Friday, April 27, 2012
Only the Good Die Jung
I was going to plug myself good and write about my own kickass ghost-with-a-twist ideas, especially Only the Good Die Jung, but you know what? I think it's about time to pull the plug on this experiment. So. Crewd Philosophy. Shutting down. Again. And much less eloquently this time. Yeehaw. My e-mail adress will always be there if you'd like me to take a look at your manuscripts or you're overwhelmed by a compulsion to tell me how wonderful I am. Until then, my friends.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Spirits With a Twist on the Rocks
Back in my day, there really wasn't such a thing as YA books yet. So those of us inclined toward reading, at least those of us with a sense of humor often found ourselves reading light SF and Fantasy. That's probably why I still have a bit of a soft spot for those genres despite how dull many books within them are.If you thought I was reaching far back with Colin Coterrill who has like seven books under his beltat this point (and I was reading middle of the first series. He has a second now) you'll be delighted to know I'm reaching back even farther today to one of the guys who helped transition me from Bruce Coville to Neil Gaiman. Errr, transition me from Bruce Coville to.... Tim O'Brien. Yeah. That's the ticket. By the way, if you're wondering why master meta-fiction literary novelist Tim O'Brien's site is not linked, it's because the damn thing is hideous and largely useless anyway. Tech wise, he's kind of old school. And if you seek out his page on your own, you'll note it was created in 1996. Despite supposed updates, it still looks like it was made then. Visually hateful. I wonder if he cares. I also wonder when his next book'll be out. And whether it'll be more Things They Carried or more Tomcat in Love. 'Cuz unlike most of his fans, I can go either way in a heartbeat.
In any event, later elementary school was riddled with Narnia and Redwall, and middle school was full of Craig Shaw Gardner, Robert Asprin, and of course the very poster boy for guilty-pleasure I-can't-believe-something-this-dumb-is-enjoyable-aren't-his-fans-basically-at-the-very-bottom-of-the-geek-hierarchy himself, Piers Anthony. To put this in perspective, his big Xanth series started back in the 70s. And it's still going. I read about half of it, which meant like sixteen books because that's what existed when I was fourteen. I once tried to re-read it, sped through like ten of 'em and OD'd on airy puns. Not to mention ballooning casts. Plus the characters tended to skew young, as if after th first few books he and his publishers noticed that the readers were all fourteen, and immediately dumped Bink, the hero of the first two books for his son Dor and never featured main characters over 18 ever again. Not gonna lie. That makes the romance parts a liiiittle awkward. When I started reading him 15 years ago and those characters were older than me, no. Today? Yes.
On the other hand, the Incarnations of Immortality, while by no means great literature, is a hell of a lot of fun and holds up slightly better for the non-teen audience. In a nutshell, the premise of the series is simple. Mother Nature, Time, War, Death and even God and the Devil are just jobs. They require unique individuals and each job has a unique method of selection, but none were born into it and none would do the job forever. So each book is effectively about a new comer learning their job in a crisis situation. The first book in the series, On a Pale Horse, stars death. It was always my favorite, but that may not be fair since it's the only one I read more than twice. Other favorites, though it's been years so it may have changed, were Bearing an Hourglass (Time) For Love of Evil (The Devil) and And Eternity (God). Because of the nature of the books, there were lots of ghost type things floating around. Obviously, Death dealt with them constantly, but others showed up periodically, and with fairly interesting usage. The Devil for instance was, if memory serves, a sorceror's apprentice (...) and when his "twoo wuv" died, he bound her soul to...something and she stayed with him as a ghost basically forever. Touching and creepy. I approve. The best way to touch people is to be creepy.
Wait. That came out wrong.
Anyway, it's a significant sized series. I encourage you to read one. If you like it, you'll like the rest. If you don't like it, the others won't be any better. But I've always been a fan of having SF and Fantasy elements portrayed in a relatively realisitc way, in a world that seems logically coherent, and with a cast who can't just shrug and say "Oh, oh, oh, it's magic. You know?" So I love the setting and concept and thus want other people to see how it's possible to make these books without having a weird, nebulous world or spending thirty years inventing the elvish language and writing the obscenely complex history of your fantasy world.
That said, no matter if you're an actual die-hard fan of Piers Anthony, I'd caution away from Total Recall. There's another one of those book-is-always-better-than-the-movie arguments. If that's true, then the movies are always better than the novel adaptations. And Totall Recall was already based on a Philip K. Dick story. So it went from paper to screen and back. Anthony did the novelization and...well, in the copy I got (quadruple hand from someone's elderly aunt) there were entire sections that were duplicated, but slightly different. It was obvious that two versions of the scene were written and somehow both made it into the final draft. What amateur bullshit. How many people, editor, copy editors, proof readers, production managers, did that slip past? Licensed novels, man. What a joke.
Well, join me Friday for our Spirt Twist conclusion in "Chainsaw Boogie" or "Only the Good Die Jung."
In any event, later elementary school was riddled with Narnia and Redwall, and middle school was full of Craig Shaw Gardner, Robert Asprin, and of course the very poster boy for guilty-pleasure I-can't-believe-something-this-dumb-is-enjoyable-aren't-his-fans-basically-at-the-very-bottom-of-the-geek-hierarchy himself, Piers Anthony. To put this in perspective, his big Xanth series started back in the 70s. And it's still going. I read about half of it, which meant like sixteen books because that's what existed when I was fourteen. I once tried to re-read it, sped through like ten of 'em and OD'd on airy puns. Not to mention ballooning casts. Plus the characters tended to skew young, as if after th first few books he and his publishers noticed that the readers were all fourteen, and immediately dumped Bink, the hero of the first two books for his son Dor and never featured main characters over 18 ever again. Not gonna lie. That makes the romance parts a liiiittle awkward. When I started reading him 15 years ago and those characters were older than me, no. Today? Yes.
On the other hand, the Incarnations of Immortality, while by no means great literature, is a hell of a lot of fun and holds up slightly better for the non-teen audience. In a nutshell, the premise of the series is simple. Mother Nature, Time, War, Death and even God and the Devil are just jobs. They require unique individuals and each job has a unique method of selection, but none were born into it and none would do the job forever. So each book is effectively about a new comer learning their job in a crisis situation. The first book in the series, On a Pale Horse, stars death. It was always my favorite, but that may not be fair since it's the only one I read more than twice. Other favorites, though it's been years so it may have changed, were Bearing an Hourglass (Time) For Love of Evil (The Devil) and And Eternity (God). Because of the nature of the books, there were lots of ghost type things floating around. Obviously, Death dealt with them constantly, but others showed up periodically, and with fairly interesting usage. The Devil for instance was, if memory serves, a sorceror's apprentice (...) and when his "twoo wuv" died, he bound her soul to...something and she stayed with him as a ghost basically forever. Touching and creepy. I approve. The best way to touch people is to be creepy.
Wait. That came out wrong.
Anyway, it's a significant sized series. I encourage you to read one. If you like it, you'll like the rest. If you don't like it, the others won't be any better. But I've always been a fan of having SF and Fantasy elements portrayed in a relatively realisitc way, in a world that seems logically coherent, and with a cast who can't just shrug and say "Oh, oh, oh, it's magic. You know?" So I love the setting and concept and thus want other people to see how it's possible to make these books without having a weird, nebulous world or spending thirty years inventing the elvish language and writing the obscenely complex history of your fantasy world.
That said, no matter if you're an actual die-hard fan of Piers Anthony, I'd caution away from Total Recall. There's another one of those book-is-always-better-than-the-movie arguments. If that's true, then the movies are always better than the novel adaptations. And Totall Recall was already based on a Philip K. Dick story. So it went from paper to screen and back. Anthony did the novelization and...well, in the copy I got (quadruple hand from someone's elderly aunt) there were entire sections that were duplicated, but slightly different. It was obvious that two versions of the scene were written and somehow both made it into the final draft. What amateur bullshit. How many people, editor, copy editors, proof readers, production managers, did that slip past? Licensed novels, man. What a joke.
Well, join me Friday for our Spirt Twist conclusion in "Chainsaw Boogie" or "Only the Good Die Jung."
Monday, April 23, 2012
The Low Down in Laos
So to preface this tale, I'd like to point out two things. First, it's cold, gray and drizzly today, as it was yesterday and as it is expected to be all week. So I picked a good time for ghost-with-a-twist week. Secondly, I am very popular with other people's mothers. And ocassionally wives. But mostly it's that "boyish" charm of mine. It'd be nice if women my own age appreciated it, but instead mostly what happens is that countless "not what yo mama said last night" jokes look very different when I'm involved. My best friend from highscool, for instance. His mother is a librarian. I'm (trying) to make a living in publishing. Long story short, his mother likes me and we tend to talk about books. Between presents, books I've obtained from positions in the industry, stuff I borrowed from friends, and copyright free e-books, I basically haven't had to physically go to my local library in over a year. Not something that goes over well when talking to a Librarian. So she told me about the BIG THING, at least in the WLS recently. Colin Coterill. Sounded neat, so I went to the library (!) and took a few out. Aaaaand I'm only like the second to do so despite the books being four years old. Clearly what's big amongst the librarians and what people read doesn't always line up. That said, I am enjoying them quite a bit. I don't want to spoil any of the stories, and the plot is a comparitively small element, especially by mystery novel standards, so forgive me for talking in generalities.
The first of which is: Not only are the books not plot driven like most mysteries, they're not really even character driven. Don't get me wrong, many of the characters are fun and seem realistic enough. But I'd have to say that the books are setting driven more than anything else. They take place in 1970s Laos after the communist revolution succeeds in overthrowing the old royal family, and fails miserably to establish a credible government in its place. So for those of you who, like me, like realistic Asian settings with political commentary, these books already have quite a bit to offer. But while many such books are autobiographies or autobiographical fiction, and almost always written by women (see for instance Wild Swans for China, Still Life with Rice for Korea or The Day Heaven and Earth Changed Places for Vietnam. That one was actually made into a not-atrocious-but-not-as-good-as-the-book movie years ago by Oliver Stone)Coterill is pure fiction, and the tone is a little more a combination of skepticism and wistfulness that makes a much lighter read than how these actual women had to run for their lives from one army or another or things like that. So it already had a point in my book for the setting, then another for the humor.
