While looking at that last post to see if it posted, I realized that there were two errors in it.
First of all, I can type fast – it just doesn’t come out as recognizable words in any language known on this planet. If you want real words, then it gets real slow.
And the plot situation is more like there are too many and I can’t narrow things down enough to write only one. The question, for NaNo, is which will be the most fun.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
It’s that time of year again
NaNoWriMo is soon to be upon us. In just about a week, a vast number of people are going to attempt to write a novel in one month. Just thirty days to write 50k words. In November. It’s not like there are any distractions in that month or anything.
Much to my chagrin I have not finished the novel I tried to write last year. But that will not stop me from trying again this year. A pathetically slow typing speed, mental fogginess, no energy, time consumed by doctors appointments and a total lack of plot and a dearth of characters, now those will stop me. Well, they won’t stop me from trying but success is looking iffy at the moment.
Who cares? You have to try, so I will.
Now if I only had a plot.
Much to my chagrin I have not finished the novel I tried to write last year. But that will not stop me from trying again this year. A pathetically slow typing speed, mental fogginess, no energy, time consumed by doctors appointments and a total lack of plot and a dearth of characters, now those will stop me. Well, they won’t stop me from trying but success is looking iffy at the moment.
Who cares? You have to try, so I will.
Now if I only had a plot.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
More on TV and some other things as well
You know that network TV I mentioned? Well, I’ve been watching some more of it. I guess I wasn’t missing that much not watching network TV very much.
It’s entertaining, but not very well written or plotted. Some of it is OK, some of it is dreck and some of it is fun. Sometimes all I want is fun – actually that’s what I want most of the time, all of the time if you think of good drama as fun. Anyway, I wouldn’t give most of the new stuff high grades. I wonder if TV is always like this.
As far as being reminded of old TV from the 60s and 70s, well, that just makes this stuff look worse. The shows I remember from then were great. These are less than pale imitations and they probably consider themselves improvements.
On a slightly different note, but not entirely, I miss the feeling of adventure. It’s just a sign of age and a shrinking world, but I was reminded it of it while watching an episode of Undercovers. The exotic locations are not – they’re CGI. Same thing for most of TV and movies. This will get me labeled a curmudgeon, but in my defense I must say that enjoy a good special effect, but not when it is being done just because it can be.
Filming in space is very difficult, and recreating the Galactic Empire on a full scale would be cost prohibitive so I fully accept special effects in Star Wars (though some of the CGI added to the old versions was tacky). On the other hand, the only reason you don’t film in Paris or London – or New York or Cleveland for that matter – is because it is expensive. When I watched Kelly and Scotty walking through Japan they were walking through Japan; the same for James Bond. And back then – geologic ages ago for you youngsters out there – it was exotic and new and exciting. Unless you were rich, there was no other way to see places like that except through TV and movies – movies mostly.
These days people travel more and we see it all the time in a variety of ways – not just Life magazine, and we have all sorts of Internet images to choose from. The glamour is gone.
Also, when I watch The Lord of the Rings, I know that the armies marching to the aid of Minas Tirith are not real and I can accept that. But when I see an average army created with CGI it loses its impact. The masses of people leaving Egypt in The Ten Commandments were really masses of people. Even the armies in a movie as recent as Braveheart were real people. That takes planning, direction, cinematography, coordination and movie making skill. Imagine how much less of a movie Lawrence of Arabia would be if made today using tricks instead of people and green screens instead of the desert.
Yes, I rant, but with good cause. Short cuts are not impressive – as opposed to resourcefulness. The difference being that one is done out of necessity and the other out of pecuniary stinginess, or perhaps insufficient talent. Maybe most people don’t care. Maybe most of the people doing it think it’s the right way to do it. Maybe it’s the only way it will get done so I should just shut up and watch it. Well, it may be the only way we ever see some things, but I find it distracting and I’m not likely to shut up.
I hope I haven’t ruined anything for anyone out there, but I just had to get that off of my chest.
Next up, hair color: fraud or fabulous?
It’s entertaining, but not very well written or plotted. Some of it is OK, some of it is dreck and some of it is fun. Sometimes all I want is fun – actually that’s what I want most of the time, all of the time if you think of good drama as fun. Anyway, I wouldn’t give most of the new stuff high grades. I wonder if TV is always like this.
As far as being reminded of old TV from the 60s and 70s, well, that just makes this stuff look worse. The shows I remember from then were great. These are less than pale imitations and they probably consider themselves improvements.
