The effect would be a potentially strained relationship with the remaining parent (and perhaps the distant one also, depending on authorial wishes) as the single parent struggles to cope with all the necessities of the household, job, and teen.
Another example would be a straight-out disappearance of the parent for no apparent reason, as in the movie Jumper (Stephen Gould). In this case, the mother's disappearance when the protagonist was five, related directly to his burgeoning powers and the overall story (although only in a small way to the plot of that particular movie). This is also used in the Gone series, where all adults (indeed everyone over 15) simply vanishes. The most obvious use of this device in plot would be the creation of a mystery surrounding the disappearance (in addition, of course, to following the characters through their experience of immediately needing to grow up to survive). More literary uses could be in the exploration of the emotional effects on such a teen.
As mentioned, the major difference between parent death and disappearance, is that the latter can leave the reader with hope for a future reunion between protagonist and parent. The author needs be aware of this, and not forget to resolve the disappearance (in which ever direction they choose) or they may fail in fulfilling their 'contract' with the reader.
Incapacitation
A YA writer can call on incapacitation to take some adults out of the picture. There are strong and weak ways of doing this. If the adult is incapacitated from the start of the story and it plays to the plot, it is a strong method. Why is the adult incapacitated? What effect does it have on the teen? How can the teen live with or perhaps resolve the incapacitation? Unfortunately, it's far too common to read examples of adult incapacitation immediately before a climactic sequence. In this instance, it feels very much like a weak authorial device. I would personally recommend trying to avoid the latter example unless you put a lot of thought into it.
Imprisonment
Similar to incapacitation, imprisonment can be a major plot device--i.e. a wrongfully imprisioned parent. Or it can be used simply to remove characters from the plot (as in Metawars 1.0). Unless done very well, it is something best left to use on minor characters that most readers won't worry about. Or the author risks the same problem as with incapacitation.
Frequent Interaction (Persistant Parents)
An example of a frequent interaction might be a parent who teaches at the main character's school. This is a challenging situation for both parent and teen, and the parent will undoubtedly have made their own rules on how they intend to interact with their teen in order to avoid either coming down too hard on them or, equally important, to avoid the appearance of favouritism. Either case would commonly cause a teen to rebel more strongly against the parent unless there is an incredibly powerful bond at home. The teen, however, may not understand this, or even resent it.
In John Green's A Fault In Our Stars, the parents are persistent, after a fasion, and can be downright creepy in their niceness. It is necessary, as the protagonist has terminal lung cancer and requires regular attention in addition to omniprevalent oxygen canisters. So the parents are clearly doing the best they can to manage their own emotions while dealing with this situation, and it shows us something of their own characters and internal conflicts.
So there are many types of persistent parents, and therefore many uses for them in a story. Each has a reason, and consequences to the character and story.
Mix and Match as Neccessary
Now that you have some idea of the necessary considerations and options for dealing with parents, and generally supportive adults, in a YA story, feel free to mix, match, or play with the 'rules' as you see fit. It's only important to realize the natural consequences of the parent-teen relationship you decide because regardless of the subgenre, that is the one thing that must feel real to the reader. And remember, the beauty of YA at the moment, is that it's a genre full of experimentation.
As one example, Metawars 1.0 by Jeff Norton used 5 different methods for removing parents and other helpful adults from the picture so that only the teen protagonists remained for the climax. (1) Five years before the story, the protagonist's father was killed in plot related events, (2) his mother was later killed during the story, (3) his father was later resurrected in an incapacitated form to provide limited help, (4) other helpful adults were either imprisoned or (5) incapacitated to pave the way for the protagonist to shine during the story's climax.
Whichever method you use, I hope this has prepared you to think through the plot consequences and how it will affect the teen protagonist. Keep writing!
Suggested Reading
Twilight - Stephanie Meyers
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
For The Win - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
A Fault In Our Stars - John Green
Harry Potter series - J.K.Rowling
Gone -Michael Grant
MetaWars 1.0 - Jeff Norton
Pretties - Scott Westerfeld
Jumper - 2008 movie (also, the 1992 book by Stephen Gould, although it has significant differences in plot)
Consider the role of parents / adults as you read these novels, and practice what you learn in your own writing.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Judas by Lady Gaga
There's no denying that the Young Adult (YA) market is one of the hottest book markets of the last decade. Kicked off by the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling and followed by the more genre-defining stories of the Twilight (Stephane Meyers) and Hunger Games (Suzanne Collins) series, YA is talked about in all the writing circles (probably even the literati, where it's no doubt derided for being mind-mush and the cause of much of our youths' social problems). Everyone in the industry either loves it, hates it, or want to write it.
It it not within the scope of this post to discuss the merits and negatives of the YA genre. As a recent writer and, by extension, reader of YA, I'm here to discus some observations I've had regarding a specific aspect of the genre, namely, parents. I may discuss other aspects in future posts, but parents is where I'll start because, love'em or leave'em, parents are a big influence on any teens life.
The first thing you should know about YA is that there are no hard and fast rules. While the genre has some tropes that seem guarenteed blockbusters, it is too early to tell whether they will continue. My guess is that, like our young themselves, the genre will constantly and quickly continue to evolve and what is a blockbuster today will be passee in a decade. Or less. For this reason, you need to make your own opinion on what I'm saying based on your own reading, and your own decision on how to approach your novel, if you're a writer. What I will do here is provide you with what seem to be current trends and rules, specifically regarding the existence of parents in YA stories, how to deal with them and what it means to the story. After all, you must know the rules before you can break them.
With that said, let's move on to Parents in YA or, The Parent Trap.
Why The Parent Trap? because contrary to what teens may think, the presence or absence of parents has a vitally imporant influence on the them. It affects everything from their economic status and health (mental and physical), and therefore what resources they have at hand, to their curfews and dress codes. In writing terms, what they can and can't do without conflict, in the literary sense.
Since conflict is the heart of any story, and parents are major gatekeepers for a teen's access to conflict, it's vitally imporant that the author decides how to use the parents in the story. For example, a teen who's parents give them everything and constantly bail them out from all trouble will have an entirely different set of conflicts from the teen who's parents don't pay any attention to them or argue all the time with them.
Essentially, the level of control or permissiveness of the parents' influences, is chosen to support the type of story. As a general rule, the more fantastical a story, the less the need or desire for the parents to be around in a supporting role (however, there still seems to be a lot of room in the genre for parents to be direct villains, but it would have to be done well so as not to seem farcicle). Whereas, the more literary or mundane a story, the more persistance and direct influence the parents are likely to have.
Of course, while it might be obvious, it bares mentioning that the parent becomes a plot device for creating, but never resolving conflict. These are YA stories and the teen MUST be directly instrumental in the final plot resolution, perhaps even despite the parents.
This same rule applies to all other adults in the story. As a general rule, adults are (1) usually the villains, (2) occassional helpful, but (3) commonly, a hinderance to the YA protagonist.
Here are a few general considerations and means for dealing with parents and adults in a YA story. Each has been used in popular novels, in some cases multiple techniques have been used (see especially Metawars 1.0, Jeff Norton).
Death
A very common way of removing one or more parents from the story is through their deaths, either when the protagonist was born, or shortly before the story. Usually such a death relates directly to the story's plot. The death of Harry Potter's parents at the hands of his mortal enemy Voldemort are probably the most well-known deaths of any characters in a children's/YA series. Their deaths set the stage for Harry's entire life. Not only forcing him to live with his nasty muggle in-laws, but setting up his role in the prophecy and creating a connection between him and Voldemort. His mother's sacrifice even posthumously saved him from Voldemort's minion when getting the philospher's stone.
Disappearance
Parental dissappearance is obviously not as final as death, and therefore it always leave open the possibility of return. It's nature leads to multiple possible plot uses.
One example would be separation of the parents such that the protagonist lives with only one. The effect would be a potentially strained relationship with the remaining parent (and perhaps the distant one also, depending on authorial wishes) as the single parent struggles to cope with all the necessities of the household, job, and teen.
Another example would be a straight-out disappearance of the parent for no apparent reason, as in the movie Jumper (Stephen Gould). In this case, the mother's disappearance when the protagonist was five, related directly to his burgeoning powers and the overall story (although only in a small way to the plot of that particular movie). This is also used in the Gone series, where all adults (indeed everyone over 15) simply vanishes. The most obvious use of this device in plot would be the creation of a mystery surrounding the disappearance (in addition, of course, to following the characters through their experience of immediately needing to grow up to survive). More literary uses could be in the exploration of the emotional effects on such a teen.
As mentioned, the major difference between parent death and disappearance, is that the latter can leave the reader with hope for a future reunion between protagonist and parent. The author needs be aware of this, and not forget to resolve the disappearance (in which ever direction they choose) or they may fail in fulfilling their 'contract' with the reader.
Incapacitation
A YA writer can call on incapacitation to take some adults out of the picture. There are strong and weak ways of doing this. If the adult is incapacitated from the start of the story and it plays to the plot, it is a strong method. Why is the adult incapacitated? What effect does it have on the teen? How can the teen live with or perhaps resolve the incapacitation? Unfortunately, it's far too common to read examples of adult incapacitation immediately before a climactic sequence. In this instance, it feels very much like a weak authorial device. I would personally recommend trying to avoid the latter example unless you put a lot of thought into it.
Imprisonment
Similar to incapacitation, imprisonment can be a major plot device--i.e. a wrongfully imprisioned parent. Or it can be used simply to remove characters from the plot (as in Metawars 1.0). Unless done very well, it is something best left to use on minor characters that most readers won't worry about. Or the author risks the same problem as with incapacitation.
Frequent Interaction (Persistant Parents)
An example of a frequent interaction might be a parent who teaches at the main character's school. This is a challenging situation for both parent and teen, and the parent will undoubtedly have made their own rules on how they intend to interact with their teen in order to avoid either coming down too hard on them or, equally important, to avoid the appearance of favouritism. Either case would commonly cause a teen to rebel more strongly against the parent unless there is an incredibly powerful bond at home. The teen, however, may not understand this, or even resent it.