Second: It's a bizarre mix of genres. They're fun mystery books, but if you, like some people I know cannot stand ANYTHING that isn't a legal thriller or police procedural aiming for hyper realism that only makes absurdities (like being shot in the head point blank and surviving- and yes, I've had many arguments about such things with mystery fans in the past) stand out like a sort thumb then you won't like this. On the other hand, you tell me that the main character of a series is a seventy something retired field surgeon, one time communist and current skeptic who gets roped into being the one and only coroner in all of Laos at the same time he realizes he's possessed by the thousand year old spirit of a shaman named Yeh Ming, and I'm all over that. While I wouldn't say the books are laugh out loud funny as they were presented to me, they're full of bizzare images. I'm reading them horribly out of order right now, so I started with what I believe is the third- Disco for the Departed. In quick sucession you have an Elvis-type "suit" made of thousands of tiny, living white spiders, and a midnight Disco-Rave with nothing but one old doctor and a whole lot of wandering spirits. I want you to picture that. In an underground cavern. In Laos. In 1977. Now imagine you can't see the ghosts and you're the security guard who happens upon a frail old man wildly leaping about in a restricted area.
Third: I'm sick to goddamn death of police procedurals and legal thrillers. So, Coterril for the win. Read them. Tell corporate America (through SoHo Press (who I swear isn't paying me to say nice things, as unusual as it is to hear them coming from me)) that mysteries don't all have to be CSI. Join me next time for "Smote Ghost" or "Spirits With a Twist on the Rocks."
The first of which is: Not only are the books not plot driven like most mysteries, they're not really even character driven. Don't get me wrong, many of the characters are fun and seem realistic enough. But I'd have to say that the books are setting driven more than anything else. They take place in 1970s Laos after the communist revolution succeeds in overthrowing the old royal family, and fails miserably to establish a credible government in its place. So for those of you who, like me, like realistic Asian settings with political commentary, these books already have quite a bit to offer. But while many such books are autobiographies or autobiographical fiction, and almost always written by women (see for instance Wild Swans for China, Still Life with Rice for Korea or The Day Heaven and Earth Changed Places for Vietnam. That one was actually made into a not-atrocious-but-not-as-good-as-the-book movie years ago by Oliver Stone)Coterill is pure fiction, and the tone is a little more a combination of skepticism and wistfulness that makes a much lighter read than how these actual women had to run for their lives from one army or another or things like that. So it already had a point in my book for the setting, then another for the humor.
Second: It's a bizarre mix of genres. They're fun mystery books, but if you, like some people I know cannot stand ANYTHING that isn't a legal thriller or police procedural aiming for hyper realism that only makes absurdities (like being shot in the head point blank and surviving- and yes, I've had many arguments about such things with mystery fans in the past) stand out like a sort thumb then you won't like this. On the other hand, you tell me that the main character of a series is a seventy something retired field surgeon, one time communist and current skeptic who gets roped into being the one and only coroner in all of Laos at the same time he realizes he's possessed by the thousand year old spirit of a shaman named Yeh Ming, and I'm all over that. While I wouldn't say the books are laugh out loud funny as they were presented to me, they're full of bizzare images. I'm reading them horribly out of order right now, so I started with what I believe is the third- Disco for the Departed. In quick sucession you have an Elvis-type "suit" made of thousands of tiny, living white spiders, and a midnight Disco-Rave with nothing but one old doctor and a whole lot of wandering spirits. I want you to picture that. In an underground cavern. In Laos. In 1977. Now imagine you can't see the ghosts and you're the security guard who happens upon a frail old man wildly leaping about in a restricted area.
Third: I'm sick to goddamn death of police procedurals and legal thrillers. So, Coterril for the win. Read them. Tell corporate America (through SoHo Press (who I swear isn't paying me to say nice things, as unusual as it is to hear them coming from me)) that mysteries don't all have to be CSI. Join me next time for "Smote Ghost" or "Spirits With a Twist on the Rocks."
Friday, April 20, 2012
Mungo the Merciless
At this point, you guys are probably wondering why I haven't said anything about that whole anti-price-fixing lawsuit being brought against Apple and and the big publishers, several of whom have already settled. Short answer? Because it's complicated and unpleasant. The short version is Apple opened the way for the agency model which is definitely a good thing. It also contains a clause which does essentially fix prices, so it's hard to really counter the thrust of the lawsuit, hence half the big publishers settling as quick as they could. At the same time, giving in here puts the digital agency model at risk, which would take power and better profit margins away from the publisher. Not even sure at all that I'd say the old model would be good for retailers even since it requires more work and more risk on their part. Before Apple's appearance on the scene (and it was more just that they existed than any sort of credible threat to Amazon's e-book dominance) Amazon bought e-books at full price, often for more than the physical books and ate the cost difference when they sold them for 9.99. They did that to push their hardware and to establish an actually viable market for e-books. These days, the hardware costs a lot less and e-books are a much bigger part of the market, so I don't know why you'd want to use them as a "loss leader."
So, I guess that wasn't a short explanation at all, but it gets much more complicated than that. Suffice to say, I'm not happy with any of it, but it is the proverbial rock and the hard place. Between this whole thing and my obviously bizarre taste in children's flms, I've been in the mood for blues, lately. Up tempo blues. Do you know what that means? It means Mungo Motherfuckin' Jerry, people. That's what it means.
All this very serious silliness is getting to me. And I like it. So next week, I'ma talk about ghosts with twists. How are those things connected? Well, you'll just have to join me Monday for "The Low Down in Laos" OR "Comrade Ghost" in order to find out.
So, I guess that wasn't a short explanation at all, but it gets much more complicated than that. Suffice to say, I'm not happy with any of it, but it is the proverbial rock and the hard place. Between this whole thing and my obviously bizarre taste in children's flms, I've been in the mood for blues, lately. Up tempo blues. Do you know what that means? It means Mungo Motherfuckin' Jerry, people. That's what it means.
All this very serious silliness is getting to me. And I like it. So next week, I'ma talk about ghosts with twists. How are those things connected? Well, you'll just have to join me Monday for "The Low Down in Laos" OR "Comrade Ghost" in order to find out.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Why I Shouldn't be Allowed to Watch Children's Movies
1) I like 'em dark. The Nightmare Before Christmas is one of my all time favorites. Not that Corpse Bride, Caroline, or whatever that thing that's coming out this summer are as good, but I likes 'em twisted. Faster we corrupt our youth, the sooner we get over our disappointment about how they turn out, right?
2) I like 'em weird, too. Second favorite children's movie after TNBC? Wall-E. Half of it seems artsy. The other half is just slapstick.
3) I think more villains need to be violently torn to shreds a la Oogie Boogie from TNBC. All this falling-off-a-cliff-especially-after-the-hero-tries-to-save-them is just lame. Kids also need to learn what hero means. It means, depending on the circumstance "glorified sacrifice" or "the murderer with popular support."
4)I can't be the only one who noticed that The Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals and Elton John. The biggest difference, apart from the lack of everybody dying at the end was the transformation of Rosencratz and Gildenstern (not dead!) from bungling backstabbers to bungling saviors. Eh. It's always made me wonder about the relation between Scar and Simba's mother.
5) Speaking of Disney, anyone else remember that in "Friend Like Me" Genie has a line about how "Ali Baba had them forty thieves"? And yet, in the straight to video third Aladdin movie Ali Baba turns out to be Al's father. So how, if Genie spent 10,000 years in the cave of wonder could he have known who Ali Baba was? And if he has some magical ability to pull information out of the ether, why didn't he known that Ali Baba was Al's father? Continuity, people. It is your friend. And though making our children sad and cynical is perfectly legit, a lack of continuity breaks the connection between cause and effect. If we teach them that cause is not connected to effect, then what? They'll be robbing liquor stores before you know it.
6) I spent the entire time I was watching Tangled, that movie version of Rapunzel thinking about the pros and cons of using a bag of infinite holding as a hair net. For those who aren't familiar, bags of infinite holding are a D&D item that open into another dimension and allow the user to carry more stuff. So, on the plus side, it could hold all her hair and more. On the down side, what if it slips over her head and she gets lost forever in an alternate world? Can you say "sequal"?
7) From the old Disney Robin Hood - "A minute before he knows we're there, ol' Rob'll snatch his underwear." Really? His underwear? What do you want that for? Does Marion know about this? You're making me embarassed to be named after you.
8) I'm sure everyone in the world has commented on it, but isn't it odd how the leading ladies in children's movies seem to wear so little clothing (see: Jasmine, Ariel etc.)? And when they are well clothed, it's very tight (See: Rapunzel in Tangled, or Princess Fiona in Shrek)? Well, not that I'm complaining, mind you. Just seems out of place. I guess that's more for the parents, eh?
9) And yet the Muppets have been around for forty years with bizarro puppets. No breasts in sight. Clearly, puppets are made of magic.
10) Oh man. A new Snow White? Live action and silly and ADHD? Didn't they just make one of those? Oh, wait. No. That was German. Well whatever. I met my Snow White quota for the decade.
11) Why top 11? Because I like to go one step beyond. Oh wait, sorry. Thought I was the Nostalgia Critic there for a second what with this bullshitting about movies and whatnot. Speaking of which though, when the hell is he going to do top 11 moments from One Step Beyond? Well, whatever. Okay. An 11th thing. I know you're eager to hear more of my aimless rambling. But. Hmmm. Can't think of one.
Wait. What are you doing with that ax? Put it down, man. Let's talk this over. Nooooo! No dissasemble Robin #5! Life is not a malfunction! Except when it is! Which would be the case here, but even so!
Well, if I survive the brutal onslaught of imaginary hate-mailers (so clearly, I'm one to talk about cause and effect) feel free to come back on Friday when I'll be doing...something.
