----------
Sent from the Verizon network using Mobile Email
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Max Headroom
So tonight I'm getting down with my bad self and I'm ingesting the shortly lived Max Headroom television series. Anyone else ever watch this 80's series?
Back in the Saddle.
So I have today and tomorrow off. That's the good news. The bad news is is that my desktop is still running a repair program to get use of the data I lost for the site at the end of last year. After a fifth attempt of disk repairs, I am now seeing that I have to boot from the DiskWarrior DVD to attempt a better clean of the data. The problem is is that it'll lock me out of the unit until then so I might wait until the weekend to do so and use the damaged laptop I have during that time.
So tomorrow I will post about the TWO Ghostbusters I got in the mail from Mattel and also will write about INFESTATION. :)
----------
Sent from the Verizon network using Mobile Email
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Man Behind the Curtain
I recently made the mistake of getting involved in an argument on YouTube. If I've learned anything on the internet, it's that YouTube commenters are almost always either trolls or professional morons. I should have abstained, but something about this commenter intrigued me. His name is OneApostate, and his particular kink was denying that it is possible to be Jewish by decent. He asserted that only those who practice Judaism are actually Jews, and that there is no such thing as Jewish DNA. That rumor, he believes, was authored by anti-Semites during the long persecution of the Jews by the Nazis.
The debate began innocently enough, though I admit it was meddling in the affairs of others that got me involved. In the comments section of a YouTube video of a talk involving atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, OneApostate was arguing that Harris cannot be a Jew because he is an atheist. He was arguing with someone else, but I felt the need to offer that Sam Harris was raised in a secular Jewish household and self-identifies as Jewish. He replied with the opinion that there are no such things as secular Jews, and the argument snowballed until we were exchanging personal messages. I offered him proof in the form of links to articles about Jewish ethnicity published by the New York Times and the National Academy of the Sciences, articles about genetic diseases that disproportionately affect those with Jewish ancestry published on Jewish websites and on WebMD, and a link to an article by Hitchens on SamHarris.org in which Hitchens describes Sam Harris as Jewish. At this point, I didn't hold out much hope that he would read any of this, but I hoped he would at least pay attention to such article titles as NAS's "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes" and the NY Times's "Studies Show Jews' Genetic Similarity," but I was bitterly disappointed when he wrote back immediately to state, "There is no such thing as Jewish DNA period."
He had not read my message. He hadn't even glanced at it. That was how it seemed. How can one look at the web address "jewishgeneticscenter.org" and then say that there is no such thing as Jewish genetics? Things went downhill from there. He offered strawman arguments and challenged me to produce evidence for absurd claims. He constantly asked if I considered myself Jewish, hinting at a hypersensitivity to anti-Semitic prejudice. OneApostate was clearly trying to turn what he interpreted as an anti-Semitic claim back on me when he said, "Since you are related to every Jew on the planet [through Evolution], and you believe in Jewish DNA, I'm going to call you Jewish."
Eventually, I withdrew myself from the debate, telling him that I had a more educational discussion with a brick to participate in, but the argument still disturbs me. I have met people who denied mountains of incontrovertible proof and who clung to absurd beliefs before, but OneApostate's assertion was so utterly ridiculous and his rejection of the clear truth was so complete that I found myself fascinated. I knew that I couldn't get through to him, but I kept on trying. I kept presenting evidence even though he would just circle back to his initial assertion whenever I presented evidence he could not refute. I know he saw me as an anti-Semite, but I have suspicions that he sees just about everyone that way. He is likely someone who has been on the receiving end of anti-Semitic abuse - he actually claims to have been on his channel - and refused to engage with me rationally because he heard my claims as an indictment of Jewish people. But why engage me at all if he thought I was just a bigot? Why did I bother continuing the discussion with him?
I am left with naught but questions. This isn't a private belief of his; this is a personal crusade, and OneApostate probably surrounds himself with people who think just like he does. These delusional people are amassing somewhere, spreading their insipid lies even in the face of irrefutable proof of their insanity. When they are shouting from street corners or raging on the internet, we encourage one another to ignore them. What do we do when they are patrolling our cities in police cruisers, when they are drafting legislation as politicians, or when they are voting for Presidential candidates? When do we decide that rage-blind, anti-social head cases are not only obnoxious but dangerous, and how do we act when we do?
The debate began innocently enough, though I admit it was meddling in the affairs of others that got me involved. In the comments section of a YouTube video of a talk involving atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, OneApostate was arguing that Harris cannot be a Jew because he is an atheist. He was arguing with someone else, but I felt the need to offer that Sam Harris was raised in a secular Jewish household and self-identifies as Jewish. He replied with the opinion that there are no such things as secular Jews, and the argument snowballed until we were exchanging personal messages. I offered him proof in the form of links to articles about Jewish ethnicity published by the New York Times and the National Academy of the Sciences, articles about genetic diseases that disproportionately affect those with Jewish ancestry published on Jewish websites and on WebMD, and a link to an article by Hitchens on SamHarris.org in which Hitchens describes Sam Harris as Jewish. At this point, I didn't hold out much hope that he would read any of this, but I hoped he would at least pay attention to such article titles as NAS's "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes" and the NY Times's "Studies Show Jews' Genetic Similarity," but I was bitterly disappointed when he wrote back immediately to state, "There is no such thing as Jewish DNA period."