On a slightly different note, but not entirely, I miss the feeling of adventure. It’s just a sign of age and a shrinking world, but I was reminded it of it while watching an episode of Undercovers. The exotic locations are not – they’re CGI. Same thing for most of TV and movies. This will get me labeled a curmudgeon, but in my defense I must say that enjoy a good special effect, but not when it is being done just because it can be.
Filming in space is very difficult, and recreating the Galactic Empire on a full scale would be cost prohibitive so I fully accept special effects in Star Wars (though some of the CGI added to the old versions was tacky). On the other hand, the only reason you don’t film in Paris or London – or New York or Cleveland for that matter – is because it is expensive. When I watched Kelly and Scotty walking through Japan they were walking through Japan; the same for James Bond. And back then – geologic ages ago for you youngsters out there – it was exotic and new and exciting. Unless you were rich, there was no other way to see places like that except through TV and movies – movies mostly.
These days people travel more and we see it all the time in a variety of ways – not just Life magazine, and we have all sorts of Internet images to choose from. The glamour is gone.
Also, when I watch The Lord of the Rings, I know that the armies marching to the aid of Minas Tirith are not real and I can accept that. But when I see an average army created with CGI it loses its impact. The masses of people leaving Egypt in The Ten Commandments were really masses of people. Even the armies in a movie as recent as Braveheart were real people. That takes planning, direction, cinematography, coordination and movie making skill. Imagine how much less of a movie Lawrence of Arabia would be if made today using tricks instead of people and green screens instead of the desert.
Yes, I rant, but with good cause. Short cuts are not impressive – as opposed to resourcefulness. The difference being that one is done out of necessity and the other out of pecuniary stinginess, or perhaps insufficient talent. Maybe most people don’t care. Maybe most of the people doing it think it’s the right way to do it. Maybe it’s the only way it will get done so I should just shut up and watch it. Well, it may be the only way we ever see some things, but I find it distracting and I’m not likely to shut up.
I hope I haven’t ruined anything for anyone out there, but I just had to get that off of my chest.
Next up, hair color: fraud or fabulous?
Friday, October 22, 2010
A lengthy explanation
That last post was not meant to be all that serious, whatever the events that inspired it, but I should be clear about this.
Admitting that you have an irrational fear of people who don’t look like the terrorists who attacked us is not enough to be fired, though it should reflect poorly on your next review if you have the job Juan Williams had at NPR. A lot of people have irrational fears. A lot of people have legitimate fears. That wasn’t the point. Naming your fear on the air is not the problem.
The problem comes in when you fail to identify it as your own fear while using it to support the series of moronic fear-mongering statements made over the last few days by the people from the TV network you are on at the moment. NPR employed Juan Williams as a news analyst. That requires a certain amount of impartiality, but more importantly it requires a certain level of communication skill and an ability to dispassionately analyze the news.
Williams either misstated the fear as a good reason for O’Reilly et al to have said what they said, or it was not just his and he thought it was a valid justification. He is either not competent at making a claim or he supports fear mongering. If he did the former on NPR it is a problem with job performance, doing the latter in public demonstrates poor reasoning skills or some level of dissembling.
The fact that he said it on Fox and not on NPR is somewhat ameliorating, since NPR cannot fault him for saying it on NPR. As an NPR news analyst, that sort of comment would be wrong since it calls into question the impartiality of his analysis. The hardest part of that sort of job is keeping your personal opinions out of your commentary, but if that’s the job you sign up for you do it. But you also have to make sure you don’t do something at one employer to make the other one look bad.
NPR seems to have a strange and stringent set of rules for employees. No one who works at NPR is allowed to attend the decidedly apolitical comedy rallies to be held by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in DC on October 30th. I guess they’re afraid some politics may break out. That level of restriction would seem to disqualify Juan Williams as an NPR employee just for being on FOX. Apparently not, but, also apparently, he crossed some line they didn’t like.
It’s not censorship, it’s just a decision based on his bosses’ interpretation of what his statements say about his qualifications. Maybe they should have given him a chance to explain, but the explanation he gave today certainly wasn’t the sort he should have given to prove he isn’t actually a political hack at heart who says whatever he is paid to say. That being the case, he shouldn’t be on the air.
Let me sum up. Expressing yourself on the air is not necessarily a good reason to be fired, but being inane when you are supposed to be intelligent is.
Admitting that you have an irrational fear of people who don’t look like the terrorists who attacked us is not enough to be fired, though it should reflect poorly on your next review if you have the job Juan Williams had at NPR. A lot of people have irrational fears. A lot of people have legitimate fears. That wasn’t the point. Naming your fear on the air is not the problem.