2) I like 'em weird, too. Second favorite children's movie after TNBC? Wall-E. Half of it seems artsy. The other half is just slapstick.
3) I think more villains need to be violently torn to shreds a la Oogie Boogie from TNBC. All this falling-off-a-cliff-especially-after-the-hero-tries-to-save-them is just lame. Kids also need to learn what hero means. It means, depending on the circumstance "glorified sacrifice" or "the murderer with popular support."
4)I can't be the only one who noticed that The Lion King is basically Hamlet with animals and Elton John. The biggest difference, apart from the lack of everybody dying at the end was the transformation of Rosencratz and Gildenstern (not dead!) from bungling backstabbers to bungling saviors. Eh. It's always made me wonder about the relation between Scar and Simba's mother.
5) Speaking of Disney, anyone else remember that in "Friend Like Me" Genie has a line about how "Ali Baba had them forty thieves"? And yet, in the straight to video third Aladdin movie Ali Baba turns out to be Al's father. So how, if Genie spent 10,000 years in the cave of wonder could he have known who Ali Baba was? And if he has some magical ability to pull information out of the ether, why didn't he known that Ali Baba was Al's father? Continuity, people. It is your friend. And though making our children sad and cynical is perfectly legit, a lack of continuity breaks the connection between cause and effect. If we teach them that cause is not connected to effect, then what? They'll be robbing liquor stores before you know it.
6) I spent the entire time I was watching Tangled, that movie version of Rapunzel thinking about the pros and cons of using a bag of infinite holding as a hair net. For those who aren't familiar, bags of infinite holding are a D&D item that open into another dimension and allow the user to carry more stuff. So, on the plus side, it could hold all her hair and more. On the down side, what if it slips over her head and she gets lost forever in an alternate world? Can you say "sequal"?
7) From the old Disney Robin Hood - "A minute before he knows we're there, ol' Rob'll snatch his underwear." Really? His underwear? What do you want that for? Does Marion know about this? You're making me embarassed to be named after you.
8) I'm sure everyone in the world has commented on it, but isn't it odd how the leading ladies in children's movies seem to wear so little clothing (see: Jasmine, Ariel etc.)? And when they are well clothed, it's very tight (See: Rapunzel in Tangled, or Princess Fiona in Shrek)? Well, not that I'm complaining, mind you. Just seems out of place. I guess that's more for the parents, eh?
9) And yet the Muppets have been around for forty years with bizarro puppets. No breasts in sight. Clearly, puppets are made of magic.
10) Oh man. A new Snow White? Live action and silly and ADHD? Didn't they just make one of those? Oh, wait. No. That was German. Well whatever. I met my Snow White quota for the decade.
11) Why top 11? Because I like to go one step beyond. Oh wait, sorry. Thought I was the Nostalgia Critic there for a second what with this bullshitting about movies and whatnot. Speaking of which though, when the hell is he going to do top 11 moments from One Step Beyond? Well, whatever. Okay. An 11th thing. I know you're eager to hear more of my aimless rambling. But. Hmmm. Can't think of one.
Wait. What are you doing with that ax? Put it down, man. Let's talk this over. Nooooo! No dissasemble Robin #5! Life is not a malfunction! Except when it is! Which would be the case here, but even so!
Well, if I survive the brutal onslaught of imaginary hate-mailers (so clearly, I'm one to talk about cause and effect) feel free to come back on Friday when I'll be doing...something.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Taste of Hunger
Today, gentle readers, I shall review the Hunger Games Movie, and to some extent compare it to the book. My review shall, as promised contain my characteristic extreme hyperbole and wildly innapropriate language. There may be spoilers. One big one I will mark off if you want to skip it, but just remember I warned you.
Synopsis: After a devastating civil war, the winners horded technology for themselves and enslaved the losers. Every year, each of twelve districts must send two teenagers, a boy and a girl to fight to the death on television as a symbol of their servitude to the capital and to discourage rebellion. Katniss Everdeen, a hunter, finds herself in the games and neck deep in everything from danger to love.
And now, a small sampling of my observation.
1) The acting is absolutely atrocious. Peeta was only believable when he was being funny. Dude just couldn't do drama. Gale looked like a big dumbass, Primrose was only there to shriek, although she did that fairly well, the mother is the mother from Caprica so I know she plays a fine ultra-depressed histrionic woman in mourning. Taking away the histrionics and giving her only two lines made her as dull as everyone else. Cinna wasn't charming or comforting enough, his staff was nowehere to be seen, nor was the tragic, tongueless would be-escapee. But the worst by far was Katniss herself, which is a pretty unforgivable crime since she's 90% of the story. In the book, she was stony faced, but you got to see her thought process a bit more. Anger and confusion over Peeta's actions, for instance. Her strong desire to protect her sister back home and how that transferred itself in game to the youngest contestant of the year. When you get down to it, the best acting came from three comparitively minor characters- Haymitch, Katniss' "mentor", Ceasar, the TV host, and President Snow who made an excellent "I'm so much better than you I don't have to make threats or be cruel or crude in any way" sort of menacing villain. But not only are they minor, if Woody Harrelson, who played Haymitch is some of the best acting you've got, I think you're generally in trouble.
2) In order to fit the entire book into a movie, they had to speed through a lot of things. Early on, they did it to get to the games faster, but even once you're into the exciting bits with young children murdering each other, the movie still moves like lightning. When I edit manuscripts, cutting the fat is one of my biggest concerns. This movie didn' just cut the fat, it cut the muscle too and leaves us with only the bones of the book. It might have been saved, except that, as in the book, the viewer must turn to Katniss for context. Without being able to devote lengthy sections to her history or thought process, it came down to the visuals. And...yeah, no. She just had that stony face.
3) As a result, certain things were lost. Other things had to be crammed into the script in a different and somewhat awkward way. The Tracker Jackers for instance. In the book, the explanation is there to be somewhat revealing about the war that had ultimately resulted in the subservience of the twelve districts. In the movie, it randomly cuts from the action to the TV announcer explaining that they're poison bees. Because, you know. When Katniss starts hallucinating and collapses amidst strange visions that were painfully overdone, we wouldn't have figured it out. So it was kind of a waste. Why even bother? Another example that stands out was the need to actually explain what the Hunger Games ARE. Which they do *TWICE* in th first few minutes. Once in writing, and then again in a movie-within-the-movie. When you're pressed for time, why would you repeat information?
4) Speaking of which, that movie opened with a one word sentence. "War." Being a veteran many times over of the wastes, I immediately whispered "War never changes." to myself. I was very disapointed that this movie-within being used to set the stage couldn't make itself half as memorable as the opening sequence to a bug-riddled 15 year old PC game.
5) In addition to the editing of the writing, the camera work and visual editing were terrible. Very clearly they were trying to make the whole experience as disorienting as possible. The thing is, they went overboard when it actually made sense, and tended to wreck the audio in those occassions (as with Katniss appearing on stage and getting vertigo, or the ringing of her ears after a bomb explosion). The near constant shaky camera work and awkward cuts were needlessly disorienting, especially at the beggining when we needed to get ourselves settled in. They also don't make sense thematically since that was daily life for Katniss. Makes me feel really bad for the folks who did the sets, lighting, props, and to a lesser extent, the costumes. Theirs was the best work in the movie, and piss poor editing stole the spotlight.
6)BIG HUGE HONKING SPOLERS IN THIS NOTE. SKIP PAST THE ASTERISKS IF YOU HAVE NEITHER READ THE BOOK NOR SEEN THE MOVIE. That said, I'll keep this brief. It shall, I imagine, provide me the perfect opportunity to provide the wildly innapropriate language I promised. Deep breath. Okay. So. Those brainless goddamn mother fucking douchebags took out the bread. What did I tell you movie? Huh? What did I say about the bread? Did I say "take it out" or "I'll never forgive you if you take it out? When I read the book, everyone was telling me it was the greatest thing ever. I said "No, it isn't." I started reading and said "It is good. Not the greatest thing ever. Am I the only one who has ever read a good book before?" But there was one scene that I felt I understood why everyone loved the book so much. REMINDER: SPOILERS. Katniss makes an alliance with a little girl her sister's age named Rue. They mount a sucessful sneak attack on (the supplies) of a larger coalition of "tributes" but during their retreat, Rue is captured and killed. Katniss, distraught because (in the book anyway) she felt a desire to protect this girl and wanted Rue to win if she did not, sings the girl a lullaby in her final moments and then buries her in flowers. At which point in the book, the citizens of District 11, a poor agriculturaldstrict, scraped together the enormous sums of money it took to send her something in the game. A mere bit of bread, but symbolizing not only their thanks and respect to Katniss for retaining her decency and humanity amidst the games, but a small act of defiance on their part. Doing something unexpected, forging closer relations between the districts. It was all they could do in the book. It was beautiful in its simplicity. The details were just right. In the movie, they decided nobody understood the bread thing and replaced it with a sudden cutaway to rioting in District 11. First of all, the bread's not hard to understand, so fuck you guys. Secondly, RIOTING IS NOT A SMALL ACT OF DEFIANCE. So the scene's focus and importance shift dramatically. Which, as the best scene in the book was the last thing the movie neded to wreck. Katniss and Rue's acting were terrible, making it hard to feel anything. The soundtrack etc. were just starting to get to me when the scene suddenly changed and all the emotion was lost forever. Just very poorly done. Apparently though, I'm the only one who cares. Everyday I have this conversation. Every day I say "Can you believe they cut the bread out?" Most people don't know what I mean. The rest think I'm talking about Peeta throwing bread to Katniss when they were children and proceed to say "nuh uh, it was in there." Clearly, I stand alone. In defense of bread.
******************************************************
I had a few other things to say, but this is running pretty long and most of them were along the same lines like "Why focus so much on the game maker? In the end, I liked the way they brought the poison berries back for him, but it wasn't enough of a payout to justify shoe horning new material into a story already pressed for time." Besides, the movie made eighty jillion dollars. So I'm sure my criticism matters.
Dear Sirs:
You may be rich and successful while I am starving in the streets, but you're all fools for taking out the bread. I hate you. I hate you! I HATE YOU!