In John Green's A Fault In Our Stars, the parents are persistent, after a fasion, and can be downright creepy in their niceness. It is necessary, as the protagonist has terminal lung cancer and requires regular attention in addition to omniprevalent oxygen canisters. So the parents are clearly doing the best they can to manage their own emotions while dealing with this situation, and it shows us something of their own characters and internal conflicts.
So there are many types of persistent parents, and therefore many uses for them in a story. Each has a reason, and consequences to the character and story.
Mix and Match as Neccessary
Now that you have some idea of the necessary considerations and options for dealing with parents, and generally supportive adults, in a YA story, feel free to mix, match, or play with the 'rules' as you see fit. It's only important to realize the natural consequences of the parent-teen relationship you decide because regardless of the subgenre, that is the one thing that must feel real to the reader. And remember, the beauty of YA at the moment, is that it's a genre full of experimentation.
As one example, Metawars 1.0 by Jeff Norton used 5 different methods for removing parents and other helpful adults from the picture so that only the teen protagonists remained for the climax. (1) Five years before the story, the protagonist's father was killed in plot related events, (2) his mother was later killed during the story, (3) his father was later resurrected in an incapacitated form to provide limited help, (4) other helpful adults were either imprisoned or (5) incapacitated to pave the way for the protagonist to shine during the story's climax.
Whichever method you use, I hope this has prepared you to think through the plot consequences and how it will affect the teen protagonist. Keep writing!
Suggested Reading
Twilight - Stephanie Meyers
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
Little Brother - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
For The Win - Cory Doctorow (available as free e-book, or in print, published by Tor)
A Fault In Our Stars - John Green
Harry Potter series - J.K.Rowling
Gone -Michael Grant
MetaWars 1.0 - Jeff Norton
Pretties - Scott Westerfeld
Jumper - 2008 movie (also, the 1992 book by Stephen Gould, although it has significant differences in plot)
Consider the role of parents / adults as you read these novels, and practice what you learn in your own writing.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
March Give-Away!
I appologize for being a bit late with this, but it's here finally, The March Give-Away.
This month it's a bit of swag in the form of an original Zombie Apocalypse T-Shirt (image by me, loosely based on the Public Enemy album cover Fear of a Black Planet).
All you need to do to have a chance at winning, is to follow this blog and leave a comment in one of the March posts. The winner will be drawn at random from all qualifiers at the end of the month. Best of luck.
Insight and longevity.
This month it's a bit of swag in the form of an original Zombie Apocalypse T-Shirt (image by me, loosely based on the Public Enemy album cover Fear of a Black Planet).
Insight and longevity.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Science. What is dat thing anyway?
'Sup? The Devil's in the Details
Music: Heavyweight Champion of the World by Reverend and The Makers
I believe it's crucially important, especially as we move into the brave new world that is the future, that everyone understands what science is. Because, far too few people seem to, and this lack of understanding in many difficulties and even hardships for society.
I have heard claims that scientists sit in their ivory towers and make decrees, we've seen in the papers the use of a few errant e-mails to attempt to discredit the work of thousands aroun the world. These attacks on science originate either from the misinformed or from those with an agenda, but in both cases, the complaint is not valid. Yes, scientists are human. But science, by its nature, rises above human weaknesses. Eventually.
First off, science is not some council of wizards sitting in a tower deciding how the world should work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such beliefs are often put forward by the religious who seem largely upset at the perception that another 'viewpoint' supercedes their own. Of course, science is not a 'viewpoint'. But more on that soon.
Nor is science dependent on, or created by, the views, or manipulations on a few individuals. The strength of science is that, in principle, anyone is able to confirm or deny conclusions of even the most well respected scientists. Of course, that doesn't happen much. Not because said scientists are put on pedestals and untouchable, but because, more often than not, their work, their understanding of their chosen field, and their research, is impecable. But one does not get to this stage in science by decree.
It's also important to note that science is not physics, nor biology, nor chemistry. Science is not Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, or even evolution. These are aspects of nature put into forms that humans can understand and use and science has helped us uncover and understand them. But they are not science, only the outcome of science.
Because science is not a thing, but a process. It's not a belief, but a method. Science is an objective means for interogating the world, ourselves, even the nature of reality. Although science is not a religion, it does require you have one believe. Namely, that humans are capable of understanding reality. Or at least that our ability will grow with our knowledge so that future generations will have insight and understanding that we currently lack.
This wonderful thing called science can be summed by the following simple process that is available to everyone for immediate use:
1) Make an observation about something of interest
2) From the observation, make a hypothesis of why it is that way
3) Test the hypothesis in an objective, non-biased manner
4) Revise the hypothesis based on the tests
5) return to step one
The cycle continues, carried out by the initial investigator and any or all other interested parties, until a hypothesis is arrived at the matches all data on the subject as close as possible.
Even then, future observations and experiments can overturn the hypothesis if they are conducted very well, and shed new light on the subject.
Through countless iterations, science ends up producing interpretations of the world that subsequently fit future observations. This is its strength. But science, itself, is only the process.
It is crucially important that the distinction be made between process and product. Because, in all instances, the former drives the latter. Science is often compared to and challenged by religion.
Religion began as science, as humanity's attempt at understanding the world and the universe in ways that were accessible to our level of understanding at the time. Spirits, gods, all seemed valuable explanations of events that were beyond our control or understanding. But religion lacked the rigorous approach of science. It lack the contstant questioning--or perhaps the speed of human development was simply too slow at the time--and due to its nature, it was prone to abuse by those seeking power. It stagnated, stalled, and grew into an immobile means for control that no longer has any interest in questioning anything.
All endeavours to better humanity, all endeavours to understand our world, to improve our situation, are prone to abuse by those seeking an advantage over others. That includes the use, and products, of science. But the power of science is that every person is capable of doing science, and every person can challenge previous studies, previous findings, previous understandings.
Science depends on questions and questioning. From everyone. Including its opponents. Anyone and everyone can and should do science. Even if it is basic science. We can't all understand quantum mechanics, molecular biology or physical chemistry, but we can all do science in our everyday lives. We are all capable of questioning, capable of interpretting our observations, and capable of revising our hypotheses in light of new observations and understanding.
Religion fairly quickly became a top-down system, in which the powerful decree, and the faithful believe. Science is, by its nature, a bottom-up system. Understandings of the world derived from scientific investigations are dependent on many, many independent observations. That necessitates as many people as possible being involved, and their results filter up.
The results, of course, can be supressed by the powerful, by those with an agenda, temporariliy, but the reality they uncover remains. A great quote from Canadian rock band Rush sums it up:
So if a government, or a religious body, decrees x = y, it doesn't mean x = y, it just means that everyone will act as if x = y. Often with disastrous consequences. For example, mid-20th century biology in the Soviet Union stagnated because of such decrees, harming their agriculture and leaving their people starved for food and their research starved for answers.
Another example is the climate change issue. It's easy to ignore, or to decide it needs more study and to decree that an influencial country won't have any part in reducing emmissions, Even going so far as to attempt to discredit a few scientists working on the project. But reality won't budge. And there will be unprecedented glacial melting, and record numbers of tornadoes, and record-breaking hurricanes, giant snow storms, and ten-times the number of record high temperatures as record lows. Because reality doesn't care what humans think.
To be fair, there have been several examples in the last few decades to highlight bad science, to demonstrate that scientists are human, that they are susceptible to the same temptations as everyone else. But these same cases demonstrate the strength of the scientific approach and that it transcends human weeknesses. Each case is eventually called out by other researchers studying the same topics who are unable to replicate the experiments. When enough people are unable to reproduce the data, the fraudulent claim can be culled.
So, if everyone practices science, then everyone will question. Everything. (in reality, just everything that interests them personally, but that is enough). And when everyone questions everything, in an intelligent manner, then falsehood and fraudulant claims cannot thrive. It's only when we accept, without thought, what we're told that we are subject to being abused, taken advantage of, and maniupulated.
I cannot stress this enough. We are strongest when everyone questions everything. Always. Intelligently and without agenda. And this is precisely what science is.
Reality doesn't care what humans think. This is why science, in all its objective glory, is so powerful. Because science uncovers the truth about reality (at least, as far as we are currently able to understand it, but that also improves with each iteration).
So please remember, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, modern medicine, computers, cars, rockets, satellites, television, none of these are science. But they are all a testament to the power of the scientific process and what we can accomplish with an objective understanding of the world.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Heavyweight Champion of the World by Reverend and The Makers
I believe it's crucially important, especially as we move into the brave new world that is the future, that everyone understands what science is. Because, far too few people seem to, and this lack of understanding in many difficulties and even hardships for society.
I have heard claims that scientists sit in their ivory towers and make decrees, we've seen in the papers the use of a few errant e-mails to attempt to discredit the work of thousands aroun the world. These attacks on science originate either from the misinformed or from those with an agenda, but in both cases, the complaint is not valid. Yes, scientists are human. But science, by its nature, rises above human weaknesses. Eventually.
First off, science is not some council of wizards sitting in a tower deciding how the world should work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such beliefs are often put forward by the religious who seem largely upset at the perception that another 'viewpoint' supercedes their own. Of course, science is not a 'viewpoint'. But more on that soon.
Nor is science dependent on, or created by, the views, or manipulations on a few individuals. The strength of science is that, in principle, anyone is able to confirm or deny conclusions of even the most well respected scientists. Of course, that doesn't happen much. Not because said scientists are put on pedestals and untouchable, but because, more often than not, their work, their understanding of their chosen field, and their research, is impecable. But one does not get to this stage in science by decree.
It's also important to note that science is not physics, nor biology, nor chemistry. Science is not Newton's laws of motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, or even evolution. These are aspects of nature put into forms that humans can understand and use and science has helped us uncover and understand them. But they are not science, only the outcome of science.
Because science is not a thing, but a process. It's not a belief, but a method. Science is an objective means for interogating the world, ourselves, even the nature of reality. Although science is not a religion, it does require you have one believe. Namely, that humans are capable of understanding reality. Or at least that our ability will grow with our knowledge so that future generations will have insight and understanding that we currently lack.