He had not read my message. He hadn't even glanced at it. That was how it seemed. How can one look at the web address "jewishgeneticscenter.org" and then say that there is no such thing as Jewish genetics? Things went downhill from there. He offered strawman arguments and challenged me to produce evidence for absurd claims. He constantly asked if I considered myself Jewish, hinting at a hypersensitivity to anti-Semitic prejudice. OneApostate was clearly trying to turn what he interpreted as an anti-Semitic claim back on me when he said, "Since you are related to every Jew on the planet [through Evolution], and you believe in Jewish DNA, I'm going to call you Jewish."
Eventually, I withdrew myself from the debate, telling him that I had a more educational discussion with a brick to participate in, but the argument still disturbs me. I have met people who denied mountains of incontrovertible proof and who clung to absurd beliefs before, but OneApostate's assertion was so utterly ridiculous and his rejection of the clear truth was so complete that I found myself fascinated. I knew that I couldn't get through to him, but I kept on trying. I kept presenting evidence even though he would just circle back to his initial assertion whenever I presented evidence he could not refute. I know he saw me as an anti-Semite, but I have suspicions that he sees just about everyone that way. He is likely someone who has been on the receiving end of anti-Semitic abuse - he actually claims to have been on his channel - and refused to engage with me rationally because he heard my claims as an indictment of Jewish people. But why engage me at all if he thought I was just a bigot? Why did I bother continuing the discussion with him?
I am left with naught but questions. This isn't a private belief of his; this is a personal crusade, and OneApostate probably surrounds himself with people who think just like he does. These delusional people are amassing somewhere, spreading their insipid lies even in the face of irrefutable proof of their insanity. When they are shouting from street corners or raging on the internet, we encourage one another to ignore them. What do we do when they are patrolling our cities in police cruisers, when they are drafting legislation as politicians, or when they are voting for Presidential candidates? When do we decide that rage-blind, anti-social head cases are not only obnoxious but dangerous, and how do we act when we do?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Agent 47 Returning In 2011
A new image has been showing up around the internet, after members of a hitman blog emailed a company responsible for an ad in the sundance film festival catalog. The picture in the catalog showed a doughnut box branded hitman with a barcode ending it 47. They were emailed back a new pic of a table with a pair of black gloves, what appears to be a script, and another barcode with the ending of 47. Apparantly, the random numbers in the barcode point to E3.
See for yourself-
http://i52.tinypic.com/3590enm.jpg
Then, this image was uncovered by another group.
Which just about guarantees a new hitman game in the works.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Superhero Movies, and Can Captain America Doom the Avengers Movie?
Ok, as I'm sure you all know, there are three major superhero movies being released this summer. Two from Marvel, Thor and Captain America, which will ultimately lead to The Avengers movie which is slated for 2012. Green Lantern, from DC, will also be out this summer. However, one can cause doom for the Avengers movie.
I'm referring to Captain America. As leader of the avengers, his movie should honestly be the one watched closely. I feel if this movie is a bomb, it could mess up things for The Avengers. If it isn't done right, it isn't going to seem like it is going to work right in 2012. However, recent trailers don't seem to be so bad, and the Thor movie is looking better too. I didn't care for the pictures that were coming out that showed a sci-fi looking Asgard.
I'm referring to Captain America. As leader of the avengers, his movie should honestly be the one watched closely. I feel if this movie is a bomb, it could mess up things for The Avengers. If it isn't done right, it isn't going to seem like it is going to work right in 2012. However, recent trailers don't seem to be so bad, and the Thor movie is looking better too. I didn't care for the pictures that were coming out that showed a sci-fi looking Asgard.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
A Man of Value
I don't remember when I started playing the piano. For a long time, I thought I had started at six, but I recently found pictures of myself sitting at my parents' piano when I was one. Whatever the case, I've been playing piano for more than twenty-five years as of this writing. I play entirely by ear, having learned (and forgotten) how to read music on more than one occasion. Whatever particular cognitive aptitudes I have for functional analysis and dissimilation, be they the product of nature (natural inquisitiveness) or nurture (the back of my mother's hand if I played a wrong note), seem to lend themselves well to musical improvisation. Thus, I became something of a trick pony in my youth, playing whenever there was a party and a piano. This boosted my self esteem at first, but not for long. After awhile, I started to feel like a circus performer. But I loved playing, and I loved being the center of attention when I was doing something I felt confident that I could do, so I never complained. It was universally agreed upon that I was going to be a musician when I grew up, and I saw no reason to doubt this when people said so. It became clear to me, at some point, that music was how I was going to make my mark on the world, and when I had reached this conclusion my attitude toward music changed. I started writing "career songs," if you will. I taught myself to play the guitar and started experimenting with grunge; its DIY nature made it seem as though anyone could be a musician. My father contributed a great deal of support to all my efforts at building a music career. And yet, here I sit, 31 years old and unemployed. My YouTube channel, where I upload original folk songs and covers, has had ten-thousand views in three years. Rarely do I get more than fifty views on a song. I've worked with A&R companies before and been burned; one of them withdrew $500 from my bank account illegally and only paid it back when I sued them for fraud. I have not become a professional musician. I have not become a professional of any sort, and I'm starting to wonder now about whether or not it's time to give up on my dream. I worry about how I shall leave my mark if not through creative endeavors.