Love,
Robin
Conclusion: It's a pretty faithful adaptation but dumb changes, poor acting and disorienting camera work suck the emotion right out of it. Worth watching, but I wouldn't call it an instant classic. Or even good.
Oh, and on a side note: If you want to see Woody Harrelson being a decent actor in a dystopian where people have actual emotions and the sets are crazy awesome, check out Bunraku, whose opening you'll note is strangely similar to those of the Fallout games (except with paper puppets because Bunraku is a term referring to a type of Japanese puppet theater). Interestingly, Ron Perlman (who appeared in a get your G.E.D. ad before the Hunger Games played at my local theater) who did the voice overs for the Fallout openings I linked above is the villain in Bunraku. Everything is so interconnected. Just bear in mind that Ron Perlman is not Ron Perelman, the man who nearly bankrupted Marvel in the mid 90s. Totally different people.
Giant, bizarre side not now safely stowed to the side, lemme just say: Join me Wednesday for "More Movie Observations" or "Why I Shouldn't be Allowed to Watch Children's Movies."
Synopsis: After a devastating civil war, the winners horded technology for themselves and enslaved the losers. Every year, each of twelve districts must send two teenagers, a boy and a girl to fight to the death on television as a symbol of their servitude to the capital and to discourage rebellion. Katniss Everdeen, a hunter, finds herself in the games and neck deep in everything from danger to love.
And now, a small sampling of my observation.
1) The acting is absolutely atrocious. Peeta was only believable when he was being funny. Dude just couldn't do drama. Gale looked like a big dumbass, Primrose was only there to shriek, although she did that fairly well, the mother is the mother from Caprica so I know she plays a fine ultra-depressed histrionic woman in mourning. Taking away the histrionics and giving her only two lines made her as dull as everyone else. Cinna wasn't charming or comforting enough, his staff was nowehere to be seen, nor was the tragic, tongueless would be-escapee. But the worst by far was Katniss herself, which is a pretty unforgivable crime since she's 90% of the story. In the book, she was stony faced, but you got to see her thought process a bit more. Anger and confusion over Peeta's actions, for instance. Her strong desire to protect her sister back home and how that transferred itself in game to the youngest contestant of the year. When you get down to it, the best acting came from three comparitively minor characters- Haymitch, Katniss' "mentor", Ceasar, the TV host, and President Snow who made an excellent "I'm so much better than you I don't have to make threats or be cruel or crude in any way" sort of menacing villain. But not only are they minor, if Woody Harrelson, who played Haymitch is some of the best acting you've got, I think you're generally in trouble.
2) In order to fit the entire book into a movie, they had to speed through a lot of things. Early on, they did it to get to the games faster, but even once you're into the exciting bits with young children murdering each other, the movie still moves like lightning. When I edit manuscripts, cutting the fat is one of my biggest concerns. This movie didn' just cut the fat, it cut the muscle too and leaves us with only the bones of the book. It might have been saved, except that, as in the book, the viewer must turn to Katniss for context. Without being able to devote lengthy sections to her history or thought process, it came down to the visuals. And...yeah, no. She just had that stony face.
3) As a result, certain things were lost. Other things had to be crammed into the script in a different and somewhat awkward way. The Tracker Jackers for instance. In the book, the explanation is there to be somewhat revealing about the war that had ultimately resulted in the subservience of the twelve districts. In the movie, it randomly cuts from the action to the TV announcer explaining that they're poison bees. Because, you know. When Katniss starts hallucinating and collapses amidst strange visions that were painfully overdone, we wouldn't have figured it out. So it was kind of a waste. Why even bother? Another example that stands out was the need to actually explain what the Hunger Games ARE. Which they do *TWICE* in th first few minutes. Once in writing, and then again in a movie-within-the-movie. When you're pressed for time, why would you repeat information?
4) Speaking of which, that movie opened with a one word sentence. "War." Being a veteran many times over of the wastes, I immediately whispered "War never changes." to myself. I was very disapointed that this movie-within being used to set the stage couldn't make itself half as memorable as the opening sequence to a bug-riddled 15 year old PC game.
5) In addition to the editing of the writing, the camera work and visual editing were terrible. Very clearly they were trying to make the whole experience as disorienting as possible. The thing is, they went overboard when it actually made sense, and tended to wreck the audio in those occassions (as with Katniss appearing on stage and getting vertigo, or the ringing of her ears after a bomb explosion). The near constant shaky camera work and awkward cuts were needlessly disorienting, especially at the beggining when we needed to get ourselves settled in. They also don't make sense thematically since that was daily life for Katniss. Makes me feel really bad for the folks who did the sets, lighting, props, and to a lesser extent, the costumes. Theirs was the best work in the movie, and piss poor editing stole the spotlight.
6)BIG HUGE HONKING SPOLERS IN THIS NOTE. SKIP PAST THE ASTERISKS IF YOU HAVE NEITHER READ THE BOOK NOR SEEN THE MOVIE. That said, I'll keep this brief. It shall, I imagine, provide me the perfect opportunity to provide the wildly innapropriate language I promised. Deep breath. Okay. So. Those brainless goddamn mother fucking douchebags took out the bread. What did I tell you movie? Huh? What did I say about the bread? Did I say "take it out" or "I'll never forgive you if you take it out? When I read the book, everyone was telling me it was the greatest thing ever. I said "No, it isn't." I started reading and said "It is good. Not the greatest thing ever. Am I the only one who has ever read a good book before?" But there was one scene that I felt I understood why everyone loved the book so much. REMINDER: SPOILERS. Katniss makes an alliance with a little girl her sister's age named Rue. They mount a sucessful sneak attack on (the supplies) of a larger coalition of "tributes" but during their retreat, Rue is captured and killed. Katniss, distraught because (in the book anyway) she felt a desire to protect this girl and wanted Rue to win if she did not, sings the girl a lullaby in her final moments and then buries her in flowers. At which point in the book, the citizens of District 11, a poor agriculturaldstrict, scraped together the enormous sums of money it took to send her something in the game. A mere bit of bread, but symbolizing not only their thanks and respect to Katniss for retaining her decency and humanity amidst the games, but a small act of defiance on their part. Doing something unexpected, forging closer relations between the districts. It was all they could do in the book. It was beautiful in its simplicity. The details were just right. In the movie, they decided nobody understood the bread thing and replaced it with a sudden cutaway to rioting in District 11. First of all, the bread's not hard to understand, so fuck you guys. Secondly, RIOTING IS NOT A SMALL ACT OF DEFIANCE. So the scene's focus and importance shift dramatically. Which, as the best scene in the book was the last thing the movie neded to wreck. Katniss and Rue's acting were terrible, making it hard to feel anything. The soundtrack etc. were just starting to get to me when the scene suddenly changed and all the emotion was lost forever. Just very poorly done. Apparently though, I'm the only one who cares. Everyday I have this conversation. Every day I say "Can you believe they cut the bread out?" Most people don't know what I mean. The rest think I'm talking about Peeta throwing bread to Katniss when they were children and proceed to say "nuh uh, it was in there." Clearly, I stand alone. In defense of bread.
******************************************************
I had a few other things to say, but this is running pretty long and most of them were along the same lines like "Why focus so much on the game maker? In the end, I liked the way they brought the poison berries back for him, but it wasn't enough of a payout to justify shoe horning new material into a story already pressed for time." Besides, the movie made eighty jillion dollars. So I'm sure my criticism matters.
Dear Sirs:
You may be rich and successful while I am starving in the streets, but you're all fools for taking out the bread. I hate you. I hate you! I HATE YOU!
Love,
Robin
Conclusion: It's a pretty faithful adaptation but dumb changes, poor acting and disorienting camera work suck the emotion right out of it. Worth watching, but I wouldn't call it an instant classic. Or even good.
Oh, and on a side note: If you want to see Woody Harrelson being a decent actor in a dystopian where people have actual emotions and the sets are crazy awesome, check out Bunraku, whose opening you'll note is strangely similar to those of the Fallout games (except with paper puppets because Bunraku is a term referring to a type of Japanese puppet theater). Interestingly, Ron Perlman (who appeared in a get your G.E.D. ad before the Hunger Games played at my local theater) who did the voice overs for the Fallout openings I linked above is the villain in Bunraku. Everything is so interconnected. Just bear in mind that Ron Perlman is not Ron Perelman, the man who nearly bankrupted Marvel in the mid 90s. Totally different people.
Giant, bizarre side not now safely stowed to the side, lemme just say: Join me Wednesday for "More Movie Observations" or "Why I Shouldn't be Allowed to Watch Children's Movies."
Friday, April 13, 2012
It's Only a Questionnaire
Well, gentle readers, it is Friday once more. And that is cause enough for celebration, is it not? Given this week's focus, I felt that this week's song should finish off the subject of surveys and blind, onfocused, innacurate research.
Enjoy!
Those few of you readers who actually exist will be glad to know that I *finally* saw the Hunger Games movie this past week. If you haven't...you might be the only person. Although I'm sure everyone in the bloody universe who has both read the book and seen the movie has blogged about their thoughts, and though it pains me to be so mundane and predictable as to do the same, I feel confident that you, my gentle readers will derive at least some enjoyment from my style of review and comparison. Which is to say valid criticism interspersed with extreme hyperbole and wildly innapropriate language.
So join me on Monday for "The Taste of Hunger" OR "Slim Pickins."
Enjoy!
Those few of you readers who actually exist will be glad to know that I *finally* saw the Hunger Games movie this past week. If you haven't...you might be the only person. Although I'm sure everyone in the bloody universe who has both read the book and seen the movie has blogged about their thoughts, and though it pains me to be so mundane and predictable as to do the same, I feel confident that you, my gentle readers will derive at least some enjoyment from my style of review and comparison. Which is to say valid criticism interspersed with extreme hyperbole and wildly innapropriate language.
So join me on Monday for "The Taste of Hunger" OR "Slim Pickins."
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Flawed Methodology
So, I promised all's y'all more survey madness. I think I'll expand on that a little though.