The problem comes in when you fail to identify it as your own fear while using it to support the series of moronic fear-mongering statements made over the last few days by the people from the TV network you are on at the moment. NPR employed Juan Williams as a news analyst. That requires a certain amount of impartiality, but more importantly it requires a certain level of communication skill and an ability to dispassionately analyze the news.
Williams either misstated the fear as a good reason for O’Reilly et al to have said what they said, or it was not just his and he thought it was a valid justification. He is either not competent at making a claim or he supports fear mongering. If he did the former on NPR it is a problem with job performance, doing the latter in public demonstrates poor reasoning skills or some level of dissembling.
The fact that he said it on Fox and not on NPR is somewhat ameliorating, since NPR cannot fault him for saying it on NPR. As an NPR news analyst, that sort of comment would be wrong since it calls into question the impartiality of his analysis. The hardest part of that sort of job is keeping your personal opinions out of your commentary, but if that’s the job you sign up for you do it. But you also have to make sure you don’t do something at one employer to make the other one look bad.
NPR seems to have a strange and stringent set of rules for employees. No one who works at NPR is allowed to attend the decidedly apolitical comedy rallies to be held by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in DC on October 30th. I guess they’re afraid some politics may break out. That level of restriction would seem to disqualify Juan Williams as an NPR employee just for being on FOX. Apparently not, but, also apparently, he crossed some line they didn’t like.
It’s not censorship, it’s just a decision based on his bosses’ interpretation of what his statements say about his qualifications. Maybe they should have given him a chance to explain, but the explanation he gave today certainly wasn’t the sort he should have given to prove he isn’t actually a political hack at heart who says whatever he is paid to say. That being the case, he shouldn’t be on the air.
Let me sum up. Expressing yourself on the air is not necessarily a good reason to be fired, but being inane when you are supposed to be intelligent is.
What I meant to say was…
So, the reactions to the firing of Juan Williams from NPR have shown me several things:
Sarah Palin still doesn’t understand the Constitution or just doesn’t care (hint: this is not a First Amendment issue)
If you’re a right wing mouthpiece, and I’m sorry, but kissing O’Reilly’s ass for a living makes you just that, your firing for what you say will draw outrage from people who thought it was fine to get rid of Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, Phil Donohue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Shirley Sherrod – not to mention NPR dumping Bob Edwards because they wanted younger hosts. OK, some of those people said stupid things, but so did Williams.
A Republican congressman actually questions supporting public radio, apparently not quite grasping the meaning of the word public
Like ACORN – also not guilty of any of the phony accusations brought against it – people want to stop federal funding of NPR, which, also like ACORN, receives no federal funding. You could cut money for PBS, but that would hurt Sesame Street not NPR.
People still seem to think that NPR is liberal, which hasn’t been true in the 4 decades I’ve been listening to it and has been a dead and buried hoary old chestnut of a myth since lately they’ve tilted so far in the other direction it isn’t even funny (hint: Juan Williams has been on Fox for a decade and NPR just fired him, not to mention Cokie Roberts) If you have evidence otherwise please point it out because I don’t listen as much as I used to – it’s just not as interesting as it used to be.
Yes, I know you can have differing opinions and a station should have balance, but the balance is not there. NPR started a swing away from the center around the time of the First Gulf War – and isn’t it a shame we need that modifier on there. Back then it became all war all the time ain’t we great at killing people rah, rah, rah.
Should he have been fired for saying what he said? If it violated NPR standards then certainly. Personally, I think it was a tone deaf and poorly worded statement that may have just been an expression of personal fear – though what exactly he meant by Muslim garb being frightening is beyond me since so far the terrorists tend to wear what is known as Western clothing. That alone is an idiotic enough statement to deserve firing for someone who is supposed to be some sort of expert commentator.
I think these people spend too much time talking to each other and reinforcing their own views of the world, and they do not live in the world of the average American. Inside the Beltway, inside a TV studio or inside their own heads, it’s all a strange fantasyland and they don’t serve the public well by always looking in the mirror and never seeing the real world.
Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are spinning in their graves. Heck, journalism these days would embarrass Ted Baxter.
Yes, I know you can have differing opinions and a station should have balance, but the balance is not there. NPR started a swing away from the center around the time of the First Gulf War – and isn’t it a shame we need that modifier on there. Back then it became all war all the time ain’t we great at killing people rah, rah, rah.
Should he have been fired for saying what he said? If it violated NPR standards then certainly. Personally, I think it was a tone deaf and poorly worded statement that may have just been an expression of personal fear – though what exactly he meant by Muslim garb being frightening is beyond me since so far the terrorists tend to wear what is known as Western clothing. That alone is an idiotic enough statement to deserve firing for someone who is supposed to be some sort of expert commentator.