Pontificating on failure has led to some interesting insights. Chiefly, I wonder where it is that we get the idea that we must leave something indelible when we die. There is pressure to make something of yourself, to contribute to posterity in a lasting way, but where does this pressure come from? How many people do you honestly know personally who have built enduring legacies? The truth is that most of us leave little behind when we shuffle loose from the mortal coil than grief and funeral expenses. This sounds bad, I know. It sounds like oblivion. Y0u live, you die, you do some stuff in between that most people won't even remember. It may sound like I'm trying to rationalize giving up or to make excuses for why I've failed at being any kind of artist, but if you look at the number of people who have left the world a better place in comparison to the number of people who have lived and died and been utterly forgotten, I think you'll see that there really is a lesson to be learned here.
Be what you are, do the right thing, and don't worry about leaving an impression when you die. No matter how much renown you achieve posthumously, you'll never get to enjoy it. Be good to yourself and try to make a positive impact on the people you love while you're around to reap the rewards - lasting relationships and peace of mind. To quote Albert Einstein: "Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value."
Pontificating on failure has led to some interesting insights. Chiefly, I wonder where it is that we get the idea that we must leave something indelible when we die. There is pressure to make something of yourself, to contribute to posterity in a lasting way, but where does this pressure come from? How many people do you honestly know personally who have built enduring legacies? The truth is that most of us leave little behind when we shuffle loose from the mortal coil than grief and funeral expenses. This sounds bad, I know. It sounds like oblivion. Y0u live, you die, you do some stuff in between that most people won't even remember. It may sound like I'm trying to rationalize giving up or to make excuses for why I've failed at being any kind of artist, but if you look at the number of people who have left the world a better place in comparison to the number of people who have lived and died and been utterly forgotten, I think you'll see that there really is a lesson to be learned here.
Be what you are, do the right thing, and don't worry about leaving an impression when you die. No matter how much renown you achieve posthumously, you'll never get to enjoy it. Be good to yourself and try to make a positive impact on the people you love while you're around to reap the rewards - lasting relationships and peace of mind. To quote Albert Einstein: "Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value."
Friday, March 18, 2011
Blogged Down?
Sorry I haven't been as busy as I should have been on here. Just been dealing with a lot of more random side projects that I should have not let become my focus. March has never been the best of times for me. It's as simple as that. Look for better updates soon. Thankfully I have a really solid staff who has my back and picked up things while I dealt with this.
Your friend.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Jobbing Out to UFC
It's time for an admission. I am a fan of professional wrestling. I know it's not a real competition, I know the wrestlers are playing characters; these are the things many seem to feel compelled to point out to me when I reveal this fact about myself. "That stuff is so fake," they say. This gets my hackles up. Pro-wrestling isn't fake - it's worked. "Worked" is a wrestling term that means "staged." Pro-wrestling originated in carnivals, and there are still a lot of carny terms in use within the industry. Fans are "marks." Losing a match is called "doing a job," or "jobbing." The concept of acting to preserve the illusion that pro-wrestling is a legitimate sport with no works or angles is called "kayfabe," though kayfabe is only symbolic now, since Vince McMahon held a press conference in the 90s to admit that wrestling is fiction. I'm not an idiot; there's no need to point out to me that wrestling is unrealistic. That said, to call it fake is to imply that it doesn't take any skill, and that people who enjoy watching it are not wise to the fact that it's worked. It does, and most of us are. I'll also point out that nobody left the theater after seeing Avatar and said to their friends, "You know that was fake, right?" We know it's not real. Lots of things are fake. This is the criticism of someone who doesn't know much about what he's criticizing.
Within the industry, I would be referred to as a "smart mark." This basically means that I know the whole thing is a work, but it also means that I know a lot about the industry. I know about booking matches, and I know about high spots, and I read a lot about the part of the business that is not kayfabe. It's really a fascinating world filled with jock/geek hybrids and dominated by many egos that rate very high on the Sheen Megalomania Scale. Wrestling draws oddballs unlike any you will see anywhere else, and that is part of what I love about it. Could you imagine Randy Savage as a museum curator? James "The Ultimate Warrior" Hedwig has gone on to be a motivational speaker. This is mind-boggling. He also legally changed his name to Warrior; this name appears on official documents, and even his children are surnamed Warrior. The world needs pro-wrestling if only so that these singularly bizarre humans have a place to take out their weird hypermasculine/homoerotic aggression.
But there is another outlet. I have recently started watching UFC. Few are likely to describe me as a "typical male," whatever that is. Sure, part of me likes to see people getting punched in the face, but a larger part of me likes the strategic aspect of fighting - the technique. And this brings up an interesting point. Professional wrestling is worked. It isn't real. People really get hurt, but it's not a real fight going on in the ring (most of the time). Now that I've started getting into UFC, can I see why people would express disdain for pro-wrestling? Can I see how much more appealing in-ring fighting is when it's legit? Well, yes and no. UFC doesn't script outcomes. The WWE, the biggest wrestling promotion in the world for decades running, has full control over who wins a match; theoretically, they should be able to generate the kind of excitement UFC can generate on a much more consistent basis. But that hasn't been happening. Professional wrestling has become far less interesting to me than legit MMA. It's not because wrestling is fake. Wrestling and MMA are two completely different things. Wrestling has become less interesting because of egomaniacs who care more about having their private parts massaged than about generating product that can actually make money - so convinced are they that everything they produce is golden. Kayfabe is dead, but it lingers, and many people in the business book almost as if they still buy it. I'm sure that UFC is jammed full of huge egos and jacked-up manchildren, but it possesses a degree of legitimacy that the WWE cannot approach right now because, there, egos are allowed to run wild, brother. Whatcha gonna do when Vince-a-mania runs wild on you? I'm going to contribute to failing PPV buy-rates and watch UFC instead. It breaks my heart, in all honesty, to see big events like the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania circling the drain, but it's not because wrestling looks weak in comparison to UFC. I know what wrestling can be - I lived through the Attitude Era, and I've been consistently amazed by promotions like Ring of Honor and Dragon Gate. But maybe it's time for professional wrestling in general to leave its carny mentality behind and take up its erstwhile crown. Fully functioning in a modern world and free from the tyranny of egos and backstage politics, professional wrestling can be, once again, what I say it is when I defend it from the people who tell me that it's fake: an entertaining fantasy.