These days, when companies are swamped with applicants, including massively overqualified applicants even for under or unpaid entry level work, they've been hard at work devising ways to make things difficult for would-be employees. One of those ways is making them take a personality test before even looking at their material. Now, I could go through personality tests and say "see, dumb." They are at least far more well organized than market research surveys and redundant questions actually aren't redundant since people may change their answer depending on the wording.
I will say this about the process though- it's retarded. C'mon employers, if you want to know so bad, I'll tell you. I'm an INTJ- Introspective, Intuitive, Thinking Judging. That and INFJ are your classic nerd types. Don't make me go through this whole rigamarole repeatedly. Besides, how is this a useful criteria. As an example, I applied for a lowly mailroom supervisor job. Man's gotta eat and right now, publishing is not putting food on my table. I have two years experience running a mailroom, a job I did well from a temp to hire situation after a long string of people the company hated. It's safe to say I'm as qualified as any applicant and more than most. Ah, but then comes the INTJ personality type. If you were an employer, this is what you'd see "So, he has experience, he's smart and highly educated. Clearly he's too good for this job. He won't be happy, so he'll leave. Let's not bother." On the other hand, if you were a sheep they'd say "how can we put a person like this in charge of anything?" Basically, the personality test is a catch-22 especially for something low level and generic like administrative/clerical work, and I've taken several nearly identical personality surveys for such positions. It's a waste of time, and if employers don't know it, they should.
While I'm on the subject of strange things employers sometimes do, here's a few things to look out for if you, like me, are in the market for something better (or something at all).
1. "Direct Marketing" is a codeword for sales. Marketing sounds less pushy and conniving than sales, but the work is essentially identical. Some employers will call it that in their listing, or say "sales/marketing" but many will also list a marketing assistant position which is a bait and switch for "direct marketing." Be wary of marketing jobs without good descriptions of the work.
2. Withholding the salary. Almost all job listings these days withhold the salary information so they can low ball you later, which they absolutely do (see, for instance, they tendency to ask you to name your own salary. If it's too high, you're gone. If it's low, you can't effectively renegotiate later). But there's a particular kind of witholding which isn't crazy like a fox, but regular crazy. And that's when the HR department calls you up and says "your resume looks pretty good" you get excited and they follow it up with "and just to let you know, the salary is 28K a year." For those who don't know, in or near New York City, your rent on a small apartment is going to be between 1,200-3,500 dollars A MONTH depending on where you are. So 28K a year is essentially below the poverty line. This is a crazy thing to do because HR has already screened the applicants. All you're doing is scaring off half the people you've already selected. And if you, as an applicant say yes? All it means is that you're one of thirty people whose information makes it to the hiring manager. Out of the 1,000 people who applied.
3. Watching the same position be listed again and again and again and again. Either every time they post it they end up not hiring anyone, or they have insane staff turnover. Either way, be wary since it means they probably have insane expectations that severely limit who they're willing to hire, or which cause most people to leave in a heartbeat.
4. Unpaid internships are the norm these days and have been for a long while. It's pretty disgusting, actually, especially with employers demanding five years previous experience in the precise job they're hiring for, thus forcing twenty-somethings to work for years at a time for no money at all. But now I'm starting to see internship positions listed that require 2+ years experience. Look, if you're going to make interns do the work of assistants, assistants the jobs of supervisors, supervisors the jobs of managers, managers the jobs of directors and so on in order to save money, you could at least make some attempt to hide this fact.
5. A note not about questionable listings, but for your own reference next time you walk into a company lobby. Look for the TV. There's virtually always an HDTV in offices that aren't being run out of an apartment. What's playing on it? If it's not on, you know that not many people come into the office. If it's playing ESPN, it's a pretty laid back office, probably small, and probably with a lot of time for many of its employees spent "in the field" (for instance: "direct marketing" firms). If they're playing CNN, then they're a "serious" business. If they're playing business news, they're *extremely* serious. There are many articles reminding you to be pleasant to the receptionist (assuming there is one) but I've yet to see anyone else pick up on the need to discern the mood of the office, or how the TV is a useful tool in doing so.
Well, join me next time for "Another Friday Song" OR "It's Only a Questionnaire."
These days, when companies are swamped with applicants, including massively overqualified applicants even for under or unpaid entry level work, they've been hard at work devising ways to make things difficult for would-be employees. One of those ways is making them take a personality test before even looking at their material. Now, I could go through personality tests and say "see, dumb." They are at least far more well organized than market research surveys and redundant questions actually aren't redundant since people may change their answer depending on the wording.
I will say this about the process though- it's retarded. C'mon employers, if you want to know so bad, I'll tell you. I'm an INTJ- Introspective, Intuitive, Thinking Judging. That and INFJ are your classic nerd types. Don't make me go through this whole rigamarole repeatedly. Besides, how is this a useful criteria. As an example, I applied for a lowly mailroom supervisor job. Man's gotta eat and right now, publishing is not putting food on my table. I have two years experience running a mailroom, a job I did well from a temp to hire situation after a long string of people the company hated. It's safe to say I'm as qualified as any applicant and more than most. Ah, but then comes the INTJ personality type. If you were an employer, this is what you'd see "So, he has experience, he's smart and highly educated. Clearly he's too good for this job. He won't be happy, so he'll leave. Let's not bother." On the other hand, if you were a sheep they'd say "how can we put a person like this in charge of anything?" Basically, the personality test is a catch-22 especially for something low level and generic like administrative/clerical work, and I've taken several nearly identical personality surveys for such positions. It's a waste of time, and if employers don't know it, they should.
While I'm on the subject of strange things employers sometimes do, here's a few things to look out for if you, like me, are in the market for something better (or something at all).
1. "Direct Marketing" is a codeword for sales. Marketing sounds less pushy and conniving than sales, but the work is essentially identical. Some employers will call it that in their listing, or say "sales/marketing" but many will also list a marketing assistant position which is a bait and switch for "direct marketing." Be wary of marketing jobs without good descriptions of the work.
2. Withholding the salary. Almost all job listings these days withhold the salary information so they can low ball you later, which they absolutely do (see, for instance, they tendency to ask you to name your own salary. If it's too high, you're gone. If it's low, you can't effectively renegotiate later). But there's a particular kind of witholding which isn't crazy like a fox, but regular crazy. And that's when the HR department calls you up and says "your resume looks pretty good" you get excited and they follow it up with "and just to let you know, the salary is 28K a year." For those who don't know, in or near New York City, your rent on a small apartment is going to be between 1,200-3,500 dollars A MONTH depending on where you are. So 28K a year is essentially below the poverty line. This is a crazy thing to do because HR has already screened the applicants. All you're doing is scaring off half the people you've already selected. And if you, as an applicant say yes? All it means is that you're one of thirty people whose information makes it to the hiring manager. Out of the 1,000 people who applied.
3. Watching the same position be listed again and again and again and again. Either every time they post it they end up not hiring anyone, or they have insane staff turnover. Either way, be wary since it means they probably have insane expectations that severely limit who they're willing to hire, or which cause most people to leave in a heartbeat.
4. Unpaid internships are the norm these days and have been for a long while. It's pretty disgusting, actually, especially with employers demanding five years previous experience in the precise job they're hiring for, thus forcing twenty-somethings to work for years at a time for no money at all. But now I'm starting to see internship positions listed that require 2+ years experience. Look, if you're going to make interns do the work of assistants, assistants the jobs of supervisors, supervisors the jobs of managers, managers the jobs of directors and so on in order to save money, you could at least make some attempt to hide this fact.
5. A note not about questionable listings, but for your own reference next time you walk into a company lobby. Look for the TV. There's virtually always an HDTV in offices that aren't being run out of an apartment. What's playing on it? If it's not on, you know that not many people come into the office. If it's playing ESPN, it's a pretty laid back office, probably small, and probably with a lot of time for many of its employees spent "in the field" (for instance: "direct marketing" firms). If they're playing CNN, then they're a "serious" business. If they're playing business news, they're *extremely* serious. There are many articles reminding you to be pleasant to the receptionist (assuming there is one) but I've yet to see anyone else pick up on the need to discern the mood of the office, or how the TV is a useful tool in doing so.
Well, join me next time for "Another Friday Song" OR "It's Only a Questionnaire."
Monday, April 9, 2012
Research This
So, some of you, my imaginary readers, may have noticed my less than positive assessment of Google's idea of replacing paywalls with market research questionnaires. You may also be wondering "do you hate market research?" No, of course not. That said, of course, market research presents itself almost as a science which it most assuredly is not, but it's the execution of it that annoys me, not the concept.
Years ago, I was "invited" by Gamestop, the video game retailer to join some group or another that organized market research surveys, and being the curious sort I am, I decided to check it out. Apart from logistical complaints against Google's idea that I've already voiced such as having a relevant survey, not repeating surveys, identification information (do they store it? Who stores it? Or are they going to ask your age, gender, ethnicity, location and income every damn time?) and how little these things are worth (it took me four years to get a fifty dollar iTunes gift card, so if I weren't doing it on the perverse belief that one day I might be able to use the experience as an excuse to hop back up on the soap box, I wouldn't have bothered) there are problems I have with the way these surveys are put together.
So here are a few of my favorite examples of things they do which is guaranteed to give them erroneous information, which they needed more of because absolutely everyone takes these things seriously.
1) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold before you have ascertained whether I have a spouse or not.
2) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold after you have already ascertained that I HAVEN'T GOT ONE.
3) Compensation is more if you "qualify and complete" market research surveys. On no small number of occasions have I clearly taken the entire survey and then been told I don't qualify. Not what I'd call a better business practice.
4) Questions in which you cannot answer "I don't know" or "Not Applicable" thus forcing you to select an erroneous answer.
5) Questions in which you must select one answer in each column despite the answers being mutually exclusive and thus resulting in inherently conflicting data.
6) Asking detailed questions about your perception of something random, such as the moral fiber of a fertilizer company just because you've *heard* of them.