This wonderful thing called science can be summed by the following simple process that is available to everyone for immediate use:
1) Make an observation about something of interest
2) From the observation, make a hypothesis of why it is that way
3) Test the hypothesis in an objective, non-biased manner
4) Revise the hypothesis based on the tests
5) return to step one
The cycle continues, carried out by the initial investigator and any or all other interested parties, until a hypothesis is arrived at the matches all data on the subject as close as possible.
Even then, future observations and experiments can overturn the hypothesis if they are conducted very well, and shed new light on the subject.
Through countless iterations, science ends up producing interpretations of the world that subsequently fit future observations. This is its strength. But science, itself, is only the process.
It is crucially important that the distinction be made between process and product. Because, in all instances, the former drives the latter. Science is often compared to and challenged by religion.
Religion began as science, as humanity's attempt at understanding the world and the universe in ways that were accessible to our level of understanding at the time. Spirits, gods, all seemed valuable explanations of events that were beyond our control or understanding. But religion lacked the rigorous approach of science. It lack the contstant questioning--or perhaps the speed of human development was simply too slow at the time--and due to its nature, it was prone to abuse by those seeking power. It stagnated, stalled, and grew into an immobile means for control that no longer has any interest in questioning anything.
All endeavours to better humanity, all endeavours to understand our world, to improve our situation, are prone to abuse by those seeking an advantage over others. That includes the use, and products, of science. But the power of science is that every person is capable of doing science, and every person can challenge previous studies, previous findings, previous understandings.
Science depends on questions and questioning. From everyone. Including its opponents. Anyone and everyone can and should do science. Even if it is basic science. We can't all understand quantum mechanics, molecular biology or physical chemistry, but we can all do science in our everyday lives. We are all capable of questioning, capable of interpretting our observations, and capable of revising our hypotheses in light of new observations and understanding.
Religion fairly quickly became a top-down system, in which the powerful decree, and the faithful believe. Science is, by its nature, a bottom-up system. Understandings of the world derived from scientific investigations are dependent on many, many independent observations. That necessitates as many people as possible being involved, and their results filter up.
The results, of course, can be supressed by the powerful, by those with an agenda, temporariliy, but the reality they uncover remains. A great quote from Canadian rock band Rush sums it up:
You can change perception, but reality won't budge.
So if a government, or a religious body, decrees x = y, it doesn't mean x = y, it just means that everyone will act as if x = y. Often with disastrous consequences. For example, mid-20th century biology in the Soviet Union stagnated because of such decrees, harming their agriculture and leaving their people starved for food and their research starved for answers.
Another example is the climate change issue. It's easy to ignore, or to decide it needs more study and to decree that an influencial country won't have any part in reducing emmissions, Even going so far as to attempt to discredit a few scientists working on the project. But reality won't budge. And there will be unprecedented glacial melting, and record numbers of tornadoes, and record-breaking hurricanes, giant snow storms, and ten-times the number of record high temperatures as record lows. Because reality doesn't care what humans think.
To be fair, there have been several examples in the last few decades to highlight bad science, to demonstrate that scientists are human, that they are susceptible to the same temptations as everyone else. But these same cases demonstrate the strength of the scientific approach and that it transcends human weeknesses. Each case is eventually called out by other researchers studying the same topics who are unable to replicate the experiments. When enough people are unable to reproduce the data, the fraudulent claim can be culled.
So, if everyone practices science, then everyone will question. Everything. (in reality, just everything that interests them personally, but that is enough). And when everyone questions everything, in an intelligent manner, then falsehood and fraudulant claims cannot thrive. It's only when we accept, without thought, what we're told that we are subject to being abused, taken advantage of, and maniupulated.
I cannot stress this enough. We are strongest when everyone questions everything. Always. Intelligently and without agenda. And this is precisely what science is.
Reality doesn't care what humans think. This is why science, in all its objective glory, is so powerful. Because science uncovers the truth about reality (at least, as far as we are currently able to understand it, but that also improves with each iteration).
So please remember, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, modern medicine, computers, cars, rockets, satellites, television, none of these are science. But they are all a testament to the power of the scientific process and what we can accomplish with an objective understanding of the world.
Insight and longevity.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Come Get Some! (Free stuff, that is)
'Sup? It's time for some FREE STUFF!! :))
Music: I'm the one that's cool by Jed Whedon and Felicia Day
That's right, it's just what it says on the tin. For the month of February, I'm giving away a print copy of one Utility Fog Press anthology per week: either Assassins' Canon or Farspace 2 (I'll announce which at the begging of each week). This week it's Assassins' Canon.
Even better, I will be having regular give-aways all this year where you could win books, T-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or a variety of other items to be announced, each featuring original artwork of mine. All you have to do to have a chance at winning is to follow my blog. All followers are automatically entered for each draw.
If you want a quick summary, in this blog I focus mostly on writing. Sometimes analysis of books, or genre tropes and how to work them. Sometimes futurist ideas. And sometimes real life and how I seek to use life events to influence and improve my writing. And sure, I'm only human, so there is the occasional rant included, free of charge.
So I look forward to seeing you here, and best of luck in the draws.
Insight and longevity.
Music: I'm the one that's cool by Jed Whedon and Felicia Day
That's right, it's just what it says on the tin. For the month of February, I'm giving away a print copy of one Utility Fog Press anthology per week: either Assassins' Canon or Farspace 2 (I'll announce which at the begging of each week). This week it's Assassins' Canon.
Even better, I will be having regular give-aways all this year where you could win books, T-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or a variety of other items to be announced, each featuring original artwork of mine. All you have to do to have a chance at winning is to follow my blog. All followers are automatically entered for each draw.
If you want a quick summary, in this blog I focus mostly on writing. Sometimes analysis of books, or genre tropes and how to work them. Sometimes futurist ideas. And sometimes real life and how I seek to use life events to influence and improve my writing. And sure, I'm only human, so there is the occasional rant included, free of charge.
So I look forward to seeing you here, and best of luck in the draws.
Insight and longevity.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Just One of Those Weeks
'Sup? Peeps, why you gotta be like that?
Music: When We Stand Together by Nickelback
Hey, what's up? Not much here. Writing-wise, I mean.
It's been a slow start to the year, after the extra week of vacation for the little one, I got into a bit of writing, finishing off a chapter of revision and starting on the next 3, which are effectively a block. But then the medical and snow days, and looming tax deadline, have sidelined me again.
Yep, I'm back to physio, one last attempt to fix up my foot. The strat seems to be toning the legs to improve fine control, with the hope that that takes force off the ball foot. Well, we'll see if it works. We also had an impromptu and unnecessary snow day. It was made more frustrating by the fact that the schools didn't close when we had sheet ice covering the ground everywhere--I mean, to the point where you'd slide off the sidewalk if it tilted into the street a little--but a bit of snow and they close. Anyway, they were wise enough to only close for one day.
And then there's taxes. Made worse, of course, because of my procrastination. Each year I wonder why I don't do my taxes in May. Or October. But no, I wait until the last week of January every year. So atm, my taxes are still unfinished and I've got five days left.
But that's not enough, not for the first month of the new year.
So today, we had a couple knock on our door complaining that our back fence--that we had problems installing last summer after a complaint by a different neighbour--was encroaching on their property, that was their parents and they want to prep for sale. Essentially, the woman was insisting that our fence was 3 feet too far into their property, despite the fact that our new fence is inside the boundaries of where the old fence was. And, of course, despite the fact that there is no way you can be that precise with a 1:1250 scale map that wasn't even made from an actual survey. Note that with a 1:1250, a millimeter error on drawing or measuring from the map, translates into a 1.25 meter error on the ground. That's almost 4 feet! And this lady was arguing with us over the space of less than 3 feet! Yet she is the second person, including the first neighbour, the somehow fails to understand this simply concept.
You see, our property was developed in 1932, before the UK gov started doing any kind of official property surveys. So the 'land deeds' are not actually land deeds, they're simply crude maps drawn up by the original developer. I know this because I've check with a surveyor, and I've check on www.landregistry.gov.uk. No land claim has been filed, meaning there is no official survey, and no official agreement, past or present, between neighbours regarding the boundaries. That means that the current structures define the property as legally as any survey. And when we moved in, the most obvious boundary-defining structure was a wire mesh fence surrounding the property.
The fence, however, was in such disrepair on the back corner that our daughter and her friends could sneak through into the neighbours yard. So we decided, finally, to repair it last summer. It seems that a wiremesh fence is not a problem, but everyone suddenly freaks when that turns into a wooden fence. Even if they're getting more land than they originally had.
I guess everyone has a bad neighbour, and perhaps we were lucky meeting two good neighbours to either side. Perhaps it's just karma that we've gotten two bad, paranoid, and imo not too bright, neighbours in the back. Even more so because both brought up lawyers almost immediately in the discussion. The first guy we argued with for 2 weeks and eventually gave in simply to get the fence built, as the builders were waiting. Now that the fence is up though, we'll be calling the second neighbour's bluff before we take the fence down. In fact, I understand from the surveyor we talked to, that such legal proceedings can cost upward of £10,000, so we offered to move the fence to where they want it, if they give us £5000.
Today ended with us showing them the property, explaining the situation that happened with the other neighbour and how our new fence related to the position of the old, even showing them, as remnants of the old fence are still there, and suggesting that, if they don't believe us, they should contact their own surveyor and check the land registry site. It was clear that the man believed us that we had intended no funny business and have acted legally and morally. The woman, who's parents lived their until recently, seemed particularly stubborn and didn't appear interested in listening to reason. Still, I'd be surprised if anything legal comes of this. It's just annoying.
PROs: As a writer, there are always pros to this kind of thing. The pro here is the ability to witness different people functioning in a fairly standard confrontational environment, to witness the full possibilities of emotions and then to be able to apply these to my characters for greater verisimilitude. Life experiences may not always be enjoyable, but they are always learning opportunities.
Insight and longevity.
Music: When We Stand Together by Nickelback
Hey, what's up? Not much here. Writing-wise, I mean.
It's been a slow start to the year, after the extra week of vacation for the little one, I got into a bit of writing, finishing off a chapter of revision and starting on the next 3, which are effectively a block. But then the medical and snow days, and looming tax deadline, have sidelined me again.
