Monday, January 10, 2011
Collaborative Doodling
Last week Kai got out the graph paper and starting working on a new design. I decided to scan it and add some of my own modifications...
Feeling Crafty and Ambitious
Welcome to 2011! Between slow business at my job, a raging case of insomnia, flaring seasonal tempers of those around me, and a few explosive board-member crises, December was an interesting month that tried my detachment skills. Why did 2010 get so cranky at the end? Nonetheless, I still had a quiet, peaceful, drama-free holiday, and even though the insomnia and meager earnings are continuing into January, I like the way this year is taking off. I feel inspired again, my head swimming with ideas for new projects. I'm eager to learn, ready to create, and tired of excuses, and I'll be sharing all my creative adventures here. I'm actually giddy with excitement! Stay tuned!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
My First Adventure into Lesbian Literature
A Review of Jane Fletcher's Shadow of the Knife
I'm not entirely sure what made me pick up this book in the first place. If memory serves me right, it was during my initiation into online dating a few years ago, when I was emailing one of numerous potential dates and complaining that I didn't know of any good fiction with lesbian protagonists. The woman heartily recommended Shadow of the Knife. To make sure I didn't forget the title, I put it on my Amazon wishlist, and a year later I ended up owning it.
I started reading Shadow early 2010, and after putting it down for several long spells, I finally managed to finish it in the beginning of December. So, in theory, I feel like this is a book I should like. There are lesbian protagonists and antagonists, action, murders, a bit of suspense, some romance, believable characters. With regard to the plot, the book is technically correct, all of the story elements fleshed out appropriately. The climax was pretty intense, and the book didn't end happily ever after. Those are all points in the book's favor, so why did I still feel so disinterested about the story in general?
**spoiler alert**
One of the immediate things you notice about the world Fletcher has created is that all the characters in this land are female. Not just female, but lesbian. Interesting. Okay, I figured, I'll play along provided you eventually explain this odd phenomenon later. And that became one of my major expectations. Women can't reproduce naturally by themselves, so it was difficult for me to suspend my disbelief and be comfortable with the fact that there are no men, and reproduction involves some type of outside intervention. Maybe this is explained in one of Fletcher's other books, for even though Shadow is marked Book 1 of the Celaeno Series and comes first on the timeline, it's not the first book published in the series, making it more of a prequel. Nonetheless, it's one of the only things I wish she could've resolved, and it doesn't get addressed.
The main conflict of the story -- stolen sheep and the murder of minor characters I don't care about -- never grabbed me that much. I even had a hard time caring a lot about the protagonist, Militia rookie Ellen Mittal. So for some reason I just couldn't get as interested in her life and drama as I should have been. I felt lukewarm about her attraction to Hal, and I had a strong suspicion right from the beginning that Hal wasn't who she claimed to be, thereby making any flirtatious scenes between the two of them a little boring and inconsequential. The sexy bits were nice, and eventually we learn that Hal does have true feelings for Ellen, despite her initial deceptions . . . but it wasn't enough to save the book overall. Things picked up a little in the end, and as twisted as this may sound, I got more interested during the torture scenes. Probably because this was the first time it felt like Ellen was in true danger, that she might not survive, and all the while Hal's betrayal was tormenting her mind.
On the writing itself: it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great, either. It's hard to put my finger on what would improve the prose, since like I said, the book is technically correct, but it seems to be missing that extra spark. Ultimately, for my own experience, I'd give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. But I also have to acknowledge that part of the reason why I didn't enjoy this book is because it wasn't quite the book I wanted to read, and to some degree I can't fault the author for that.
I'm not entirely sure what made me pick up this book in the first place. If memory serves me right, it was during my initiation into online dating a few years ago, when I was emailing one of numerous potential dates and complaining that I didn't know of any good fiction with lesbian protagonists. The woman heartily recommended Shadow of the Knife. To make sure I didn't forget the title, I put it on my Amazon wishlist, and a year later I ended up owning it.
I started reading Shadow early 2010, and after putting it down for several long spells, I finally managed to finish it in the beginning of December. So, in theory, I feel like this is a book I should like. There are lesbian protagonists and antagonists, action, murders, a bit of suspense, some romance, believable characters. With regard to the plot, the book is technically correct, all of the story elements fleshed out appropriately. The climax was pretty intense, and the book didn't end happily ever after. Those are all points in the book's favor, so why did I still feel so disinterested about the story in general?