Within the industry, I would be referred to as a "smart mark." This basically means that I know the whole thing is a work, but it also means that I know a lot about the industry. I know about booking matches, and I know about high spots, and I read a lot about the part of the business that is not kayfabe. It's really a fascinating world filled with jock/geek hybrids and dominated by many egos that rate very high on the Sheen Megalomania Scale. Wrestling draws oddballs unlike any you will see anywhere else, and that is part of what I love about it. Could you imagine Randy Savage as a museum curator? James "The Ultimate Warrior" Hedwig has gone on to be a motivational speaker. This is mind-boggling. He also legally changed his name to Warrior; this name appears on official documents, and even his children are surnamed Warrior. The world needs pro-wrestling if only so that these singularly bizarre humans have a place to take out their weird hypermasculine/homoerotic aggression.
But there is another outlet. I have recently started watching UFC. Few are likely to describe me as a "typical male," whatever that is. Sure, part of me likes to see people getting punched in the face, but a larger part of me likes the strategic aspect of fighting - the technique. And this brings up an interesting point. Professional wrestling is worked. It isn't real. People really get hurt, but it's not a real fight going on in the ring (most of the time). Now that I've started getting into UFC, can I see why people would express disdain for pro-wrestling? Can I see how much more appealing in-ring fighting is when it's legit? Well, yes and no. UFC doesn't script outcomes. The WWE, the biggest wrestling promotion in the world for decades running, has full control over who wins a match; theoretically, they should be able to generate the kind of excitement UFC can generate on a much more consistent basis. But that hasn't been happening. Professional wrestling has become far less interesting to me than legit MMA. It's not because wrestling is fake. Wrestling and MMA are two completely different things. Wrestling has become less interesting because of egomaniacs who care more about having their private parts massaged than about generating product that can actually make money - so convinced are they that everything they produce is golden. Kayfabe is dead, but it lingers, and many people in the business book almost as if they still buy it. I'm sure that UFC is jammed full of huge egos and jacked-up manchildren, but it possesses a degree of legitimacy that the WWE cannot approach right now because, there, egos are allowed to run wild, brother. Whatcha gonna do when Vince-a-mania runs wild on you? I'm going to contribute to failing PPV buy-rates and watch UFC instead. It breaks my heart, in all honesty, to see big events like the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania circling the drain, but it's not because wrestling looks weak in comparison to UFC. I know what wrestling can be - I lived through the Attitude Era, and I've been consistently amazed by promotions like Ring of Honor and Dragon Gate. But maybe it's time for professional wrestling in general to leave its carny mentality behind and take up its erstwhile crown. Fully functioning in a modern world and free from the tyranny of egos and backstage politics, professional wrestling can be, once again, what I say it is when I defend it from the people who tell me that it's fake: an entertaining fantasy.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Battle: Los Angeles
In the not so distant future, a Marine squadron battles aliens in Los Angeles. That's what the commercials portray.
We've all seen the Independence Day and other alien invasion movies so what makes this one worthwhile? It's different. No, I mean it in the good way. Everyone has seen the humans fight off aliens but with the love romance (like ID4) or the kids being involved (like in Signs) but B:LA features realistic marines with modern day technology against the whole amazing alien armada.
I just saw this movie as a date night movie and well, all I can say is that this movie is great. Go see it!
We've all seen the Independence Day and other alien invasion movies so what makes this one worthwhile? It's different. No, I mean it in the good way. Everyone has seen the humans fight off aliens but with the love romance (like ID4) or the kids being involved (like in Signs) but B:LA features realistic marines with modern day technology against the whole amazing alien armada.
I just saw this movie as a date night movie and well, all I can say is that this movie is great. Go see it!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Sony Xperia Play-Great New Gaming Technology or Another Driving Danger?
Sony announced it's new gaming phone the xperia play not too long ago, and it's generating some hype. Yes, it supports original playstation titles and is an interesting piece of technology incorporating gaming and phones, But, is it pushing phone features too far? Is gaming on your phone something we really need? We already have people concentrating on their phones too much while driving.
We already have people texting while driving. It seems we see it very often. Someone not watching while driving, and they are swerving between lanes. We pull up next to them at a red light. They are looking at their lap, not the road. Sometimes, shockingly, with a kid in the car. So, is serious gaming on a phone a great idea? Maybe it really isn't.