7) Not so subtle leading in favor of new product/ frequently obvious who the survey is being conducted on behalf of even in cases when it should not be.
8) Redundant questions.
9) If a user doesn't like one bad idea, following it up with one that's even worse and then asking them how the first rates in comparison. Solid garbage may be more desirable than soggy garbage, but I wouldn't say I actually desire it, you follow me?
10) Asking me where I live, then asking me how often I travel to that location for fun and asking me to rate it as a tourist spot. Gee, I dunno. See, 'cuz I've never been a tourist in my own bloody town.
11) Asking me age inappropriate questions.
12) Asking me for personal data more than once. Like I don't know whether I'm white or Asian without double checking. Or is this your attempt to catch on to people who are clearly just giving you whatever answer they feel like? Because if you can see how easy it is to give the wrong answer, maybe you shouldn't even bother with it...except it's cheaper to run than traditional market research, so nuts to me.
And so many more complaints, but that's all the room we have today. On Wednesday, a different kind of survey bashing. Join me then for "Extraneous Criteria" OR "Flawed Methodology."
Years ago, I was "invited" by Gamestop, the video game retailer to join some group or another that organized market research surveys, and being the curious sort I am, I decided to check it out. Apart from logistical complaints against Google's idea that I've already voiced such as having a relevant survey, not repeating surveys, identification information (do they store it? Who stores it? Or are they going to ask your age, gender, ethnicity, location and income every damn time?) and how little these things are worth (it took me four years to get a fifty dollar iTunes gift card, so if I weren't doing it on the perverse belief that one day I might be able to use the experience as an excuse to hop back up on the soap box, I wouldn't have bothered) there are problems I have with the way these surveys are put together.
So here are a few of my favorite examples of things they do which is guaranteed to give them erroneous information, which they needed more of because absolutely everyone takes these things seriously.
1) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold before you have ascertained whether I have a spouse or not.
2) Asking me about my spouse/spouse's job/spouse's income/spouse's decision making power in the house hold after you have already ascertained that I HAVEN'T GOT ONE.
3) Compensation is more if you "qualify and complete" market research surveys. On no small number of occasions have I clearly taken the entire survey and then been told I don't qualify. Not what I'd call a better business practice.
4) Questions in which you cannot answer "I don't know" or "Not Applicable" thus forcing you to select an erroneous answer.
5) Questions in which you must select one answer in each column despite the answers being mutually exclusive and thus resulting in inherently conflicting data.
6) Asking detailed questions about your perception of something random, such as the moral fiber of a fertilizer company just because you've *heard* of them.
7) Not so subtle leading in favor of new product/ frequently obvious who the survey is being conducted on behalf of even in cases when it should not be.
8) Redundant questions.
9) If a user doesn't like one bad idea, following it up with one that's even worse and then asking them how the first rates in comparison. Solid garbage may be more desirable than soggy garbage, but I wouldn't say I actually desire it, you follow me?
10) Asking me where I live, then asking me how often I travel to that location for fun and asking me to rate it as a tourist spot. Gee, I dunno. See, 'cuz I've never been a tourist in my own bloody town.
11) Asking me age inappropriate questions.
12) Asking me for personal data more than once. Like I don't know whether I'm white or Asian without double checking. Or is this your attempt to catch on to people who are clearly just giving you whatever answer they feel like? Because if you can see how easy it is to give the wrong answer, maybe you shouldn't even bother with it...except it's cheaper to run than traditional market research, so nuts to me.
And so many more complaints, but that's all the room we have today. On Wednesday, a different kind of survey bashing. Join me then for "Extraneous Criteria" OR "Flawed Methodology."
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Friday Song
When I was a kid, one of the local radio stations had this recurring gag. Every Friday it would play the "friday song." I don't actually remember anything about the Friday song itself, only that they always paired it with Happy Boy by the Beat Farmers. As a result however, Fridays have always been music day for me. Coincidentally, today is also my brother's birthday. That calls for a song. Something upbeat, something triumphal, something that speaks to our generation, something other than Zoom, he who lives on the moon.
Aw hell, I'ma just throw out the first song that comes to mind.
Happy Birthday, butthead.
Aw hell, I'ma just throw out the first song that comes to mind.
Happy Birthday, butthead.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part II
So, at last, it's time to talk about DRM, digital right's management. And yet I find I've lost interest in doing so by this point. Ah well.
The most common example of DRM clasically would be "anti-pirating" features in software. You can understand how a publisher of any kind of goods would be quick to include measures that make it difficult to use the product without having purchased it. That way, if you want to use the product, "buy it you damn hippies!" unfortunately for businesses who are perhaps overeager to protect sales figures, they naturally run into a number of problems. Example: giving a hard limit on the number of installs creates trouble even for a single user. What happens when their hard drive fries? When they format their machine after a trojan or virus? When they buy a new computer? Should they not be allowed to use the product they legitimately purchased? Companies have a tendency to say "they'll just have to buy it again." Assuming of course that it's still available.
It should be no surprise that many people end up pirating the products largely because of anti-piracy measures since they're used to being able to lend things to friends. Not to mention that in those cases, licensing DRM is likely to add to the final cost of the product. Not to mention the extra problems it entails. Some years back the computer game industry was in a bit of a cold war with hackers, with people who legitimately purchased copies of overpriced games with insane DRM included being caught in the middle. At some point, exemplified perhaps most obviously by EA's SecuROM system, but others as well, DRM effectively meant installing spyware on people's computers as a precondition of using a program they've already paid to use. At which point, potential customers either A) Boycott or B) crack the DRM anyway just to prove a point. So the battle continues, and mostly it's only those in the middle, harmed by the aforementioned cold war who give it any thought. Meanwhile, prices rise and restrictions tighten threatening to push more legitimate customers into the piracy camp. It's hard to say "Bully for you, you stinkin' thieves" but it's also hard not to believe that DRM is one of those classic "slippery slopes" and the "light at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train."
Ah, but we're all book people here, right? So who cares about the PC software market? Doubly so for games? Because books are obviously the only acceptable medium for *anything* according to many bibliophiles. DRM affects your e-books just as much as it did PC software.
Think back a couple of years: We couldn't lend e-books at all. That changed, but being able to lend it a small, preset number of times and only for brief periods of time, and only for those who have the same brand reader is massively less convenient than with a real book, which you can lend as long as the book hasn't fallen apart, to whoever, and for however long. Publishers see it as a way of cutting out an undesirable reality. Even more obviously, the retailers think so. But it's a terrible idea. Especially for something like books. Ask any Managing Editor, Sales Manager, Marketing Manager, Publicity Manager or any other sale/distribution position in Publishing and they'll all freely admit that word of mouth and libraries are two of their greatest assets. Word of mouth takes a hit if you can't lend copies, or are extremely limited in doing so. Libraries meanwhile have been hit with prices that are often far higher for e-books than for their print counterparts.
Which isn't surprising. So have you. Publishing is still a print centric business. Nevermind that a digital focus would save anywhere from about 1-4 dollars on physically producing the book, remove shipping and warehousing costs, and eliminate cost of returns, which is a *very* big deal in publishing, and never mind that the 30% cut that digital retailers take is a lot less than the 50-70% discount the publisher would sell physical copies to a retailer for, Publishing is, even now, pretty stuck with the old model. Often if you go to the digital teams (and I have, on ocassion) they'll say they hate it. They hate windowing the release, the practice of releasing the e-book only months after the fact. Well, after years of arguing, they've largely one that one, but how about the prices? Especially in the early days, but even now, e-book prices are often inflated. How is that a DRM issue and not just an attempt to forestall a shift towards digital?
Mostly because every retailer of e-books has their own devices, proprietary file formats and DRM schemes. Again, it makes leding hard. Again, it tracks you and your usage. And perhaps worst: it gives an astonishing amount of power to the retailer. As a digital proponent one of the most attractive things about digital platforms would be bucking the traditional retail model. And that hasn't happened. Kind of the reverse, really. Because you have to chose from the second you walk in the door which retailer you will buy from exclusively.
Of course, these battles are fought too and progress is made. Kindle app for iPhones and whatnot. But it takes months or years to get where it should logically have been in the first place. In the meantime, we all suffer. As examples, when Macmillan had a fallout with Amazon over pricing a couple of years ago, all their titles suddenly vanished- even disappearing off people's own Kindle's after they'd already paid for them. Whoopsie! Or there's the deal Apple forced on Publishers, whose eyes, misting over from the glorious site of the iPad instantly believed it to be their great savior without needing any sort of rational explanation for why. "It's Apple" seemed to have been enough. It's kind of funny when you know what I know about the inner workings of publishers, because most people's train of thought (light at the end of the tunnel!) went something like
Young people like technology I don't understand. Therefore, young people like Apple. Apple is "cool." I'd like to be cool. If I associate myself with Apple, I will be cool in the eyes of young, tech savvy customers with disposable income.
It seems rational...to a point, but it's also easy to see how people who don't really understand the technology or the market would under, or in Apple's case, Overvalue some company, product or service. In any event, Apple's deal essentially prevented books from the big publishers from being sold for less anywhere else. So forget sales or price drops at *any* retailer unless Apple okays it for their own. This has the effect of artificially keeping prices high, risking loss of sales and exposure. Even if it sold tremendously well, you still run into the problem that retailers have such incredible power over issues like pricing and who is allowed to read copies of your product.
Bottom line? DRM theoretically ensures more money per sale by reducing the number of copies pirated or even loaned. At the same time, it losses sales to people who are inent on figting the principle of the thing, sometimes killing the profits entirely, doubly so for small publishers or authors who use e formats as their primary or only method of distribution. It also reinforces the positions of of the retailers, who were too strong already, which is good for neither producer nor consumer.
So what's the answer to this vexxing conundrum?
Hell if I know.