**spoiler alert**
One of the immediate things you notice about the world Fletcher has created is that all the characters in this land are female. Not just female, but lesbian. Interesting. Okay, I figured, I'll play along provided you eventually explain this odd phenomenon later. And that became one of my major expectations. Women can't reproduce naturally by themselves, so it was difficult for me to suspend my disbelief and be comfortable with the fact that there are no men, and reproduction involves some type of outside intervention. Maybe this is explained in one of Fletcher's other books, for even though Shadow is marked Book 1 of the Celaeno Series and comes first on the timeline, it's not the first book published in the series, making it more of a prequel. Nonetheless, it's one of the only things I wish she could've resolved, and it doesn't get addressed.
The main conflict of the story -- stolen sheep and the murder of minor characters I don't care about -- never grabbed me that much. I even had a hard time caring a lot about the protagonist, Militia rookie Ellen Mittal. So for some reason I just couldn't get as interested in her life and drama as I should have been. I felt lukewarm about her attraction to Hal, and I had a strong suspicion right from the beginning that Hal wasn't who she claimed to be, thereby making any flirtatious scenes between the two of them a little boring and inconsequential. The sexy bits were nice, and eventually we learn that Hal does have true feelings for Ellen, despite her initial deceptions . . . but it wasn't enough to save the book overall. Things picked up a little in the end, and as twisted as this may sound, I got more interested during the torture scenes. Probably because this was the first time it felt like Ellen was in true danger, that she might not survive, and all the while Hal's betrayal was tormenting her mind.
On the writing itself: it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great, either. It's hard to put my finger on what would improve the prose, since like I said, the book is technically correct, but it seems to be missing that extra spark. Ultimately, for my own experience, I'd give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. But I also have to acknowledge that part of the reason why I didn't enjoy this book is because it wasn't quite the book I wanted to read, and to some degree I can't fault the author for that.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
A New Wave of Piracy
Haven't had much time for blogging lately, but two weeks ago I did write a guest post for Greenleaf Literary Services about my thoughts on ebook piracy.
As I follow the increasingly digital trends of the book publishing world, I can't say I'm thrilled about the rising popularity of ebooks (I'll save that rant for a later post). But regardless of how we may feel about it, the industry is changing. The digitalization of books has brought with it a new wave of piracy, and in this post I discuss the problem, how it's being handled, and why we should (and shouldn't) be concerned.
What are your thoughts? Do we have something to learn from the music industry? Or is that a different plate of spaghetti altogether?
As I follow the increasingly digital trends of the book publishing world, I can't say I'm thrilled about the rising popularity of ebooks (I'll save that rant for a later post). But regardless of how we may feel about it, the industry is changing. The digitalization of books has brought with it a new wave of piracy, and in this post I discuss the problem, how it's being handled, and why we should (and shouldn't) be concerned.
What are your thoughts? Do we have something to learn from the music industry? Or is that a different plate of spaghetti altogether?
Friday, November 19, 2010
My Little Beef with NaNoWriMo
I know I'm going to get some flak for this, but every November I get this nagging urge to share my thoughts on NaNoWriMo -- National Novel Writing Month. My intent is not to sound snobbish or superior; I'm not a published novelist, so I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I am, however, an editor and a lifelong literary enthusiast, and there's just something a little disquieting about the NaNoWriMo hype that I'd like to work through here.
In case you're unfamiliar, the premise of NaNoWriMo is that participants set out with the personal goal of writing an entire 50,000-word novel in one month. The focus is to get yourself to write as much as possible and not limit yourself with the burdens of tweaking and editing and over-thinking the story elements. As their website points out, "Make no mistake: You will be writing a lot of crap. And that's a good thing. By forcing yourself to write so intensely, you are giving yourself permission to make mistakes." By midnight on November 30, you might end up with a publishable novel, or you might end up with a messy stream of consciousness, or something in between. The point is that you set a goal, you wrote your heart out with unrestricted passion, you participated in a huge event with thousands of other writers, you (hopefully) had fun, and you crossed the 50,000-word finish line with a complete novel.
At first glance this seems like a great idea. Why not? Free writing is an important exercise in an aspiring author's life. Even if your goal isn't to become a published novelist, it's still a fun event, right? Sometimes we over-analyze and over-plan a creative project so much that we stagnate, paralyzed by our relentless second-guessing. Sometimes we absolutely need to give ourselves permission to make mistakes in order to unfreeze our minds and let the creative juices flow. And when we're embarking on a journey to release these restraints and let the words pour out of us unhindered, it helps to know that we're not alone, that others are taking the same challenge. We find the motivation to write, no excuses. I don't have a problem with this.