Yep, I'm back to physio, one last attempt to fix up my foot. The strat seems to be toning the legs to improve fine control, with the hope that that takes force off the ball foot. Well, we'll see if it works. We also had an impromptu and unnecessary snow day. It was made more frustrating by the fact that the schools didn't close when we had sheet ice covering the ground everywhere--I mean, to the point where you'd slide off the sidewalk if it tilted into the street a little--but a bit of snow and they close. Anyway, they were wise enough to only close for one day.
And then there's taxes. Made worse, of course, because of my procrastination. Each year I wonder why I don't do my taxes in May. Or October. But no, I wait until the last week of January every year. So atm, my taxes are still unfinished and I've got five days left.
But that's not enough, not for the first month of the new year.
So today, we had a couple knock on our door complaining that our back fence--that we had problems installing last summer after a complaint by a different neighbour--was encroaching on their property, that was their parents and they want to prep for sale. Essentially, the woman was insisting that our fence was 3 feet too far into their property, despite the fact that our new fence is inside the boundaries of where the old fence was. And, of course, despite the fact that there is no way you can be that precise with a 1:1250 scale map that wasn't even made from an actual survey. Note that with a 1:1250, a millimeter error on drawing or measuring from the map, translates into a 1.25 meter error on the ground. That's almost 4 feet! And this lady was arguing with us over the space of less than 3 feet! Yet she is the second person, including the first neighbour, the somehow fails to understand this simply concept.
You see, our property was developed in 1932, before the UK gov started doing any kind of official property surveys. So the 'land deeds' are not actually land deeds, they're simply crude maps drawn up by the original developer. I know this because I've check with a surveyor, and I've check on www.landregistry.gov.uk. No land claim has been filed, meaning there is no official survey, and no official agreement, past or present, between neighbours regarding the boundaries. That means that the current structures define the property as legally as any survey. And when we moved in, the most obvious boundary-defining structure was a wire mesh fence surrounding the property.
The fence, however, was in such disrepair on the back corner that our daughter and her friends could sneak through into the neighbours yard. So we decided, finally, to repair it last summer. It seems that a wiremesh fence is not a problem, but everyone suddenly freaks when that turns into a wooden fence. Even if they're getting more land than they originally had.
I guess everyone has a bad neighbour, and perhaps we were lucky meeting two good neighbours to either side. Perhaps it's just karma that we've gotten two bad, paranoid, and imo not too bright, neighbours in the back. Even more so because both brought up lawyers almost immediately in the discussion. The first guy we argued with for 2 weeks and eventually gave in simply to get the fence built, as the builders were waiting. Now that the fence is up though, we'll be calling the second neighbour's bluff before we take the fence down. In fact, I understand from the surveyor we talked to, that such legal proceedings can cost upward of £10,000, so we offered to move the fence to where they want it, if they give us £5000.
Today ended with us showing them the property, explaining the situation that happened with the other neighbour and how our new fence related to the position of the old, even showing them, as remnants of the old fence are still there, and suggesting that, if they don't believe us, they should contact their own surveyor and check the land registry site. It was clear that the man believed us that we had intended no funny business and have acted legally and morally. The woman, who's parents lived their until recently, seemed particularly stubborn and didn't appear interested in listening to reason. Still, I'd be surprised if anything legal comes of this. It's just annoying.
PROs: As a writer, there are always pros to this kind of thing. The pro here is the ability to witness different people functioning in a fairly standard confrontational environment, to witness the full possibilities of emotions and then to be able to apply these to my characters for greater verisimilitude. Life experiences may not always be enjoyable, but they are always learning opportunities.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Welcome to the New Year
'Sup? It's a new year, brah!
Music: Ghost of Navigators by Iron Maiden
Once more around the sun my friends. So much has changed in our last lap, yet so much remains the same and it's up to us to decide which we accept and which we choose to change.
As always, I have many ideas, but one thing that we all hopefully gain with age is better self-awareness.
Some lucky souls seem born with such knowledge and their character has a singularity of focus and action the allows them to accomplish great things. Others, like myself, find we are constant conflicted. Sometimes this is between action and thought, sometimes between intent and consequence, and sometimes it's between desire and duty.
My conflict has almost always fallen in the last category. I even wrote a very brief poem regarding this while studying for my doctorate. Since you asked so nicely, sure I'll share it with you. Originally, it was called Tightrope but I decided to change the title to duhka, a sanskrit word for a Budhist concept of internal conflict. Anyway, here's the poem:
High on a tight-rope.
How did I get here?
Continuously balancing,
desires on one hand,
expectation on the other.
When I fall to the abyss below,
tripped by insecurity,
is there a net?
Well, I've never claimed to be a poet.
So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, I suffer from that condition of too many ideas and not enough energy. Every year my internal analysis brings me closer to understanding how I might manage this with the limited resources and network that I have.
For example, recently, I've altered my work schedule so that I write at the library instead of at home. This gives me shorter, but more focussed time writing. The result is that I can give myself permission to work on other things with the rest of my time, whereas previously I might have attempted to write at home and then got lost surfing the web or cleaning the house, not writing anything until 5:00 then feel bad and try some more to write while accomplishing nothing on any front.
Furthermore, last year I attempted to set up two projects per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Usually writing in the morning, and something else, differing each day, later. You can guess how successful that was. So now I'm being more modest. I have my morning writing in the library and one project per week that I work on in the afternoons. This could be a website, researching the next story, or another of my copious projects. I have a feeling this will work much better.
Incidentally, while I'm not going to go into all my other projects here, I will say that, in some way, they will all come together in my novels. That's it. That's your only teaser.
Well, this is a bit of a heavy post for the first one of the year, so let's lighten things up a little.
One of my other goals this year is to increase my online network--followers, audience, readers, etc. One way will be to update and reorganize my websites somewhat *watch for some new shops and products! as well as the new version of Stellar Garden*, but that alone won't do anything. "Build it and they will come" simply doesn't work for the web. I mean, searching the net is like visiting a city that has one block with billions of houses all on top of each other. I also tried crowd-funding, but that suffers from the same problem as a blog. If no one knows you're there, they can't fund you. So, what to do?
Contests!
Music: Ghost of Navigators by Iron Maiden
Once more around the sun my friends. So much has changed in our last lap, yet so much remains the same and it's up to us to decide which we accept and which we choose to change.
As always, I have many ideas, but one thing that we all hopefully gain with age is better self-awareness.
Some lucky souls seem born with such knowledge and their character has a singularity of focus and action the allows them to accomplish great things. Others, like myself, find we are constant conflicted. Sometimes this is between action and thought, sometimes between intent and consequence, and sometimes it's between desire and duty.
My conflict has almost always fallen in the last category. I even wrote a very brief poem regarding this while studying for my doctorate. Since you asked so nicely, sure I'll share it with you. Originally, it was called Tightrope but I decided to change the title to duhka, a sanskrit word for a Budhist concept of internal conflict. Anyway, here's the poem:
High on a tight-rope.
How did I get here?
Continuously balancing,
desires on one hand,
expectation on the other.
When I fall to the abyss below,
tripped by insecurity,
is there a net?
Well, I've never claimed to be a poet.
So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, I suffer from that condition of too many ideas and not enough energy. Every year my internal analysis brings me closer to understanding how I might manage this with the limited resources and network that I have.
For example, recently, I've altered my work schedule so that I write at the library instead of at home. This gives me shorter, but more focussed time writing. The result is that I can give myself permission to work on other things with the rest of my time, whereas previously I might have attempted to write at home and then got lost surfing the web or cleaning the house, not writing anything until 5:00 then feel bad and try some more to write while accomplishing nothing on any front.
Furthermore, last year I attempted to set up two projects per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Usually writing in the morning, and something else, differing each day, later. You can guess how successful that was. So now I'm being more modest. I have my morning writing in the library and one project per week that I work on in the afternoons. This could be a website, researching the next story, or another of my copious projects. I have a feeling this will work much better.
Incidentally, while I'm not going to go into all my other projects here, I will say that, in some way, they will all come together in my novels. That's it. That's your only teaser.
Well, this is a bit of a heavy post for the first one of the year, so let's lighten things up a little.
One of my other goals this year is to increase my online network--followers, audience, readers, etc. One way will be to update and reorganize my websites somewhat *watch for some new shops and products! as well as the new version of Stellar Garden*, but that alone won't do anything. "Build it and they will come" simply doesn't work for the web. I mean, searching the net is like visiting a city that has one block with billions of houses all on top of each other. I also tried crowd-funding, but that suffers from the same problem as a blog. If no one knows you're there, they can't fund you. So, what to do?
Contests!
Yes, dear friends, contests. "Bribe them and they will come" tends to work better. I will use facebook and twitter to advertise one contest per month--a give-way open to everyone who follows this blog. The prizes will include such wonders as 1-3 Utility Fog Press books, mugs, laptop skins, pictures, T-shirts, all of my own creation. Well, except the other stories in the anthologies, of course. I will be officially announcing the contest details at the end of the month on my twitter feed and on facebook. And I look forward to seein' yo' faces here (thanks Phil!)
Insight and longevity!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Impressions of Novacon 42
'Sup? Back and ready to get going.
Music: La Isla Bonita performed by Alizee
Back late yesterday from Novacon 42. My third Novacon in the five years I've been in England and a relaxing, enjoyable experience.
The Novacons are run by the Birmingham SF group and are held each November in Nottingham. They are small affairs with a single stream of discussions that combine literature, science and, what else?, beer. There's also a deal room and an art show, and a few off-stream events.
As one might expect at a smaller con, Novacon has a bit of a clichy feel to it. Many of the attendees are long time SF con-goers and have known each other for sometime. But that's not to say they aren't friendly, and I had a number of enjoyable discussions over the weekend.
Other than the program, however, my principle focus at Novacon is the art show, which was ably run this year, as with most others, by Serena Culfeather and her husband John. Unlike Eastercon, Novacon is short and sweet, lasting essentially one full day plus bits on either site. The art is shown for one full day with an auction at noon on the Sunday.