Think about it this way. If we already have people texting while driving, do you really think people won't drive while attempting to play a game on their phone? The sad truth is, thinking about it, it's very likely. Someone may favor creating their sackboy in a portable version of Little Big Planet over watching the road. These people who would come to have these phones may be a danger to themselves and others on the road.
So, what's your opinion? Is the xperia play another great piece of gaming technology or a danger to the road?
We already have people texting while driving. It seems we see it very often. Someone not watching while driving, and they are swerving between lanes. We pull up next to them at a red light. They are looking at their lap, not the road. Sometimes, shockingly, with a kid in the car. So, is serious gaming on a phone a great idea? Maybe it really isn't.
Think about it this way. If we already have people texting while driving, do you really think people won't drive while attempting to play a game on their phone? The sad truth is, thinking about it, it's very likely. Someone may favor creating their sackboy in a portable version of Little Big Planet over watching the road. These people who would come to have these phones may be a danger to themselves and others on the road.
So, what's your opinion? Is the xperia play another great piece of gaming technology or a danger to the road?
She Shook Her Peaches For Show
I tweet. I am on Twitter. Yes, I admit it: I'm a twit. What's worse, I follow mostly celebrities. If you'd told a young Ryan that he would turn out to be something of a celebrity media hawk, he would have been highly incredulous - and then he would have asked what video games were going to be like in the future, since you seem to know everything. Shocking as it is to admit even now, with the truth staring me in the face and tweets fed to me in real time through my internet IV, I find myself in my 30s and fascinated with, of course, your Charlie Sheen, and your 50cent, and even your Lady Gaga. I follow the RiffTrax performers (formerly of MST3K), as well as celebrity beauties like Kristen Schaal, Olivia Munn, and Mary Lynn Rajskub. I sat rapt as James Franco tweeted live video from his hosting of the Oscars, and laughed for the sheer joy of Schadenfreude as funny people like James Urbaniak tore him - and the whole show - apart as they watched from home. My list of followers definitely makes me seem like a little bit of a hipster/gossip hound, which is quite embarrassing, but I would like to point out that I do have standards. I refuse to follow Kanye West, and I would sooner die than click "Follow" on Snooki's profile. There, she describes herself thusly:
"reality star . ny times best selling author . business woman . boss lady"
For good measure, I suppose, she adds:
"♡Keep Talkin ;)"
The juxtaposition of this horrible train wreck of a person and the title of one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs is disturbing enough, but the fact that she lists herself as a New York Times bestselling author is, like some Lovecraftian elder god skulking through the streets of Innsmouth, enough to drive a person to madness by the sheer thought of it, and that is what this entry is about - not Twitter.
Nicole, "Snooki," Polizzi's book is a work of narrative fiction called A Shore Thing, and it was number 24 on the extended New York Times Best Seller list for January 30 of this year. It was published by Simon and Schuster, a company that has also published Ursula K. Le Guin and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough. When interviewed by Reuters, she had this to say about her novel:
"People would rather watch TV than sit down and actually read a book, so that's why I wrote this. It's just like my show, accept you're reading it, so I'm actually bringing back reading."
Now, if Snooki reignites your interest in literature, there is a good chance that you were never that interested in it to begin with. I am writing a book. I'm pretty far into it, trying to make 2000 words a day every morning. I plot even in my sleep. I dream of my characters, my setting. It's a work of fantasy, and I have agonized over the naming conventions of my fictional race. I re-read it constantly as I go along, excising needless exposition, adding scenes that help clarify the justification for the carefully plotted action sequences, and generally criticizing myself excessively. I don't know Ms. Polizzi, and I understand how much of a snob I sound like saying this, but I cannot imagine her sitting at her computer in anguish over character development and plot arcs. I can't see her rewriting scenes to better communicate her main character's motivation. I doubt she was thinking about "bringing back reading" when she wrote such lines as:
"Yum. Johnny Hulk tasted like fresh gorilla."
Or:
"Gia danced around a little, shaking her peaches for show. She shook it hard. Too hard. In the middle of a shimmy, her stomach cramped. A fart slipped out. A loud one. And stinky."
I know there is a line between criticism and ridicule. I don't want to cross it. I don't want to sound like I'm taking pot shots at a goof-ball 20-something because I have had no amount of success whatsoever as an artist. Perhaps Polizzi wasn't trying to write The Great Gatsby. No, I think it entirely possible that she hasn't even heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Still, I must give her the benefit of the doubt and say that her artistic attempt is likely no less honest than mine have been. Nonetheless, pulp is pulp and crap is crap, and the fact that people have actually deliberately purchased Snooki's fictional autobiography is either an embarrassment to the august institute of literature itself or, from an optimistic standpoint, proof that I might actually have a shot at getting my silly novella published. I may, however, be forced to include descriptions on par with:
"He had an okay body. Not fat at all. And naturally toned abs. She could pour a shot of tequila down his belly and slurp it out of his navel without getting splashed in the face."
God help us all.
"reality star . ny times best selling author . business woman . boss lady"
For good measure, I suppose, she adds:
"♡Keep Talkin ;)"
The juxtaposition of this horrible train wreck of a person and the title of one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs is disturbing enough, but the fact that she lists herself as a New York Times bestselling author is, like some Lovecraftian elder god skulking through the streets of Innsmouth, enough to drive a person to madness by the sheer thought of it, and that is what this entry is about - not Twitter.