. . . Well, not really. I'm talking about free-writing exercises, and that's not exactly what this event is about. NaNoWriMo entails cranking out a complete novel in 30 days. That's where I start to feel uncomfortable with the idea, and I have a harder time getting behind it. We're placing the value on quantity, not quality. Word count is the only standard we're using to determine success in this month-long endeavor.
Let me give you a little background. I've been editing manuscripts for the last five years. When I first started this job, I was a bit of an idealist. When I came across a manuscript that needed far more help than a mere edit, when a complete overhaul of the writing and the plot would be necessary to even make sense of the story, in my mind I tried to give the author a pat on the back for at least putting in all the time and effort to type out a few hundred pages of manuscript. I desperately wanted to find something positive about the story, and at least I could give them credit for that much: time and effort, and the courage to send it out into the world.
However, after years of evaluating and editing manuscripts, I have a more difficult time giving out credit for merely typing a story. Trust me, I want to say that it's a big accomplishment, but it's gotten harder to do so. Please realize that I'm not trying to pick on first-time writers; there almost always is something redeeming to find about a person's story (and the fact that they're contacting an editor means they're interested in improving their writing skills, so that's redeeming in itself). However, I can no longer look at a book's page count alone and call it a special accomplishment.
Technology plays an undeniable part of this. Word processors make it damn easy to sit down and crank out text. Hey, it's just a fact. In addition, most of our research is simply a Google query away. Let me emphasize that I don't think software is a bad thing . . . but it does make a word-count goal considerably easier to achieve. And with the changing book publishing industry, where e-books and self-publishing are becoming more and more popular, getting from idea to print (or e-print) is deceivingly simple.
Therefore, how does writing a novel in one month really improve your skills as a writer? I feel like this event is the first necessary step that gets writers in the habit of writing every day -- I will praise it for that. But my concern is that not nearly enough attention is being given to the critical stage of revision. To me, that's the part where you transform your writing into something extraordinary. It worries me when your ultimate goal is word count, and every day you're obsessively monitoring that number without giving thought to your novel's quality. I believe there's a valid concern here that people will have a false sense of accomplishment (and entitlement) once that counter reaches 50,000. No doubt that some authors are capable of cranking out a best-selling novel in one month, but the vast majority of new writers need to do significantly more work than simply typing out the words in such a short period of time. It's undeniable that too many people prematurely believe they're at the novel-writing finish line when really the work is just beginning. And I'd imagine the revision stage is possibly even more difficult, since in-progress planning and adjustments are discarded in favor of meeting the deadline. When the goal is quantity, a writer is in danger of believing that publication is right around the corner.
To reiterate, I applaud the free-writing aspect of this undertaking. But I believe the emphasis is misguided, disillusioning many of its participants into thinking they're Authors when there's more work to be done. In my line of work, I see so many people who think their novels are just a proofread away from the printing presses, when in reality they need help with plot, characterization, viewpoint, suspense, etc. Unfortunately, NaNoWriMo only seems to encourage the mentality that word count makes a novel.
In case you're unfamiliar, the premise of NaNoWriMo is that participants set out with the personal goal of writing an entire 50,000-word novel in one month. The focus is to get yourself to write as much as possible and not limit yourself with the burdens of tweaking and editing and over-thinking the story elements. As their website points out, "Make no mistake: You will be writing a lot of crap. And that's a good thing. By forcing yourself to write so intensely, you are giving yourself permission to make mistakes." By midnight on November 30, you might end up with a publishable novel, or you might end up with a messy stream of consciousness, or something in between. The point is that you set a goal, you wrote your heart out with unrestricted passion, you participated in a huge event with thousands of other writers, you (hopefully) had fun, and you crossed the 50,000-word finish line with a complete novel.
At first glance this seems like a great idea. Why not? Free writing is an important exercise in an aspiring author's life. Even if your goal isn't to become a published novelist, it's still a fun event, right? Sometimes we over-analyze and over-plan a creative project so much that we stagnate, paralyzed by our relentless second-guessing. Sometimes we absolutely need to give ourselves permission to make mistakes in order to unfreeze our minds and let the creative juices flow. And when we're embarking on a journey to release these restraints and let the words pour out of us unhindered, it helps to know that we're not alone, that others are taking the same challenge. We find the motivation to write, no excuses. I don't have a problem with this.