I missed Novacon last year, as I was recovering from ACL surgery, but this year I brought a suitcase of stuff down, including canvas prints, framed prints, acrylic pictures, snow globes and a mug with heat-sensitive colouring (when filled with hot water, a picture shows on the outside). While I had hoped some of the acrylic desk pictures might sell (but didn't) I was none-the-less pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the auction, which saw the sale of one canvas (Urban Future: Aliens), one framed picture (Gaia), a snowglobe (Gaia), and the mug (The Devil's in the Details).
The result, after what must have been some interesting bidding, was my best showing since I started selling my art. I understand a big part of that was due to the Ternents, who bought several of my pieces, and I'd like to thank them deeply for their support.
So ends Novacon 42 and it's already time to start planning for next year and Eastercon 64. It's right next door in Bradford, so I have no excuse not to exhibit there. And, as always, I've been inspired to get my online art prescence properly sorted out. Again. But this time I'll do it. Really.
Insight and longevity.
Music: La Isla Bonita performed by Alizee
Back late yesterday from Novacon 42. My third Novacon in the five years I've been in England and a relaxing, enjoyable experience.
The Novacons are run by the Birmingham SF group and are held each November in Nottingham. They are small affairs with a single stream of discussions that combine literature, science and, what else?, beer. There's also a deal room and an art show, and a few off-stream events.
As one might expect at a smaller con, Novacon has a bit of a clichy feel to it. Many of the attendees are long time SF con-goers and have known each other for sometime. But that's not to say they aren't friendly, and I had a number of enjoyable discussions over the weekend.
Other than the program, however, my principle focus at Novacon is the art show, which was ably run this year, as with most others, by Serena Culfeather and her husband John. Unlike Eastercon, Novacon is short and sweet, lasting essentially one full day plus bits on either site. The art is shown for one full day with an auction at noon on the Sunday.
I missed Novacon last year, as I was recovering from ACL surgery, but this year I brought a suitcase of stuff down, including canvas prints, framed prints, acrylic pictures, snow globes and a mug with heat-sensitive colouring (when filled with hot water, a picture shows on the outside). While I had hoped some of the acrylic desk pictures might sell (but didn't) I was none-the-less pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the auction, which saw the sale of one canvas (Urban Future: Aliens), one framed picture (Gaia), a snowglobe (Gaia), and the mug (The Devil's in the Details).
The result, after what must have been some interesting bidding, was my best showing since I started selling my art. I understand a big part of that was due to the Ternents, who bought several of my pieces, and I'd like to thank them deeply for their support.
So ends Novacon 42 and it's already time to start planning for next year and Eastercon 64. It's right next door in Bradford, so I have no excuse not to exhibit there. And, as always, I've been inspired to get my online art prescence properly sorted out. Again. But this time I'll do it. Really.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Novacon Weekend!
'Sup? Packin' and cleanin', packin' and cleanin'
Music: Somebody that I used to Troll - SC2 parody of Gotye's song, by SanchoPandaSC
Just packing for Novacon 42: Don't Panic! Yeah, sci-fi fans are so predictable. It's this weekend at the Park Hill Inn in Nottingham. If you're in the area, drop in and say hi. The guest of honour is Jaine Fenn, whom I did an interview with for Utility Fog Press a few years ago. Wow, time really does fly.
And yet, regarding life and cons, I've found a strange temporal dichotomy in my life. While the days seem shorter and time is passing faster, the space between cons somehow seems longer?! I don't really know what to make of that except, perhaps, that I'm distracted by 'real life' more than I've been in the past, and it's consuming much more of my thoughts.
Anyway, this con is a short one, at only about 2 days, as compared to the four days of Eastercon. I'll have some artwork up as usual, although also as usual, I'll be attending the panel discussions and milling about rather than standing dutifully by my display. I'm trying out a few new products and we'll see how they go over. I also have another couple of art product ideas in the pipeline that I couldn't get ready in time. Hint: T-shirt designs and laptop covers for a few.
I'll likely be getting more serious with my CafePress account for these items, but I'll post a note here when I they're ready.
So for now, just packing, getting the art and laptop ready for travel, cleaning the house so the missus doesn't have to worry about it this weekend. The usual pre-travel checklist. Have a good weekend everyone.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Somebody that I used to Troll - SC2 parody of Gotye's song, by SanchoPandaSC
Just packing for Novacon 42: Don't Panic! Yeah, sci-fi fans are so predictable. It's this weekend at the Park Hill Inn in Nottingham. If you're in the area, drop in and say hi. The guest of honour is Jaine Fenn, whom I did an interview with for Utility Fog Press a few years ago. Wow, time really does fly.
And yet, regarding life and cons, I've found a strange temporal dichotomy in my life. While the days seem shorter and time is passing faster, the space between cons somehow seems longer?! I don't really know what to make of that except, perhaps, that I'm distracted by 'real life' more than I've been in the past, and it's consuming much more of my thoughts.
Anyway, this con is a short one, at only about 2 days, as compared to the four days of Eastercon. I'll have some artwork up as usual, although also as usual, I'll be attending the panel discussions and milling about rather than standing dutifully by my display. I'm trying out a few new products and we'll see how they go over. I also have another couple of art product ideas in the pipeline that I couldn't get ready in time. Hint: T-shirt designs and laptop covers for a few.
I'll likely be getting more serious with my CafePress account for these items, but I'll post a note here when I they're ready.
So for now, just packing, getting the art and laptop ready for travel, cleaning the house so the missus doesn't have to worry about it this weekend. The usual pre-travel checklist. Have a good weekend everyone.
Insight and longevity.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
An Open Letter to Big Biz re:Galactic Economies
'Sup? Packing and stuff
Music: Live to Win by Paul Stanley
Dear Big Biz,
How you doing? Pretty good I think, despite the global economy. Don't worry, I'm not hear to rant, and I'm not here to talk politics or ideologies. I'm here to talk money.
By now there's little doubt that consumerism is where it's at. Not only is it useful for distracting the third estate, but it's also the easiest, and least violent, road to power. Well, generally less violent, but I promised I wouldn't be distracted by politics. But the thing is, while you've amassed power here on Earth, you've surely realized that is peanuts to the kind of wealth and power that resides 'out there'. Yep. I mean in space.
But I know you don't believe me, or you'd already be out there, so here me out.
Yes, many a sci-fi writer has tried, in vain, to convince you that just mining the asteroids itself would be a more worthwhile venture than anything possible on Earth alone. You haven't listened to them, so I don't expect you to listen to me. Instead, I'll appeal to your megalomania.
And let's face it, you all have that in spades. The reason for getting wealthy in the first place may be personal, but sooner or later everyone with power begins to think of building their dynasty. So I'm coming at you from right between your legs. Yep, you're offspring, you're little tykes, you're sperm and eggs that will ensure your immortality in the history books.
So the first thing to realize is that all you've amassed, all you've built could be lost at the drop of a hat. That is,, a mile wide, rocky hat crashing into us from space. Sad isn't it, that one tiny huck of debris could instantly vapourize all your hard work, all your future? And there's one on the way that has better odds of hitting Earth than you do of winning the lottery.
Or maybe some psychologically-challeged genius invents a [enter your worst fear here] and wipes out most/all of the human race. That's also a very real possibility, especially as technology advances and more and more hi-tech reaches the hands of the average person. As likely as not, this could also happen in the current century.
So, reason number one to go into space: survival. To let the dynasty live on. If the eggs are in different baskets, they can't be destroyed by one careless act.
Admittedly, you must have heard that reason and have already made your decision whether or not to believe/worry about it. Most likely you've decided it's all a bunch of hoo-ha, being as I haven't heard of any deep-crust shelters or space arks under construction. So, I've got another reason that will appeal to your patriotic zeal and desire for control. Oh yea, and untold wealth. And as far as we know, it's ours for the taking. What we don't know is how long that will last.
Just think of it. Earth is one tiny planet circling one pretty insignificant star. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across with several hundred-million stars. Circling each star, on average, there are likely to be several planets based on what we've been finding in the last few decades. To date, of course, we know of precisely one intelligent species. Us.
So, assuming that's all there is at the moment, there's no hurry. Except for one thing.
We don't know if we're alone.
There could be numerous intelligent lifeforms in our own galaxy that we simply haven't had time to detect. Consider that SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, has been searching the skies for around 50 years with no success. In real terms, that means they've been able to detect radio waves that were no more than 50 light years away when SETI started. I remind you that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we are 20,000 light years from the closest edge--and therefore, obviously, about 80,000 light years from the other edge.
In other words, we've barely scratched the surface of the search.
Now, it's true that if a space-faring civilization existed 100,000 years ago we could be detecting them. If they haven't died out. Or moved on. Or learned how to hide their transmissions. But it's not unreasonable to think that intelligence takes time to evolve, and thus they may have reached civilization on a time scale very close to ours. Or perhaps even a little bit after us.
So they could be out there, at a similar stage of development to us. Do you really want them to take control of space first? Think what that could mean.
1. Their galactic empire grows first.
2. They take control of unique resources, allowing them to grow further and faster.
3. Their empire dominates the galaxy.
Now, maybe that doesn't sound bad to you. After all, they could be friendly. Everything might work out well... despite numerous examples in human history to the contrary.
But I know you. And I know you would not be happy with this situation. And I know why.
Because you wouldn't control the economy.
Yes, that's right. Whoever gets out there first, whoever gets their empire built first, sets the rules. And that includes the economic rules. Humans would instantly become second-class citizens in the galaxy, having to live in a system created by real aliens--not the kind you pretend to dislike while secretly hiring to avoid paying employee taxes. No, these are honest to goodness, bonafide, don't think like humans, may not particularly like humans, aliens. Only we'd be the ones asking for crap jobs to live in their rich civilization.
So, Big Biz, as I know you're all about controlling power, why aren't you creating space programs, and encouraging research into extraterrestrial colonization. Because if they beat you to it, you'll never regain that lost power.
Best wishes,
Edwin H Rydberg
P.S. Insight and longevity
Music: Live to Win by Paul Stanley
Dear Big Biz,
How you doing? Pretty good I think, despite the global economy. Don't worry, I'm not hear to rant, and I'm not here to talk politics or ideologies. I'm here to talk money.