The most common example of DRM clasically would be "anti-pirating" features in software. You can understand how a publisher of any kind of goods would be quick to include measures that make it difficult to use the product without having purchased it. That way, if you want to use the product, "buy it you damn hippies!" unfortunately for businesses who are perhaps overeager to protect sales figures, they naturally run into a number of problems. Example: giving a hard limit on the number of installs creates trouble even for a single user. What happens when their hard drive fries? When they format their machine after a trojan or virus? When they buy a new computer? Should they not be allowed to use the product they legitimately purchased? Companies have a tendency to say "they'll just have to buy it again." Assuming of course that it's still available.
It should be no surprise that many people end up pirating the products largely because of anti-piracy measures since they're used to being able to lend things to friends. Not to mention that in those cases, licensing DRM is likely to add to the final cost of the product. Not to mention the extra problems it entails. Some years back the computer game industry was in a bit of a cold war with hackers, with people who legitimately purchased copies of overpriced games with insane DRM included being caught in the middle. At some point, exemplified perhaps most obviously by EA's SecuROM system, but others as well, DRM effectively meant installing spyware on people's computers as a precondition of using a program they've already paid to use. At which point, potential customers either A) Boycott or B) crack the DRM anyway just to prove a point. So the battle continues, and mostly it's only those in the middle, harmed by the aforementioned cold war who give it any thought. Meanwhile, prices rise and restrictions tighten threatening to push more legitimate customers into the piracy camp. It's hard to say "Bully for you, you stinkin' thieves" but it's also hard not to believe that DRM is one of those classic "slippery slopes" and the "light at the end of the tunnel is that of an oncoming train."
Ah, but we're all book people here, right? So who cares about the PC software market? Doubly so for games? Because books are obviously the only acceptable medium for *anything* according to many bibliophiles. DRM affects your e-books just as much as it did PC software.
Think back a couple of years: We couldn't lend e-books at all. That changed, but being able to lend it a small, preset number of times and only for brief periods of time, and only for those who have the same brand reader is massively less convenient than with a real book, which you can lend as long as the book hasn't fallen apart, to whoever, and for however long. Publishers see it as a way of cutting out an undesirable reality. Even more obviously, the retailers think so. But it's a terrible idea. Especially for something like books. Ask any Managing Editor, Sales Manager, Marketing Manager, Publicity Manager or any other sale/distribution position in Publishing and they'll all freely admit that word of mouth and libraries are two of their greatest assets. Word of mouth takes a hit if you can't lend copies, or are extremely limited in doing so. Libraries meanwhile have been hit with prices that are often far higher for e-books than for their print counterparts.
Which isn't surprising. So have you. Publishing is still a print centric business. Nevermind that a digital focus would save anywhere from about 1-4 dollars on physically producing the book, remove shipping and warehousing costs, and eliminate cost of returns, which is a *very* big deal in publishing, and never mind that the 30% cut that digital retailers take is a lot less than the 50-70% discount the publisher would sell physical copies to a retailer for, Publishing is, even now, pretty stuck with the old model. Often if you go to the digital teams (and I have, on ocassion) they'll say they hate it. They hate windowing the release, the practice of releasing the e-book only months after the fact. Well, after years of arguing, they've largely one that one, but how about the prices? Especially in the early days, but even now, e-book prices are often inflated. How is that a DRM issue and not just an attempt to forestall a shift towards digital?
Mostly because every retailer of e-books has their own devices, proprietary file formats and DRM schemes. Again, it makes leding hard. Again, it tracks you and your usage. And perhaps worst: it gives an astonishing amount of power to the retailer. As a digital proponent one of the most attractive things about digital platforms would be bucking the traditional retail model. And that hasn't happened. Kind of the reverse, really. Because you have to chose from the second you walk in the door which retailer you will buy from exclusively.
Of course, these battles are fought too and progress is made. Kindle app for iPhones and whatnot. But it takes months or years to get where it should logically have been in the first place. In the meantime, we all suffer. As examples, when Macmillan had a fallout with Amazon over pricing a couple of years ago, all their titles suddenly vanished- even disappearing off people's own Kindle's after they'd already paid for them. Whoopsie! Or there's the deal Apple forced on Publishers, whose eyes, misting over from the glorious site of the iPad instantly believed it to be their great savior without needing any sort of rational explanation for why. "It's Apple" seemed to have been enough. It's kind of funny when you know what I know about the inner workings of publishers, because most people's train of thought (light at the end of the tunnel!) went something like
Young people like technology I don't understand. Therefore, young people like Apple. Apple is "cool." I'd like to be cool. If I associate myself with Apple, I will be cool in the eyes of young, tech savvy customers with disposable income.
It seems rational...to a point, but it's also easy to see how people who don't really understand the technology or the market would under, or in Apple's case, Overvalue some company, product or service. In any event, Apple's deal essentially prevented books from the big publishers from being sold for less anywhere else. So forget sales or price drops at *any* retailer unless Apple okays it for their own. This has the effect of artificially keeping prices high, risking loss of sales and exposure. Even if it sold tremendously well, you still run into the problem that retailers have such incredible power over issues like pricing and who is allowed to read copies of your product.
Bottom line? DRM theoretically ensures more money per sale by reducing the number of copies pirated or even loaned. At the same time, it losses sales to people who are inent on figting the principle of the thing, sometimes killing the profits entirely, doubly so for small publishers or authors who use e formats as their primary or only method of distribution. It also reinforces the positions of of the retailers, who were too strong already, which is good for neither producer nor consumer.
So what's the answer to this vexxing conundrum?
Hell if I know.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I
So on Friday, I mentioned that there were two things I wanted to talk about today- the pros and cons of DRM and another article about google's latest idea. Now I'm wondering if I have space for both in a single post. I'm also distracted by someone paying any attention to my award winning polls. Yes, mystery guest, you know your Yellow Submarine quite well. Jeremy, Hillary, Boob and Ph.D are all aliases the Nowhere Man uses to cover his tracks as he viciously causes roses to grow from noses.
So, Google's new idea. You can read about it here. Let me explain...no, there is too much. Let me sum up. Miniature market research surveys which can be used to replace paywalls. Okay, part of me says "score! High quality online newspapers will be free forever!" A tiny part wonders if any site behind a paywall other newspapers would care. Hard to see some freaky hardcore porn site hitting you with questions about your preferences in lube. But mostly I just think "this is a terrible idea."
Which is odd, because Google has many terrible ideas, but usually they're smart enough to make a joke out of it. Hell, they have a whole series of commercials for dumb, fake products and services on Youtube. Here's a good one-
See, here's a few problems I have with it. First, how do you conceivably make it relevant to whatever the viewer was doing? Second, market researchers don't pay much for this stuff. Feel free to look around. There are plenty of places you can take surveys online and get "paid" for it, but that amounts to like, fifty cents for a twenty minute survey. What's one question worth? Here's another problem, how do you control the flow of data? If it's actually done through google so you don't take the same survey a thousand times, doesn't that raise issues of privacy? On the other hand, if you're just trying to read the NY Times and they ask you repeatedly whether or not you like Jelly Beans, whether you've had any in the last month, and whether you've ever considered buying a 135 dollar Ronald Reagen themed Jelly Bean box set* they're going to run into the same people answering the question many times, throwing accuracy way the hell off. Assuming it wasn't way the hell off in the first place because let's be honest. You were just trying to read the news and halfway through the article, in the middle of a quote no less, suddenly you're talking about Jelly Beans or you won't be able to see how it ends.
Or how about the extremely likely "okay, we'll try that out, but we're still going to have both paywalls and advertising." The ads alone are pretty damn intrusive, but they're also a necessary evil for big sites which will naturally have high hosting costs. And if you really need a paywall, I understand that too though it sucks for me, since I'm poor and still like reading the news. But it seems to me that if you offer another way to make money, they may well just add it to the mix. And the potential profit for them is, I think, not that staggering but the inconvenience to readers would be. Which would also risk a migration of readers to sites less likely to ask them what they're wearing right now in the creepiest text they can muster with a few *huff* *pant* *wheeze* noises thrown in just for good measure.
So basically, I'm saying "That's stupid, Google. Don't do that. Just because you host my e-mail and my blog, and fought SOPA and can use your sattelites to spy on me at this very moment doesn't mean that I'm honor bound to agree with stupid things. And this is a stupid thing.
Also, this took longer than I wanted but less time than I expected. Even so...scrollupscrollupscrollup amend-amend-amend. Okay. This article is now officially "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I." DRM talk on Wednesday.
*Totally a real thing. And of all presidents, why Ronald Reagan? I never understood his popularity. Probably because I know too much (to live?) in regards to, say, hostage crises in the Middle East, homelessness, poverty, crime, AIDs, Iran-Contra, education budgets and Reagen's other myriad failings to back the "let's add him to Mt. Rushmore" lobby. Honk if you hate Reagan! If you don't, go, I don't know. Read some non-fiction. Like a newspaper, say.
So, Google's new idea. You can read about it here. Let me explain...no, there is too much. Let me sum up. Miniature market research surveys which can be used to replace paywalls. Okay, part of me says "score! High quality online newspapers will be free forever!" A tiny part wonders if any site behind a paywall other newspapers would care. Hard to see some freaky hardcore porn site hitting you with questions about your preferences in lube. But mostly I just think "this is a terrible idea."
Which is odd, because Google has many terrible ideas, but usually they're smart enough to make a joke out of it. Hell, they have a whole series of commercials for dumb, fake products and services on Youtube. Here's a good one-
See, here's a few problems I have with it. First, how do you conceivably make it relevant to whatever the viewer was doing? Second, market researchers don't pay much for this stuff. Feel free to look around. There are plenty of places you can take surveys online and get "paid" for it, but that amounts to like, fifty cents for a twenty minute survey. What's one question worth? Here's another problem, how do you control the flow of data? If it's actually done through google so you don't take the same survey a thousand times, doesn't that raise issues of privacy? On the other hand, if you're just trying to read the NY Times and they ask you repeatedly whether or not you like Jelly Beans, whether you've had any in the last month, and whether you've ever considered buying a 135 dollar Ronald Reagen themed Jelly Bean box set* they're going to run into the same people answering the question many times, throwing accuracy way the hell off. Assuming it wasn't way the hell off in the first place because let's be honest. You were just trying to read the news and halfway through the article, in the middle of a quote no less, suddenly you're talking about Jelly Beans or you won't be able to see how it ends.