. . . Well, not really. I'm talking about free-writing exercises, and that's not exactly what this event is about. NaNoWriMo entails cranking out a complete novel in 30 days. That's where I start to feel uncomfortable with the idea, and I have a harder time getting behind it. We're placing the value on quantity, not quality. Word count is the only standard we're using to determine success in this month-long endeavor.
Let me give you a little background. I've been editing manuscripts for the last five years. When I first started this job, I was a bit of an idealist. When I came across a manuscript that needed far more help than a mere edit, when a complete overhaul of the writing and the plot would be necessary to even make sense of the story, in my mind I tried to give the author a pat on the back for at least putting in all the time and effort to type out a few hundred pages of manuscript. I desperately wanted to find something positive about the story, and at least I could give them credit for that much: time and effort, and the courage to send it out into the world.
However, after years of evaluating and editing manuscripts, I have a more difficult time giving out credit for merely typing a story. Trust me, I want to say that it's a big accomplishment, but it's gotten harder to do so. Please realize that I'm not trying to pick on first-time writers; there almost always is something redeeming to find about a person's story (and the fact that they're contacting an editor means they're interested in improving their writing skills, so that's redeeming in itself). However, I can no longer look at a book's page count alone and call it a special accomplishment.
Technology plays an undeniable part of this. Word processors make it damn easy to sit down and crank out text. Hey, it's just a fact. In addition, most of our research is simply a Google query away. Let me emphasize that I don't think software is a bad thing . . . but it does make a word-count goal considerably easier to achieve. And with the changing book publishing industry, where e-books and self-publishing are becoming more and more popular, getting from idea to print (or e-print) is deceivingly simple.
Therefore, how does writing a novel in one month really improve your skills as a writer? I feel like this event is the first necessary step that gets writers in the habit of writing every day -- I will praise it for that. But my concern is that not nearly enough attention is being given to the critical stage of revision. To me, that's the part where you transform your writing into something extraordinary. It worries me when your ultimate goal is word count, and every day you're obsessively monitoring that number without giving thought to your novel's quality. I believe there's a valid concern here that people will have a false sense of accomplishment (and entitlement) once that counter reaches 50,000. No doubt that some authors are capable of cranking out a best-selling novel in one month, but the vast majority of new writers need to do significantly more work than simply typing out the words in such a short period of time. It's undeniable that too many people prematurely believe they're at the novel-writing finish line when really the work is just beginning. And I'd imagine the revision stage is possibly even more difficult, since in-progress planning and adjustments are discarded in favor of meeting the deadline. When the goal is quantity, a writer is in danger of believing that publication is right around the corner.
To reiterate, I applaud the free-writing aspect of this undertaking. But I believe the emphasis is misguided, disillusioning many of its participants into thinking they're Authors when there's more work to be done. In my line of work, I see so many people who think their novels are just a proofread away from the printing presses, when in reality they need help with plot, characterization, viewpoint, suspense, etc. Unfortunately, NaNoWriMo only seems to encourage the mentality that word count makes a novel.
Friday, November 5, 2010
4 out of 4!
SCAN TV, Seattle's Community Access Network, just had their awards ceremony tonight, and Ask an Atheist was nominated for four awards. And I'm so proud to announce, the show won all four: "Favorite New Program," "Favorite Local Show," "Favorite Studio or Live Production," and my absolute favorite, "Best Religious Program!"
Great job, everybody. You've all done very well!
Great job, everybody. You've all done very well!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Beast Is Dead
That is, my trusty (in retrospect, not so trusty) ginormous laptop bit the dust yesterday. No sputtering, no groaning or coughing or BSODs -- just a rather surprising shutdown while I was in the middle of proofreading a paper. At least it didn't suffer long? :\The good news is that my data is intact, and a friend will likely be able to hook me up with a cheap laptop and all the software I lost. But I'm still mourning the loss of my bulky yet hardcore machine (complete with a wide screen and enough space for a full keyboard). That laptop was supposed to outlive my now five-year-old desktop, but it couldn't even make it to two and a half years. Disappointing.
Not nearly as disappointing as the elections outcome, but I can't even think about that right now. Seriously, I just can't.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Progressives and the System
Yes, it's Election Day, and before I even go into my little rant, let me stop and plea: Vote, if you haven't already. Please . . . just vote. You have a problem with "the system"? Could you just humor me for today, and we'll talk about it when you get back?
Did you do it? Well, chances are, if you haven't done it by now, nothing's going to convince you otherwise. But I still have to try.