By now there's little doubt that consumerism is where it's at. Not only is it useful for distracting the third estate, but it's also the easiest, and least violent, road to power. Well, generally less violent, but I promised I wouldn't be distracted by politics. But the thing is, while you've amassed power here on Earth, you've surely realized that is peanuts to the kind of wealth and power that resides 'out there'. Yep. I mean in space.
But I know you don't believe me, or you'd already be out there, so here me out.
Yes, many a sci-fi writer has tried, in vain, to convince you that just mining the asteroids itself would be a more worthwhile venture than anything possible on Earth alone. You haven't listened to them, so I don't expect you to listen to me. Instead, I'll appeal to your megalomania.
And let's face it, you all have that in spades. The reason for getting wealthy in the first place may be personal, but sooner or later everyone with power begins to think of building their dynasty. So I'm coming at you from right between your legs. Yep, you're offspring, you're little tykes, you're sperm and eggs that will ensure your immortality in the history books.
So the first thing to realize is that all you've amassed, all you've built could be lost at the drop of a hat. That is,, a mile wide, rocky hat crashing into us from space. Sad isn't it, that one tiny huck of debris could instantly vapourize all your hard work, all your future? And there's one on the way that has better odds of hitting Earth than you do of winning the lottery.
Or maybe some psychologically-challeged genius invents a [enter your worst fear here] and wipes out most/all of the human race. That's also a very real possibility, especially as technology advances and more and more hi-tech reaches the hands of the average person. As likely as not, this could also happen in the current century.
So, reason number one to go into space: survival. To let the dynasty live on. If the eggs are in different baskets, they can't be destroyed by one careless act.
Admittedly, you must have heard that reason and have already made your decision whether or not to believe/worry about it. Most likely you've decided it's all a bunch of hoo-ha, being as I haven't heard of any deep-crust shelters or space arks under construction. So, I've got another reason that will appeal to your patriotic zeal and desire for control. Oh yea, and untold wealth. And as far as we know, it's ours for the taking. What we don't know is how long that will last.
Just think of it. Earth is one tiny planet circling one pretty insignificant star. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across with several hundred-million stars. Circling each star, on average, there are likely to be several planets based on what we've been finding in the last few decades. To date, of course, we know of precisely one intelligent species. Us.
So, assuming that's all there is at the moment, there's no hurry. Except for one thing.
We don't know if we're alone.
There could be numerous intelligent lifeforms in our own galaxy that we simply haven't had time to detect. Consider that SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, has been searching the skies for around 50 years with no success. In real terms, that means they've been able to detect radio waves that were no more than 50 light years away when SETI started. I remind you that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across and we are 20,000 light years from the closest edge--and therefore, obviously, about 80,000 light years from the other edge.
In other words, we've barely scratched the surface of the search.
Now, it's true that if a space-faring civilization existed 100,000 years ago we could be detecting them. If they haven't died out. Or moved on. Or learned how to hide their transmissions. But it's not unreasonable to think that intelligence takes time to evolve, and thus they may have reached civilization on a time scale very close to ours. Or perhaps even a little bit after us.
So they could be out there, at a similar stage of development to us. Do you really want them to take control of space first? Think what that could mean.
1. Their galactic empire grows first.
2. They take control of unique resources, allowing them to grow further and faster.
3. Their empire dominates the galaxy.
Now, maybe that doesn't sound bad to you. After all, they could be friendly. Everything might work out well... despite numerous examples in human history to the contrary.
But I know you. And I know you would not be happy with this situation. And I know why.
Because you wouldn't control the economy.
Yes, that's right. Whoever gets out there first, whoever gets their empire built first, sets the rules. And that includes the economic rules. Humans would instantly become second-class citizens in the galaxy, having to live in a system created by real aliens--not the kind you pretend to dislike while secretly hiring to avoid paying employee taxes. No, these are honest to goodness, bonafide, don't think like humans, may not particularly like humans, aliens. Only we'd be the ones asking for crap jobs to live in their rich civilization.
So, Big Biz, as I know you're all about controlling power, why aren't you creating space programs, and encouraging research into extraterrestrial colonization. Because if they beat you to it, you'll never regain that lost power.
Best wishes,
Edwin H Rydberg
P.S. Insight and longevity
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Images from the Scrapbook
'Sup? Another rainy, dreary day in Isles
Music: You Should Be Dancing by the Bee Gees
I've been on a bit of a political rampage lately, so I thought I'd get real now and calm things down a little.
I recently found myself looking through backup directories for some images, and found a number of ideas and partially finished drafts that I'll likely not go back to. So I thought I'd share a few here. In some cases I never finished them because of software upgrades. For example, when I went from Daz3D v2 to v3, there were problems reading the files. I've now discovered that the latest update of version 3 seems to have fixed that, so perhaps I will go back to a few (so I won't show those here).
Slow Burn is a fairly early image I did combining models from Daz3D with landscaping and other models from Bryce. It was meant to have a book cover feel set around a story idea I'd had.
I've always liked the way the image turned out, but if I could find the original files, I'd like to remove the shadow under the big ship and possilby make a better divide between the people and ships so that it would more easily fit into a book cover format.
Called 'Tunnel' for lack of a better title, this image was done by playing with primitives and texture/lighting in Bryce. The idea was a tunnel between times or dimensions, the close on being primitive, the distant more advanced. I developed this image further, but thanks for various moves and computer crashes, I can't find any of the other images.
Beach memories and Hellsing were both done primarily in Daz3D as simple model-centric images. Further postprocessing with Gimp made them what they are today.
With Beach Memories I've just played with the photo filter, which adds the specific border and a sepia colour filter to give it that aged-photo look.
Hellsing was a bit boring until I used the radial blur to give the appearance of action. I'm not entire I've used the optimal setting as looking at parts of the image almost give me a headache! Regardless, the blurred version is far more dramatic than the original.
The oval lighting was most easily achieved in Daz3d using a spotlight, although I suppose a similar affect could be achieved with a mask in Gimp.
Mutant Spider Woman. The title kind of says it all. This creation was made around an idea for part of my Gateway story series where one colony of human have landed on a particularly mutagenic planet and changed into spider-like people over several hundred years. There's more to it than that, by why spoil the story for you?
The Daz3D image was created using several Victoria models overlapped and then turning off visualization of all but their legs. I'm quite happy at how the model turned out, but I haven't had call to use it in any further images as of yet. Although now that I've dug it out again, maybe I'll play some more.
Spygirl is another portrait experiment made a rendered entirely in Daz3D. My main interest was in seeing if I could get some dramatic light and shadow. I used a single spotlight and played with the positioning until there was just a bit of back lighting and it worked fairly well. If I was to do this again, I would probably use multiple spotlights with some set not to cast shadow, just to get more control over the model's front.
This was early attempt at an underwater scene in Bryce. I'm quite happy at how the light and colour turned out, although I didn't develop the image any further.
The water effect can essentially be achieved in multiple ways with Bryce. The easiest and cheapes on the renderer is just putting a coloured plane in front of the camera. The other is to use a water-textured volume. I think in this experiment I actually did the latter, which is a very demanding render. I haven't played too much more with water scenes, as my main interests lay elsewhere at the moment, but I still think to return to it again sometime as water pieces do have an attractive, eerie quality to them.
Insight and longevity
Music: You Should Be Dancing by the Bee Gees
I've been on a bit of a political rampage lately, so I thought I'd get real now and calm things down a little.
I recently found myself looking through backup directories for some images, and found a number of ideas and partially finished drafts that I'll likely not go back to. So I thought I'd share a few here. In some cases I never finished them because of software upgrades. For example, when I went from Daz3D v2 to v3, there were problems reading the files. I've now discovered that the latest update of version 3 seems to have fixed that, so perhaps I will go back to a few (so I won't show those here).
 |
| Slow Burn - EHRydberg |
I've always liked the way the image turned out, but if I could find the original files, I'd like to remove the shadow under the big ship and possilby make a better divide between the people and ships so that it would more easily fit into a book cover format.
 |
| Tunnel - EHRydberg |
Called 'Tunnel' for lack of a better title, this image was done by playing with primitives and texture/lighting in Bryce. The idea was a tunnel between times or dimensions, the close on being primitive, the distant more advanced. I developed this image further, but thanks for various moves and computer crashes, I can't find any of the other images.
 |
| Beach Memories - EHRydberg |
 |
| Hellsing - EHRydberg |
Beach memories and Hellsing were both done primarily in Daz3D as simple model-centric images. Further postprocessing with Gimp made them what they are today.
With Beach Memories I've just played with the photo filter, which adds the specific border and a sepia colour filter to give it that aged-photo look.
Hellsing was a bit boring until I used the radial blur to give the appearance of action. I'm not entire I've used the optimal setting as looking at parts of the image almost give me a headache! Regardless, the blurred version is far more dramatic than the original.
The oval lighting was most easily achieved in Daz3d using a spotlight, although I suppose a similar affect could be achieved with a mask in Gimp.
 |
| Mutant Spider Woman - EHRydberg |
Mutant Spider Woman. The title kind of says it all. This creation was made around an idea for part of my Gateway story series where one colony of human have landed on a particularly mutagenic planet and changed into spider-like people over several hundred years. There's more to it than that, by why spoil the story for you?
The Daz3D image was created using several Victoria models overlapped and then turning off visualization of all but their legs. I'm quite happy at how the model turned out, but I haven't had call to use it in any further images as of yet. Although now that I've dug it out again, maybe I'll play some more.
 | |
| Spygirl - EHRydberg |
 |
| Underwater Search - EHRydberg |
This was early attempt at an underwater scene in Bryce. I'm quite happy at how the light and colour turned out, although I didn't develop the image any further.
The water effect can essentially be achieved in multiple ways with Bryce. The easiest and cheapes on the renderer is just putting a coloured plane in front of the camera. The other is to use a water-textured volume. I think in this experiment I actually did the latter, which is a very demanding render. I haven't played too much more with water scenes, as my main interests lay elsewhere at the moment, but I still think to return to it again sometime as water pieces do have an attractive, eerie quality to them.