Nicole, "Snooki," Polizzi's book is a work of narrative fiction called A Shore Thing, and it was number 24 on the extended New York Times Best Seller list for January 30 of this year. It was published by Simon and Schuster, a company that has also published Ursula K. Le Guin and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough. When interviewed by Reuters, she had this to say about her novel:
"People would rather watch TV than sit down and actually read a book, so that's why I wrote this. It's just like my show, accept you're reading it, so I'm actually bringing back reading."
Now, if Snooki reignites your interest in literature, there is a good chance that you were never that interested in it to begin with. I am writing a book. I'm pretty far into it, trying to make 2000 words a day every morning. I plot even in my sleep. I dream of my characters, my setting. It's a work of fantasy, and I have agonized over the naming conventions of my fictional race. I re-read it constantly as I go along, excising needless exposition, adding scenes that help clarify the justification for the carefully plotted action sequences, and generally criticizing myself excessively. I don't know Ms. Polizzi, and I understand how much of a snob I sound like saying this, but I cannot imagine her sitting at her computer in anguish over character development and plot arcs. I can't see her rewriting scenes to better communicate her main character's motivation. I doubt she was thinking about "bringing back reading" when she wrote such lines as:
"Yum. Johnny Hulk tasted like fresh gorilla."
Or:
"Gia danced around a little, shaking her peaches for show. She shook it hard. Too hard. In the middle of a shimmy, her stomach cramped. A fart slipped out. A loud one. And stinky."
I know there is a line between criticism and ridicule. I don't want to cross it. I don't want to sound like I'm taking pot shots at a goof-ball 20-something because I have had no amount of success whatsoever as an artist. Perhaps Polizzi wasn't trying to write The Great Gatsby. No, I think it entirely possible that she hasn't even heard of F. Scott Fitzgerald. Still, I must give her the benefit of the doubt and say that her artistic attempt is likely no less honest than mine have been. Nonetheless, pulp is pulp and crap is crap, and the fact that people have actually deliberately purchased Snooki's fictional autobiography is either an embarrassment to the august institute of literature itself or, from an optimistic standpoint, proof that I might actually have a shot at getting my silly novella published. I may, however, be forced to include descriptions on par with:
"He had an okay body. Not fat at all. And naturally toned abs. She could pour a shot of tequila down his belly and slurp it out of his navel without getting splashed in the face."
God help us all.
FWD: Digest: Special Notifications/Achievements
I'm just happy to be nominated.
------Original Message------
From: Empire Avenue Accounts <accounts@empireavenue.com>
To: <scott.thomas.barnes@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 10, 4:00 PM +0000
Subject: Digest: Special Notifications/Achievements
a { color:#27647b; color:#27647b; color:#27647b; text-decoration: none; }
Special Notifications!
You have been promoted to to the rank of President in the "Science Fiction" Index.
As President you report directly to the CEO and only to the CEO. Of course, in reality you are just waiting to "take down" the CEO and take over the top spot right? But still being President is no small task, you've gained more 2-Weekly earnings gains and share price rank than almost everyone but the CEO!
Do not reply to this e-mail it has been automatically generated. Manage your email settings.
Copyright (C) 2009-2011 Empire Avenue Inc. All rights reserved.
Suite 339, 14032 23rd Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6R 3L6, Canada
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Crack The Skye
So, I figured I'd give my opinion on an album I've recently gotten semi back into.
The album is progressive metal, a unique sound I happen to like. The album even tells a slight story involving wormholes and astral travel. It has a really cool sound to it. I've even tried listening to the album released previous to this album and it sounds different. Three members of the band share vocals, another thing not seen frequently in music today. If your into some metal, you may want to check this out. The version I have even came with a DVD that shows the band recording the album and going over the songs. It's different then your standard metal album.
The album is progressive metal, a unique sound I happen to like. The album even tells a slight story involving wormholes and astral travel. It has a really cool sound to it. I've even tried listening to the album released previous to this album and it sounds different. Three members of the band share vocals, another thing not seen frequently in music today. If your into some metal, you may want to check this out. The version I have even came with a DVD that shows the band recording the album and going over the songs. It's different then your standard metal album.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Re: £1,500,000.00 GBP has been granted to your E-MAIL:
I think these email spam places have gotten lazier. Just saying...
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:52 PM, liverwood <web4638@btinternet.com> wrote:
Sunday, March 6, 2011
What's Your Weekend Like?
I'm preparing to interview the Axe Cop team on Monday via email. What are you guys up to?
Friday, March 4, 2011
Fwd: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
Just got this in as an email. It looks awesome!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: GeekChicDaily <today@geekchicdaily.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
To: scott.thomas.barnes@gmail.com
From: GeekChicDaily <today@geekchicdaily.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Unsung 80's Action Figures...Reborn
To: scott.thomas.barnes@gmail.com
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Games | Toys | Comics | Movies / TV | Tech | Gear Home | About | Press | FAQ | Search | Contact | Media Kit | RSS Sign Up | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Terms & Conditions Copyright GeekChicDaily LLC, 2917 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404 USA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All's Quiet On The Western Front...
So today we've asked Axe Cop for an interview and we got accepted. I'll be emailing him the questions this weekend for fun and disaster! Check out Axe Cop in the mean time at www.AXECOP.com!
Also, Friday's night picks for television are as follow: GIJoe: Renegades on HUB, Transformers: Prime on HUB, and Supernatural on CW. Check your TV guide for listings.