In the days leading up the election, there's been a fascinating discussion taking place on one of the atheist email lists. Someone was taking a step outside the discussion about who or what to vote for and actually arguing that we do not have the authority to vote on what rights a person should have, using gay marriage as an example. Even though he was in favor of allowing any consensual couple to marry, he objected to the system that allows him to decide upon the rights that all human beings should have in the first place. For him, no one on the list can satisfactorily answer where this "right" comes from, and that the majority is simply imposing its will on the minority. Therefore, he chooses to abstain from elections.
My purpose isn't to pick on this one guy, but I know there are others like him. I commend his intellect and thoughtfulness, and I even agree with his points to a certain extent. It does seem wrong that we should be voting on other people's rights. What authority do we have to make such a decision? This system is rife with problems, and from that point of view, you could argue that not voting is voting.
Um . . . but this is the system we have, as unfair and disillusioned as it might be. Yes, you could say that by giving in and voting, when we have ethical issues with the very notion of voting, we're just perpetuating a broken set of rules, and no fundamental changes are going to take hold. I get that. But if we could take a step outside of that bubble, which I believe brings us back to our sorry reality, I'll get to my main point: Many liberals -- educated, progressive, caring folks -- are philosophizing too damn much! I hate to say that, because I crave to have my ideas challenged, to raise my level of consciousness, to encourage rational and thoughtful debate. But when it gets to the point that people are actually abstaining from voting, I need to remove my head from the philosophical haze and remember reality and the bigger picture.
The truth is, the fundamentalists, the tea-partiers, the conservatives, etc., are not sitting around intellectualizing about the voting system itself. Frankly, I don't see that ever happening. So when you choose to abstain -- regardless of your righteous reasons -- the reality is that you're not making a statement about the problems inherent with the system; you're just helping them win. Yes, I'm taking a lesser-of-two-evils position on this, but I think it's necessary. For the time being, I say we need to work with the system we have, and slowly improve it with the tools available to us. That means voting.
So please, please, please, vote. It frustrates me beyond belief when I hear about someone -- who holds the same ideals for progress and bettering this country that I do -- choosing not to vote. You're not doing us any favors. Please. Vote. Now.
Did you do it? Well, chances are, if you haven't done it by now, nothing's going to convince you otherwise. But I still have to try.
In the days leading up the election, there's been a fascinating discussion taking place on one of the atheist email lists. Someone was taking a step outside the discussion about who or what to vote for and actually arguing that we do not have the authority to vote on what rights a person should have, using gay marriage as an example. Even though he was in favor of allowing any consensual couple to marry, he objected to the system that allows him to decide upon the rights that all human beings should have in the first place. For him, no one on the list can satisfactorily answer where this "right" comes from, and that the majority is simply imposing its will on the minority. Therefore, he chooses to abstain from elections.
My purpose isn't to pick on this one guy, but I know there are others like him. I commend his intellect and thoughtfulness, and I even agree with his points to a certain extent. It does seem wrong that we should be voting on other people's rights. What authority do we have to make such a decision? This system is rife with problems, and from that point of view, you could argue that not voting is voting.
Um . . . but this is the system we have, as unfair and disillusioned as it might be. Yes, you could say that by giving in and voting, when we have ethical issues with the very notion of voting, we're just perpetuating a broken set of rules, and no fundamental changes are going to take hold. I get that. But if we could take a step outside of that bubble, which I believe brings us back to our sorry reality, I'll get to my main point: Many liberals -- educated, progressive, caring folks -- are philosophizing too damn much! I hate to say that, because I crave to have my ideas challenged, to raise my level of consciousness, to encourage rational and thoughtful debate. But when it gets to the point that people are actually abstaining from voting, I need to remove my head from the philosophical haze and remember reality and the bigger picture.
The truth is, the fundamentalists, the tea-partiers, the conservatives, etc., are not sitting around intellectualizing about the voting system itself. Frankly, I don't see that ever happening. So when you choose to abstain -- regardless of your righteous reasons -- the reality is that you're not making a statement about the problems inherent with the system; you're just helping them win. Yes, I'm taking a lesser-of-two-evils position on this, but I think it's necessary. For the time being, I say we need to work with the system we have, and slowly improve it with the tools available to us. That means voting.
So please, please, please, vote. It frustrates me beyond belief when I hear about someone -- who holds the same ideals for progress and bettering this country that I do -- choosing not to vote. You're not doing us any favors. Please. Vote. Now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)