Insight and longevity
Monday, October 29, 2012
'Persecuted' is an Overused Word in Modern Times
'Sup? Hoping hurricane Sandy loses steam before reaching Canada
Music: Eyes Wide Open by Gotye
These days it seems everyone feel persecuted, even those who have no reason to. Or perhaps the word has just become overused and people have forgotten what it really means. After all, how can someone belonging to a group with over a billion members worldwide, who controls the dominant Western governments, still feel they're being persecuted? Is it because they no longer have the freedom to excercise the bigotted parts of their beliefs?
While there are numerous examples of this in recent times, I'm specifically referring to the following article where a Christian couple who run a B&B refused full and equal service to a gay couple.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/18/bnp-nick-griffin-address-gay-couple
They owners recently lost the court case against them and they are quoted as saying:
"Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration. We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
There are so many things wrong with their statement that's it's hard to begin. So consider this: a hypothetical religion that preaches hatred against some group--say, the elderly. Should its members then be allowed to discriminate because their religion says they can? Of course not. They must still act within the dictates of the society they live it. This is the fundamental reason we have separation of church and state in modern western countries--so that all members of the state are respected by the laws, and not just those people who subscribe to a specific theistic belief system
I do admit to being torn about this story in one regard. It's hard not to feel that businesses should be allowed to deal with whomever they want and live or die by their racist, bigotted views. After all, should people not vote with their wallets? Well, no. Businesses should not be above the law that the rest of us are subject to, nor should they be allowed to set public policy, which is exactly what would happen if they could choose which part of society they sell to.
And make no mistake, despite their claims otherwise, this couple are running a business. I think we all realize that's what a Bed and Breakfast is. So, for many reasons, to allow this couple to cry foul on ground of freedom of religion is ludicrous at best, and harmful to society at its worst.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Eyes Wide Open by Gotye
These days it seems everyone feel persecuted, even those who have no reason to. Or perhaps the word has just become overused and people have forgotten what it really means. After all, how can someone belonging to a group with over a billion members worldwide, who controls the dominant Western governments, still feel they're being persecuted? Is it because they no longer have the freedom to excercise the bigotted parts of their beliefs?
While there are numerous examples of this in recent times, I'm specifically referring to the following article where a Christian couple who run a B&B refused full and equal service to a gay couple.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/18/bnp-nick-griffin-address-gay-couple
They owners recently lost the court case against them and they are quoted as saying:
"Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration. We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
There are so many things wrong with their statement that's it's hard to begin. So consider this: a hypothetical religion that preaches hatred against some group--say, the elderly. Should its members then be allowed to discriminate because their religion says they can? Of course not. They must still act within the dictates of the society they live it. This is the fundamental reason we have separation of church and state in modern western countries--so that all members of the state are respected by the laws, and not just those people who subscribe to a specific theistic belief system
I do admit to being torn about this story in one regard. It's hard not to feel that businesses should be allowed to deal with whomever they want and live or die by their racist, bigotted views. After all, should people not vote with their wallets? Well, no. Businesses should not be above the law that the rest of us are subject to, nor should they be allowed to set public policy, which is exactly what would happen if they could choose which part of society they sell to.
And make no mistake, despite their claims otherwise, this couple are running a business. I think we all realize that's what a Bed and Breakfast is. So, for many reasons, to allow this couple to cry foul on ground of freedom of religion is ludicrous at best, and harmful to society at its worst.
Insight and longevity.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Of Traitors and Religion
'Sup? RSI's galore. Why does this body of mine lock up so fast?
Music: Skyfall by Adele
I had a strange thought today. Hard to put it away, however, especially given my sci-fi bent, so I figured I put it down here.
Eseentially, the question is this:
Could those who worship a God be considered traitors to humanity?
The answer depends on what you deem the nature of God to be and, to a lesser extent, what his/her/its motives are.
For example, if you believe God to be the anthropormorphism of nature then, of course, there is no issue. God is essentially a metaphor and a metaphor can't, in and of itself, harm anyone.
But most people, and especially most church/mosque/synagogue goers, tend to believe God is a real, actual, physical--albeit intangible, invisible--being. They have to, otherwise what purpose is there to frequent a place who's sole existence is for the worship of such a being? And they believe it with their heart despite generally not thinking through the following questions:
Where does God live? What are his affiliations?
As a physical being, the answer in our hearts is not satisfactory as that's essentially another metaphor, like saying Elvis resides in our hearts. A more telling answer is everywhere, so let's think on that.
Everywhere essentially implies the entire universe, or Earth and everywhere else. Although this would be incredibly challenging for any organic being, dependent on the true nature of the universe of course, it could be possible for an immensely old machine. But that's irrelevant. The real issue here is that more of God is out there than is here on Earth, simply by scale and vastness of the universe. That is, there is no reason to consider that God has any particular loyalty or affiliation to Earth.
I am, of course, making the assumption that the bible maybe inspired by, or even written by, God, but there is no reason to believe it is the absolute truth of life and everything [see my last post An Open Letter to Christians].
So, God is not a human, and resides mostly in the wider universe or elsewhere, and we have no evidence to believe that He has put any particular stock in the future well-being of humanity. In fact, even the bible suggests that He has been particularly kind to us in the past. So, whether by track record, or logical extrapolation, we conclude that, at best, God would be indifferent to our plight, and could, given provokation, be hostile.
Why Support/Worship God?
Given that we know very little of His motives, His whereabouts, or even His nature, why do so many humans worship Him?
Some will suggest it's love. Thank you for creating us and everything else and all that. And for some people this is probably true. For many others the answer is fear. The fear of God's wrathful vengeance, the fear of eternal damnation in the afterlife, or the fear that he will wipe out humanity. In other words these people want to be on the winning side when God comes down hard on us.
Think on that for a minute. These people willing side with a foreign power against their own.
Now if, for example, I replace 'humanity' with 'American' and 'God' with 'North Korea' then most people will immediately see that an American siding wth North Korea to bring about the destruction of the US is a traitor to America. So why is it when we see a fundamentalist gleefully proseletizing about God wiping out humanity, we just grin and ignore it? Well, my own view is that most people, religious or otherwise, don't really believe in God as an actual being, they just think they do. But that's for another post.
Traitors then?
So I propose that, in many cases, religious fundamentalists could easily be considered traitors to humanity. Of course, following that reasoning, those who love and worship God to court His favour would be considered patriots, with the following caveat. A superior power may rule for a time, and courting favour for survival is a fine and useful end when necessary, but it does a great disservice to your species if you begin to believe the rhetoric and forget that you too can achieve great things.
Also please remember that this has just been a thought experiment. I find it interesting to follow to conclusion some of these ideas and who knows, they may find their way into a future novel. But for now...
Insight and longevity.
Music: Skyfall by Adele
I had a strange thought today. Hard to put it away, however, especially given my sci-fi bent, so I figured I put it down here.
Eseentially, the question is this:
Could those who worship a God be considered traitors to humanity?
The answer depends on what you deem the nature of God to be and, to a lesser extent, what his/her/its motives are.
For example, if you believe God to be the anthropormorphism of nature then, of course, there is no issue. God is essentially a metaphor and a metaphor can't, in and of itself, harm anyone.
But most people, and especially most church/mosque/synagogue goers, tend to believe God is a real, actual, physical--albeit intangible, invisible--being. They have to, otherwise what purpose is there to frequent a place who's sole existence is for the worship of such a being? And they believe it with their heart despite generally not thinking through the following questions:
Where does God live? What are his affiliations?
As a physical being, the answer in our hearts is not satisfactory as that's essentially another metaphor, like saying Elvis resides in our hearts. A more telling answer is everywhere, so let's think on that.
Everywhere essentially implies the entire universe, or Earth and everywhere else. Although this would be incredibly challenging for any organic being, dependent on the true nature of the universe of course, it could be possible for an immensely old machine. But that's irrelevant. The real issue here is that more of God is out there than is here on Earth, simply by scale and vastness of the universe. That is, there is no reason to consider that God has any particular loyalty or affiliation to Earth.
I am, of course, making the assumption that the bible maybe inspired by, or even written by, God, but there is no reason to believe it is the absolute truth of life and everything [see my last post An Open Letter to Christians].
So, God is not a human, and resides mostly in the wider universe or elsewhere, and we have no evidence to believe that He has put any particular stock in the future well-being of humanity. In fact, even the bible suggests that He has been particularly kind to us in the past. So, whether by track record, or logical extrapolation, we conclude that, at best, God would be indifferent to our plight, and could, given provokation, be hostile.
Why Support/Worship God?
Given that we know very little of His motives, His whereabouts, or even His nature, why do so many humans worship Him?
Some will suggest it's love. Thank you for creating us and everything else and all that. And for some people this is probably true. For many others the answer is fear. The fear of God's wrathful vengeance, the fear of eternal damnation in the afterlife, or the fear that he will wipe out humanity. In other words these people want to be on the winning side when God comes down hard on us.
Think on that for a minute. These people willing side with a foreign power against their own.
Now if, for example, I replace 'humanity' with 'American' and 'God' with 'North Korea' then most people will immediately see that an American siding wth North Korea to bring about the destruction of the US is a traitor to America. So why is it when we see a fundamentalist gleefully proseletizing about God wiping out humanity, we just grin and ignore it? Well, my own view is that most people, religious or otherwise, don't really believe in God as an actual being, they just think they do. But that's for another post.
Traitors then?
So I propose that, in many cases, religious fundamentalists could easily be considered traitors to humanity. Of course, following that reasoning, those who love and worship God to court His favour would be considered patriots, with the following caveat. A superior power may rule for a time, and courting favour for survival is a fine and useful end when necessary, but it does a great disservice to your species if you begin to believe the rhetoric and forget that you too can achieve great things.
Also please remember that this has just been a thought experiment. I find it interesting to follow to conclusion some of these ideas and who knows, they may find their way into a future novel. But for now...
Insight and longevity.
Friday, October 12, 2012
An open letter to Christians
'Sup? Late again.
Music: Son of Sam by Shinedown
First off, this is not a rant.
And I'm not dissing Christianity or any other religion.
I'm also not trying to convert anyone to anything. Nor am I going to present you with numerous scientific facts to contradict the bible or any other religious text. Those are games for university kids and I've had enough of those discussions to know that faith can't be swayed by such things.