I think these people spend too much time talking to each other and reinforcing their own views of the world, and they do not live in the world of the average American. Inside the Beltway, inside a TV studio or inside their own heads, it’s all a strange fantasyland and they don’t serve the public well by always looking in the mirror and never seeing the real world.
Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are spinning in their graves. Heck, journalism these days would embarrass Ted Baxter.
(ETA: The title is meant as a reference to the so-called explanation, not what I said.)
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Fragments of another dream
The other night I walked through the halls of my old high school, now turned to dust and rubble. Probably asbestos dust if I know anything of how the place was built, and I know a few things. Anyway, it was a dream where I found myself doing something or other not attending but in that school. The place was demolished last year, replaced with a newer and presumably improved version of itself. At the time I had a chance to go to an open house and wander through my old stomping grounds as it were.
I was in the middle of a transition, or it felt like one, and I may have blogged about it. I decided that it was best to look forward, especially at this point in my life. I don’t think the dream is a reflection of any doubt about that decision and I still hold to that opinion. I sometimes regret that I’ll never be able to see the place again, but nostalgia being what it is that would happen anyway. I have the good memories. This was probably just provoked by some waking thoughts of the place translated as background to a rather innocuous and almost tedious dream – not unlike this post.
I was in the middle of a transition, or it felt like one, and I may have blogged about it. I decided that it was best to look forward, especially at this point in my life. I don’t think the dream is a reflection of any doubt about that decision and I still hold to that opinion. I sometimes regret that I’ll never be able to see the place again, but nostalgia being what it is that would happen anyway. I have the good memories. This was probably just provoked by some waking thoughts of the place translated as background to a rather innocuous and almost tedious dream – not unlike this post.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Dreaming
The other day I had a typical night of poor sleep and disturbing dreams. In one of the periods when I was actually sleeping, I was dreaming that I was awake and tired.
Really? I mean, come on.
I do not think that this qualifies as fair. Just sayin’.
Really? I mean, come on.
I do not think that this qualifies as fair. Just sayin’.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Grammar Police
This is just a post to note that I often post in a conversational style, with little regard for run-on sentences, preposition placement and I occasionally take liberties with punctuation.
Also, in spite of the low frequency of comments – no complaint, just a statement – on this blog, there is a high percentage of spam appearing. So I have, temporarily at least, activated the comment filter so now you have to take an eye test to post.
Also, in spite of the low frequency of comments – no complaint, just a statement – on this blog, there is a high percentage of spam appearing. So I have, temporarily at least, activated the comment filter so now you have to take an eye test to post.
Dreams
If we could remember the dreams we wanted to but couldn’t, would we be disappointed?
I rarely remember my dreams, a fact for which I am very grateful as they are more often than not things that I don’t want to have even a vague memory of. But last night I had one of those remarkable dreams that you want to remember. In this case it’s because, as I was waking up, I thought that this dream would make a great novel. Of course I can’t remember a bit of it now. Like the disturbing dreams it is only the impression that remains.
I wonder, though, if I would be as happy with the whole thing if I could remember all of it. I know at the time I had the thought I could remember most of it, but maybe I was wrong.
Just a thought.
I rarely remember my dreams, a fact for which I am very grateful as they are more often than not things that I don’t want to have even a vague memory of. But last night I had one of those remarkable dreams that you want to remember. In this case it’s because, as I was waking up, I thought that this dream would make a great novel. Of course I can’t remember a bit of it now. Like the disturbing dreams it is only the impression that remains.
I wonder, though, if I would be as happy with the whole thing if I could remember all of it. I know at the time I had the thought I could remember most of it, but maybe I was wrong.
Just a thought.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Flashback
I don’t watch much network TV. I have the TV on a lot as background, but it tends to be history or politics or nature or sports or Iron Chef America or comedy. I don’t go for soap operas; I don’t need a five year story arc or even a two episode story arc – maybe I just don’t want to commit. Whatever, I’ve been catching up with some of the new shows this season, having DVRed a few things.
It’s an eclectic bunch, ranging from spy frolics to science fiction to super powered families and a new show based on an old show (Hawaii Five-O for those of you playing at home). What I am struck by is how much these shows remind me of TV from 30-some years ago. Maybe this is typical, or maybe it’s because I’ve been away from this type of show that I am surprised by it.
I am surprised that there are shows that are so episodic. OK, the pilots hint at long running subplots fraught with conspiracy and conflict. If it turns out that way I may not be so interested. I’m shallow, and complex – I want basic entertainment with good writing and strong characters.