Weekend movies suggestions? We'll got them too.
The Adjustment Bureau looks promising but I'm tired of psychological thrillers so if anyone sees this movie, please let me know how it is. Rango seems to be my safe bet of all the movies coming out this weekend. Check out the rest of the movies for this weekend and the rest of March via Moviefone.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Ring Goes South -or- A Grumpy Old Man Complains About Hippies
Despite the fact that I have contracted a virulent and miserable cold and that my throat is swelling closed as we speak in apparent mockery of the healing orange juice I've been consuming and the salt water with which I have recently gargled, I am intent on making a post today! The days blur together when you're a chronic insomniac, but I'm relatively certain that I haven't missed a week since I agreed to contribute. (Feel free to correct me.)
I recently watched all 3 movies in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings super extreme blockbuster trilogy, the extended editions, for what is roughly the twelve-thousandth time. My father read The Hobbit to me when I was a child, and I have been fascinated with Tolkien ever since. I'm such a Tolkien dork that I pronounce his last name as he did - toll-KEEN - even though I know it makes me sound like a hipster doofus. I love the movies, I really do; the visuals are stunning, the casting is great, and the music is excellent. There is no question that Peter Jackson knows how to make a good movie. (Hipster doofus says: see The Frighteners.) I squirm a bit at the changes made, though I understand most of them. The book as it is would be unfilmable. Part of me wants to cry out that it is Glorfindel who faces the Nazgûl at the Ford of Buinen, that the Argonath should depict Anárion and Isildur and not Isildur and Elendil, that Haldir was not present for the Battle of the Hornburg, and that Aragorn actually summons the Oathbreakers from the Stone of Erech, but I'm not a purist by any stretch. I understand that, in any adaptation, there will be deviations from the source material. There is, I admit, a certain galling conceit when drastic changes are made; Faramir is shown to covet the Ring of Power in the movie when he never does so in the book, and Jackson's explanation for this is that Faramir "needed a character arc." To make judgments upon the work of Tolkien, as if one could write The Lord of the Rings better than he did, seems to require a rationalization that I cannot even imagine anyone making. Still, I watch. I watch the films again and again. I love what I love about them and I try not to gripe.
But there is one aspect of the movie that I cannot help but complain about every time, in spite of myself: the anachronistic dialogue.
Some of the lines in the movie are pulled directly from Tolkien's story. Many, of course, were written by screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. When you must compare Tolkien's lines with theirs, Tolkien ends up blasting them out of the water, which is only understandable. Tolkien had a unique voice; his narratives read like history, and he had a way with words that one would expect from a professor of philology. He had the unique ability to make himself disappear from the story almost entirely, leaving the reader with only elves, hobbits, dwarves, and other such creatures to escort you though his imagination. But his characters do not speak in normal ways. Their diction is outmoded and, apparently, unsuitable for blockbuster crowds. When you hold lines like "You cannot pass, I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor," up to such gems as "Let's hunt some orc," or "Nobody tosses a dwarf," the comparison almost seems unsporting. And I'm not just talking about corny lines here: I'm also talking about sentiments that Tolkien very probably never intended to convey.
In the mid 60s, The Lord of the Rings became wildly popular in the United States. It was embraced by many followers of the burgeoning hippie movement, who saw it through their particular lens and occasionally touted it as a kind of hippie manifesto. As is common when a work is embraced as a cultural phenomenon, the book was reinterpreted by biased parties who projected their own values onto it. The hippies saw in The Lord of the Rings messages and ideals that seemed to coincide with their own, and that has left its mark on certain individuals who might be referred to today as neo-hippies. Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens definitely fall into that category, and it is evident in their treatment of Tolkien's intellectual property that they are either unable or unwilling to separate the work from the movement that embraced it. Tolkien's work did have allegorical elements, despite his claims that he despised allegory and did not intend The Lord of the Rings to be allegorical, but the parts of this great novel that seem to refer to modern society are merely reflective, being designed not to comment on any contemporary issue but to bind his expansive mythology to the vaguely remembered names and stories that seem to linger in our collective consciousness. It's not so much allegory as it is allusion that we see in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's worlds seem strangely familiar, and, unfortunately, this has led many an interpreter to conclude that the author intended to take sides in certain argument. Peter Jackson's films carry moral themes about following one's heart and believing in one's ability to affect change in the world: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." There is a floweriness to their message which is entirely modern, and I may be alone in saying that this is pretty obnoxious. The fact is that The Lord of the Rings has no more of a moral than a history documentary might have, and it detracts from the story when the literary voices of those who adapted it blare so unabashedly out at the audience.
I maintain that The Lord of the Rings was not written to be a series of super blockbuster films. No, the characters do not speak in a normal-sounding way, but neither do those of Shakespeare. The book has been in publication since 1954; it clearly does not need to be dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience. That may seem unfair, because Jackson's film really is masterfully-crafted and it fully lives up to Tolkien's high-fantasy in many ways. But so much of the dialogue is grating and out of place that, try as I might, I cannot enjoy the film as much as I feel that I should being a fan of all things Tolkien.