Instead, I only propose a few family-oriented questions/thoughts to ponder--after all, we're all in the family of God, are we not? These are mostly aimed at fundamentalists, those who take the bible as literal truth and who think we should spend our entire existence in worship, although all are welcome to read and think on them.
On Eternal Servitude and Leaving the Earthly Nest:
Do you think God, as a parent, would want us to remain forever in His home, always kowtowing, running to Him whenever there's a storm, or would He want us to grow up sometime, moving out into the universe on our own and eventually speaking to Him as equals?
Which would you want for your own children? Personally I would hope that I've done a good enough job raising my daughter that she's capable of, and not afraid to, go out into the world on her own.
The Bible Literally. Are You Sure It's the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth?
If we were as children to God, then would it be realistic for Him to reveal all truths in the bible if He didn't think we were ready to understand?
People of the biblical era had no way of comprehending even the basics of what we now take for granted, how could they possibly understand fundamental truths of the universe. Do you, as a parent, teach your children everything you know, as you now understand it? Of course not, they wouldn't understand without greater knowledge and experience. Instead, you teach them partial truths, or stories that describe the general idea of the truth, but aren't necessarily true themselves. Believing the literal truth of the bible is like growing up never realizing that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real.
My child, for example, watches the kids' show Octonauts. It features a group of intelligent animals that speak to each other and learn about/help other sea creatures. It's a fun show that teaches her something about the ocean and its animals. But of course as she grows older she's realized that it's not real, that animals don't actually talk like that. So the show serves a valuable purpose, and teaches useful lessons, without being the literal truth.
That's all. For me, those two considerations, using our own family experiences, are enough to strongly suggest that even if the bible is written by God, it in no way need embody the literal truth of the world or creation. Moreover, I see no reason that a loving God would want us to worship Him forever, and not venture out into the universe to make our own way, possible meeting Him as equals at some point.
Insight and longevity.
Music: Son of Sam by Shinedown
First off, this is not a rant.
And I'm not dissing Christianity or any other religion.
I'm also not trying to convert anyone to anything. Nor am I going to present you with numerous scientific facts to contradict the bible or any other religious text. Those are games for university kids and I've had enough of those discussions to know that faith can't be swayed by such things.
Instead, I only propose a few family-oriented questions/thoughts to ponder--after all, we're all in the family of God, are we not? These are mostly aimed at fundamentalists, those who take the bible as literal truth and who think we should spend our entire existence in worship, although all are welcome to read and think on them.
On Eternal Servitude and Leaving the Earthly Nest:
Do you think God, as a parent, would want us to remain forever in His home, always kowtowing, running to Him whenever there's a storm, or would He want us to grow up sometime, moving out into the universe on our own and eventually speaking to Him as equals?
Which would you want for your own children? Personally I would hope that I've done a good enough job raising my daughter that she's capable of, and not afraid to, go out into the world on her own.
The Bible Literally. Are You Sure It's the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth?
If we were as children to God, then would it be realistic for Him to reveal all truths in the bible if He didn't think we were ready to understand?
People of the biblical era had no way of comprehending even the basics of what we now take for granted, how could they possibly understand fundamental truths of the universe. Do you, as a parent, teach your children everything you know, as you now understand it? Of course not, they wouldn't understand without greater knowledge and experience. Instead, you teach them partial truths, or stories that describe the general idea of the truth, but aren't necessarily true themselves. Believing the literal truth of the bible is like growing up never realizing that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real.
My child, for example, watches the kids' show Octonauts. It features a group of intelligent animals that speak to each other and learn about/help other sea creatures. It's a fun show that teaches her something about the ocean and its animals. But of course as she grows older she's realized that it's not real, that animals don't actually talk like that. So the show serves a valuable purpose, and teaches useful lessons, without being the literal truth.
That's all. For me, those two considerations, using our own family experiences, are enough to strongly suggest that even if the bible is written by God, it in no way need embody the literal truth of the world or creation. Moreover, I see no reason that a loving God would want us to worship Him forever, and not venture out into the universe to make our own way, possible meeting Him as equals at some point.
Insight and longevity.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Warning: Tongue in Cheek Reviewers on Amazon
'Sup? Just caught a cold from the little one. My throat is on fire :(
Playing on My Life's Soundtrack: Major by The Asteroids Galaxy Tour
Okay, so in the world of the internet it's a well-known rule that you can't take everything you read at face value. At least it should be (and it should be the first question on any future tests for licensing internet users). But I have the sneaking suspicion that most people don't follow that rule much when it comes to product review sites.
When visiting, for example, Amazon, all but the newest products have consumer ratings, presumably by people who have used the product. They are there to gauge customer satisfaction and to allow the potential buyer to guage what the product might be like without actually seeing it in the real. There are some interesting and often useful comments for most products. If I'm looking to buy something off Amazon I'll often read a selection of the 5star, 3star and 1star reviews to get a well-rounded feel for the product. But how often do we just look at the star rating and say 'oh, 4.5 stars, that must be pretty good?', and go no further. Or we see that the 5stars heavily outweight the other ratings so figure it must be good? Often, I suspect.
But are all the reviews real?
Those of you who know me, know I'm a bit of a gamer. Specifically, I enjoy Starcraft II, action-RPGs and MMOs. I also enjoy watching some of the popular gaming channels on Youtube. Today, I was checking out Jeff (MaximusBlack) of the Canadian duo LifesaglitchTV (LAGTV) as he played through a Street Cleaning simulator (yes, that's correct) developed by Astragon and published by Excalibur Publishing. Here's the video if you're interested (warning, some bad language).
I've shown you this video primarily so you can get an idea for yourselves of what the game is like (I also think its very funny, but that could be me). Jeff mentioned that he paid $40CAD for this and I was so surprised I had to check it out.
Now, for anyone looking forward to playing this, it is actually available on Amazon for under £10. But what immediately struck me was the high star ratings for the game. Out of 27 reviews, there were twenty-four 5 stars. Yes, 24! Either there was something greatly missing from Jeff's video, or there was something weird going on with the reviews.
You may have guessed, it was the latter.
Some of the shorter reviews read like the following:
I, personally, don't mind this. I think it's a very creative response by the gamer community. However, it's important to be aware that this exists and that not all reviews and ratings are realistic. Clearly, in the case of this game, unsuspecting parents could buy this game for Christmas and be very incredulous when their kid trades it to a 4-year old for a bag of M&Ms.
So consider yourself warned. Caveat emptor (but this time not from the sellers).
Incidentally, if you are actually interested in this type of game, Astragon has released over a dozen other simulators, ranging from Garden Simulator, Bus Simulator 2, and Pro Fishing, to Surgery Simulator. Have Fun!
Insight and longevity.
Playing on My Life's Soundtrack: Major by The Asteroids Galaxy Tour
Okay, so in the world of the internet it's a well-known rule that you can't take everything you read at face value. At least it should be (and it should be the first question on any future tests for licensing internet users). But I have the sneaking suspicion that most people don't follow that rule much when it comes to product review sites.
When visiting, for example, Amazon, all but the newest products have consumer ratings, presumably by people who have used the product. They are there to gauge customer satisfaction and to allow the potential buyer to guage what the product might be like without actually seeing it in the real. There are some interesting and often useful comments for most products. If I'm looking to buy something off Amazon I'll often read a selection of the 5star, 3star and 1star reviews to get a well-rounded feel for the product. But how often do we just look at the star rating and say 'oh, 4.5 stars, that must be pretty good?', and go no further. Or we see that the 5stars heavily outweight the other ratings so figure it must be good? Often, I suspect.
But are all the reviews real?
Those of you who know me, know I'm a bit of a gamer. Specifically, I enjoy Starcraft II, action-RPGs and MMOs. I also enjoy watching some of the popular gaming channels on Youtube. Today, I was checking out Jeff (MaximusBlack) of the Canadian duo LifesaglitchTV (LAGTV) as he played through a Street Cleaning simulator (yes, that's correct) developed by Astragon and published by Excalibur Publishing. Here's the video if you're interested (warning, some bad language).
I've shown you this video primarily so you can get an idea for yourselves of what the game is like (I also think its very funny, but that could be me). Jeff mentioned that he paid $40CAD for this and I was so surprised I had to check it out.
Now, for anyone looking forward to playing this, it is actually available on Amazon for under £10. But what immediately struck me was the high star ratings for the game. Out of 27 reviews, there were twenty-four 5 stars. Yes, 24! Either there was something greatly missing from Jeff's video, or there was something weird going on with the reviews.
You may have guessed, it was the latter.
Some of the shorter reviews read like the following:
Whackaday!
Don't buy this if you want to have a life for the next three weeks. The most addictive game on the market BAR NONE. Don't want to give too much away as the plot is scintillating from start to finish. At times, I forgot what was reality and what was simulator.
Mr. J. Proudfoot
I enjoyed this a lot, a great way to pass the time while I waited for my operation. I think games like this should be taken more seriously. Very good fun, my only concern was that they did not include Mercedes Benz Econic 1823LL CRC which is my favourite garbage truck.
D.C.Brown
This is certainly one of the most intense games I have played in quite a while. Not since my ZX81 and "text" adventures have I had so much fun. A mate of mine insists that "Bass Fishing" is better, I disagree ,the man is an idiot. My only small criticism is the lack of strategy guide, I would gladly pay £30+ if one is ever published. Although at least there is Wiki [...]All of these gave 5-star ratings and are quite clearly tongue in cheek reviews. In fact, the gamer community has reacted with so much sarcasm that there is now a video extolling the 'wonders' of the game (btw it came to gamers' attention when it receive a very rare 'abysmal' rating from Gamespot).
I, personally, don't mind this. I think it's a very creative response by the gamer community. However, it's important to be aware that this exists and that not all reviews and ratings are realistic. Clearly, in the case of this game, unsuspecting parents could buy this game for Christmas and be very incredulous when their kid trades it to a 4-year old for a bag of M&Ms.
So consider yourself warned. Caveat emptor (but this time not from the sellers).
Incidentally, if you are actually interested in this type of game, Astragon has released over a dozen other simulators, ranging from Garden Simulator, Bus Simulator 2, and Pro Fishing, to Surgery Simulator. Have Fun!
Insight and longevity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)