So far I’ve watched Hawaii Five-O, UnderCovers , The Event, No Ordinary Family and Law & Order: Los Angeles. Admittedly light stuff and L&O:LA was just out of curiosity, I didn’t expect anything different there. And Hawaii Five-O is a restart using the same names, locales and opening sequence and theme. It could be just like the original and still have a recurring nemesis (anyone remember Wo Fat?). So no surprises there.
It’s the other three. TV recycles things all the time, I have seen so many reused plots lately I can’t keep track, but these shows are right out of the 60s and 70s. UnderCovers wants to be something it can not be: I Spy. Nothing can be I Spy. This show manages to be an holistic level dilution of that show though - not as cool as Kelly and Scott, not as cool as Sheldon Leonard, but fluffy fun. But No Ordinary Family could be a script directly from the 60s – and I mean script-found-in-an-old-filing-cabinet-just-blow-off-the-dust directly from the 60s, with the parents’ jobs reversed. As for The Event, well, it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype, but the only thing missing to make it a show from 1968 is the Quinn Martin Production voice over. All we need is for Roy Thinnes to show up. Now that I think of it, he should. And is it just a coincidence that one of the lead actors is named Innes? I ask you.
These shows remind me of stuff from the 70s, and I mean that in a good way. It’s a naiveté that makes for a lighter feel. Yeah, it also leads to superficiality and I need to see these shows after the pilot to see if they’re any good, but I found this similarity to old TV interesting.
Like I said, I like entertainment. I like good writing and acting, I like well-rounded characters with depth, but I don’t like angst for angst sake – it’s a poor substitute for real characterization. Also, I hate stupidity as a plot device but I hold out little hope for that disappearing any time soon.
I haven’t watched much network TV in recent years. I need a break from reality so maybe I will this season. I’ll try to ignore the plot holes and such, after all, it’s TV and is meant to numb the mind. Maybe I’ll be entertained.
Keep your irony meters turned off, I realize that this post lacks any depth.
It’s an eclectic bunch, ranging from spy frolics to science fiction to super powered families and a new show based on an old show (Hawaii Five-O for those of you playing at home). What I am struck by is how much these shows remind me of TV from 30-some years ago. Maybe this is typical, or maybe it’s because I’ve been away from this type of show that I am surprised by it.
I am surprised that there are shows that are so episodic. OK, the pilots hint at long running subplots fraught with conspiracy and conflict. If it turns out that way I may not be so interested. I’m shallow, and complex – I want basic entertainment with good writing and strong characters.
So far I’ve watched Hawaii Five-O, UnderCovers , The Event, No Ordinary Family and Law & Order: Los Angeles. Admittedly light stuff and L&O:LA was just out of curiosity, I didn’t expect anything different there. And Hawaii Five-O is a restart using the same names, locales and opening sequence and theme. It could be just like the original and still have a recurring nemesis (anyone remember Wo Fat?). So no surprises there.
It’s the other three. TV recycles things all the time, I have seen so many reused plots lately I can’t keep track, but these shows are right out of the 60s and 70s. UnderCovers wants to be something it can not be: I Spy. Nothing can be I Spy. This show manages to be an holistic level dilution of that show though - not as cool as Kelly and Scott, not as cool as Sheldon Leonard, but fluffy fun. But No Ordinary Family could be a script directly from the 60s – and I mean script-found-in-an-old-filing-cabinet-just-blow-off-the-dust directly from the 60s, with the parents’ jobs reversed. As for The Event, well, it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype, but the only thing missing to make it a show from 1968 is the Quinn Martin Production voice over. All we need is for Roy Thinnes to show up. Now that I think of it, he should. And is it just a coincidence that one of the lead actors is named Innes? I ask you.
These shows remind me of stuff from the 70s, and I mean that in a good way. It’s a naiveté that makes for a lighter feel. Yeah, it also leads to superficiality and I need to see these shows after the pilot to see if they’re any good, but I found this similarity to old TV interesting.
Like I said, I like entertainment. I like good writing and acting, I like well-rounded characters with depth, but I don’t like angst for angst sake – it’s a poor substitute for real characterization. Also, I hate stupidity as a plot device but I hold out little hope for that disappearing any time soon.
I haven’t watched much network TV in recent years. I need a break from reality so maybe I will this season. I’ll try to ignore the plot holes and such, after all, it’s TV and is meant to numb the mind. Maybe I’ll be entertained.
Keep your irony meters turned off, I realize that this post lacks any depth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)