-Namárië-
I recently watched all 3 movies in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings super extreme blockbuster trilogy, the extended editions, for what is roughly the twelve-thousandth time. My father read The Hobbit to me when I was a child, and I have been fascinated with Tolkien ever since. I'm such a Tolkien dork that I pronounce his last name as he did - toll-KEEN - even though I know it makes me sound like a hipster doofus. I love the movies, I really do; the visuals are stunning, the casting is great, and the music is excellent. There is no question that Peter Jackson knows how to make a good movie. (Hipster doofus says: see The Frighteners.) I squirm a bit at the changes made, though I understand most of them. The book as it is would be unfilmable. Part of me wants to cry out that it is Glorfindel who faces the Nazgûl at the Ford of Buinen, that the Argonath should depict Anárion and Isildur and not Isildur and Elendil, that Haldir was not present for the Battle of the Hornburg, and that Aragorn actually summons the Oathbreakers from the Stone of Erech, but I'm not a purist by any stretch. I understand that, in any adaptation, there will be deviations from the source material. There is, I admit, a certain galling conceit when drastic changes are made; Faramir is shown to covet the Ring of Power in the movie when he never does so in the book, and Jackson's explanation for this is that Faramir "needed a character arc." To make judgments upon the work of Tolkien, as if one could write The Lord of the Rings better than he did, seems to require a rationalization that I cannot even imagine anyone making. Still, I watch. I watch the films again and again. I love what I love about them and I try not to gripe.
But there is one aspect of the movie that I cannot help but complain about every time, in spite of myself: the anachronistic dialogue.
Some of the lines in the movie are pulled directly from Tolkien's story. Many, of course, were written by screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. When you must compare Tolkien's lines with theirs, Tolkien ends up blasting them out of the water, which is only understandable. Tolkien had a unique voice; his narratives read like history, and he had a way with words that one would expect from a professor of philology. He had the unique ability to make himself disappear from the story almost entirely, leaving the reader with only elves, hobbits, dwarves, and other such creatures to escort you though his imagination. But his characters do not speak in normal ways. Their diction is outmoded and, apparently, unsuitable for blockbuster crowds. When you hold lines like "You cannot pass, I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor," up to such gems as "Let's hunt some orc," or "Nobody tosses a dwarf," the comparison almost seems unsporting. And I'm not just talking about corny lines here: I'm also talking about sentiments that Tolkien very probably never intended to convey.
In the mid 60s, The Lord of the Rings became wildly popular in the United States. It was embraced by many followers of the burgeoning hippie movement, who saw it through their particular lens and occasionally touted it as a kind of hippie manifesto. As is common when a work is embraced as a cultural phenomenon, the book was reinterpreted by biased parties who projected their own values onto it. The hippies saw in The Lord of the Rings messages and ideals that seemed to coincide with their own, and that has left its mark on certain individuals who might be referred to today as neo-hippies. Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens definitely fall into that category, and it is evident in their treatment of Tolkien's intellectual property that they are either unable or unwilling to separate the work from the movement that embraced it. Tolkien's work did have allegorical elements, despite his claims that he despised allegory and did not intend The Lord of the Rings to be allegorical, but the parts of this great novel that seem to refer to modern society are merely reflective, being designed not to comment on any contemporary issue but to bind his expansive mythology to the vaguely remembered names and stories that seem to linger in our collective consciousness. It's not so much allegory as it is allusion that we see in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's worlds seem strangely familiar, and, unfortunately, this has led many an interpreter to conclude that the author intended to take sides in certain argument. Peter Jackson's films carry moral themes about following one's heart and believing in one's ability to affect change in the world: "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." There is a floweriness to their message which is entirely modern, and I may be alone in saying that this is pretty obnoxious. The fact is that The Lord of the Rings has no more of a moral than a history documentary might have, and it detracts from the story when the literary voices of those who adapted it blare so unabashedly out at the audience.
I maintain that The Lord of the Rings was not written to be a series of super blockbuster films. No, the characters do not speak in a normal-sounding way, but neither do those of Shakespeare. The book has been in publication since 1954; it clearly does not need to be dumbed down to appeal to a larger audience. That may seem unfair, because Jackson's film really is masterfully-crafted and it fully lives up to Tolkien's high-fantasy in many ways. But so much of the dialogue is grating and out of place that, try as I might, I cannot enjoy the film as much as I feel that I should being a fan of all things Tolkien.
-Namárië-
Introduction
Hello there, fine people. My name is Josh and I have just joined Scott's blog. I do not know much about comic books but I would definitely like to learn all about their amazingness and see everybody else's point of views on them.
My interests include pro wrestling, video games (mostly RPG, wrestling and adventure games), driving to fun places such as New York or any other adventurous places in New Jersey and I enjoy making HTML profiles.
My favorite movies are American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and of course the James Bond series. I will try to update what else I like a little bit later, for I must get to sleep. I hope I have an awesome time here. :)
My interests include pro wrestling, video games (mostly RPG, wrestling and adventure games), driving to fun places such as New York or any other adventurous places in New Jersey and I enjoy making HTML profiles.
My favorite movies are American Psycho, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and of course the James Bond series. I will try to update what else I like a little bit later, for I must get to sleep. I hope I have an awesome time here. :)
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
THE INFESTATION HAS BEGUN!
So the Infestation from IDW started in January with IDW's own first issue of INFESTATION and then carried into February with Transformers and Star Trek taking weekly turns for updates. Tomorrow, for NEW COMIC BOOK DAY WEDNESDAY, we see more updates with GIJOE and then, GHOSTBUSTBUSERS. Cool deal, eh brah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)