Or how about the extremely likely "okay, we'll try that out, but we're still going to have both paywalls and advertising." The ads alone are pretty damn intrusive, but they're also a necessary evil for big sites which will naturally have high hosting costs. And if you really need a paywall, I understand that too though it sucks for me, since I'm poor and still like reading the news. But it seems to me that if you offer another way to make money, they may well just add it to the mix. And the potential profit for them is, I think, not that staggering but the inconvenience to readers would be. Which would also risk a migration of readers to sites less likely to ask them what they're wearing right now in the creepiest text they can muster with a few *huff* *pant* *wheeze* noises thrown in just for good measure.
So basically, I'm saying "That's stupid, Google. Don't do that. Just because you host my e-mail and my blog, and fought SOPA and can use your sattelites to spy on me at this very moment doesn't mean that I'm honor bound to agree with stupid things. And this is a stupid thing.
Also, this took longer than I wanted but less time than I expected. Even so...scrollupscrollupscrollup amend-amend-amend. Okay. This article is now officially "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer- Part I." DRM talk on Wednesday.
*Totally a real thing. And of all presidents, why Ronald Reagan? I never understood his popularity. Probably because I know too much (to live?) in regards to, say, hostage crises in the Middle East, homelessness, poverty, crime, AIDs, Iran-Contra, education budgets and Reagen's other myriad failings to back the "let's add him to Mt. Rushmore" lobby. Honk if you hate Reagan! If you don't, go, I don't know. Read some non-fiction. Like a newspaper, say.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Dating Upwardly
Few good articles the last day or two I wanted to share with all's y'all if you haven't seen 'em.
First, this little gem about J.K. Rowling. Gotta love that Huffpo. "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report." In any event, the article breaks down to something very simple. Not only has Rowling decided to finally start selling Harry Potter books in digital form, she's doing it through her own store, which means she's probably using PDFs or plain ePUBs that haven't gone through any particular company's conversion from ePUB into a proprietary format. It's not like Rowling is the first author or company to do that. The 30%+ chunk Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. take of every sale for simply hosting a file makes it worth even a small publisher's time to develop their own site and sell it themselves. I think the differences here are essentially two fold. One, J.K. Rowling is not merely a best seller as some authors who have pushed digital publishing hard, to the point of opening their own publishers or creating other online ventures to work in conjunction with their regular "day job." Rowling is a MEGA best seller. The other major difference is that it sounds like she's decided to sell them *exclusively* through a site she runs.
I'm going to be honest. I have very mixed feelings about Rowling and her work. Are they interesting books? Sure. They're also over hyped and in dire need of editing. If you have copies handy, check it out. Compare the first to the fourth to the final. You'll notice the margins shrunk, the text shrunk, the leading shrunk, the paper is thinner and it's still so thick it can barely be printed at a commercial publisher. I know the managing editor from the first few books and the whole thing was a nightmare for her. Trying to figure out how it could possibly be produced and overseeing security at the same time. There is also the usual jealousy. I mean, I'm in publishing (kind of) and I like to write. Why aren't *I* J.K. Rowling? Or why didn't I get to sign her or whatever? I'd like to have been all up in that. But even if I am going to be murdered in my sleep for suggesting that eight hundred pages at ten point type is too much for a single middle grade novel, I do respect Rowling's abilities, especially her ability to make things happen her way. Granted, it's not always good for the publisher...or even for her own products. Those books were too long because (so I hear) she refused to allow them to do any serious editing. But I think this is a great move on her part and I wish she'd done it a year ago.
Even though publishers and authors are finally warming, and in some cases, pushing digital forms, this is the first time I've heard of that someone with a lot of market power has chosen to cut Amazon out entirely. Hopefully it will bring them down a peg or two and reduce the fee that Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. charge for e-books from 30% (far too much for simply hosting a file- in fact, Amazon has new pricing that's 30% plus something like 15 cents per Megabyte of the file, which is their *actual* hosting cost) to something more reasonable, like 10%. Publishers big and small, and especially the smaller ones who haven't got the clout are afraid that, just like in the retail era you had to bow to the whims of Barnes and Noble because if they didn't carry your book, you'd never get wide enough distribution to make that particular project profitable. If Rowling is successful, at the very least it might embolden them to re-open negotiations or increase efforts at promoting their own online stores.
And yet the article was all about DRM. The DRM battle has been going on for freaking ever and will for a long time and there's merit to both sides. In the meantime, this represents something way bigger. I'm going to guess that the "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie" who was credited with having "contributed to this report" is more keen on tech than on publishing.
Phew, that took me longer than I expected to analyze, so I'll save the other article + a brief rundown of the pros and cons of DRM for monday. Join me then in "Dr. DRM" OR "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer."
First, this little gem about J.K. Rowling. Gotta love that Huffpo. "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie contributed to this report." In any event, the article breaks down to something very simple. Not only has Rowling decided to finally start selling Harry Potter books in digital form, she's doing it through her own store, which means she's probably using PDFs or plain ePUBs that haven't gone through any particular company's conversion from ePUB into a proprietary format. It's not like Rowling is the first author or company to do that. The 30%+ chunk Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. take of every sale for simply hosting a file makes it worth even a small publisher's time to develop their own site and sell it themselves. I think the differences here are essentially two fold. One, J.K. Rowling is not merely a best seller as some authors who have pushed digital publishing hard, to the point of opening their own publishers or creating other online ventures to work in conjunction with their regular "day job." Rowling is a MEGA best seller. The other major difference is that it sounds like she's decided to sell them *exclusively* through a site she runs.
I'm going to be honest. I have very mixed feelings about Rowling and her work. Are they interesting books? Sure. They're also over hyped and in dire need of editing. If you have copies handy, check it out. Compare the first to the fourth to the final. You'll notice the margins shrunk, the text shrunk, the leading shrunk, the paper is thinner and it's still so thick it can barely be printed at a commercial publisher. I know the managing editor from the first few books and the whole thing was a nightmare for her. Trying to figure out how it could possibly be produced and overseeing security at the same time. There is also the usual jealousy. I mean, I'm in publishing (kind of) and I like to write. Why aren't *I* J.K. Rowling? Or why didn't I get to sign her or whatever? I'd like to have been all up in that. But even if I am going to be murdered in my sleep for suggesting that eight hundred pages at ten point type is too much for a single middle grade novel, I do respect Rowling's abilities, especially her ability to make things happen her way. Granted, it's not always good for the publisher...or even for her own products. Those books were too long because (so I hear) she refused to allow them to do any serious editing. But I think this is a great move on her part and I wish she'd done it a year ago.
Even though publishers and authors are finally warming, and in some cases, pushing digital forms, this is the first time I've heard of that someone with a lot of market power has chosen to cut Amazon out entirely. Hopefully it will bring them down a peg or two and reduce the fee that Amazon, B&N, Apple etc. charge for e-books from 30% (far too much for simply hosting a file- in fact, Amazon has new pricing that's 30% plus something like 15 cents per Megabyte of the file, which is their *actual* hosting cost) to something more reasonable, like 10%. Publishers big and small, and especially the smaller ones who haven't got the clout are afraid that, just like in the retail era you had to bow to the whims of Barnes and Noble because if they didn't carry your book, you'd never get wide enough distribution to make that particular project profitable. If Rowling is successful, at the very least it might embolden them to re-open negotiations or increase efforts at promoting their own online stores.
And yet the article was all about DRM. The DRM battle has been going on for freaking ever and will for a long time and there's merit to both sides. In the meantime, this represents something way bigger. I'm going to guess that the "Associated Press Writer Hillel Italie" who was credited with having "contributed to this report" is more keen on tech than on publishing.
Phew, that took me longer than I expected to analyze, so I'll save the other article + a brief rundown of the pros and cons of DRM for monday. Join me then in "Dr. DRM" OR "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Customer."
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Headache
All this silence is giving me a wicked headache. To be fair, what could I expect? That all my former readers would notice and care about my return immediately? That they would unreservedly welcome me back after I abandoned them? Especially with my refusal to self-promote (I'm not for sale. Why should I promote?) which is a guaranteeed way of flying beneath the radar?
Obviously I'm being a bit fecetious on both sides there, but like I said, this is part of an experiment for me. So for now, I'm just going to shoot my messages into the void as it was in the beggining and we'll see what happens. People notice and care, I'll keep going. If they don't notice or don't care, I guess I'll stop. It's a sort of sociological experiment, polluted by my contradictory desires to remain "somewhere out there" where I can be objective and an "authority" and my desire to be right in the middle, known to everybody and making a difference. The middle ground? Writing, especially blogging, where you could (theoretically) be a celebrity and yet your most devoted readers wouldn't know who you were. I'm not much for obfuscation, so I mean, my name is right there, but I think you see what I'm saying. I'm interested in whether or not you guys have noticed my return, and prepared to go either way if you have. In the meantime, expect me to pick up the old M-W-F update schedule for the time being.
If anyone *has* found their way back, are there any subjects you wish me to viciously savage, secure as I am aloft my high horse, riding about the indoor polo field I had installed within my gleaming ivory tower? Or shall I just babble about whatever comes to mind in a typically cynical, nerdy way as per usual? The ball is in your court, my (largely imaginary) gentle readers.
Obviously I'm being a bit fecetious on both sides there, but like I said, this is part of an experiment for me. So for now, I'm just going to shoot my messages into the void as it was in the beggining and we'll see what happens. People notice and care, I'll keep going. If they don't notice or don't care, I guess I'll stop. It's a sort of sociological experiment, polluted by my contradictory desires to remain "somewhere out there" where I can be objective and an "authority" and my desire to be right in the middle, known to everybody and making a difference. The middle ground? Writing, especially blogging, where you could (theoretically) be a celebrity and yet your most devoted readers wouldn't know who you were. I'm not much for obfuscation, so I mean, my name is right there, but I think you see what I'm saying. I'm interested in whether or not you guys have noticed my return, and prepared to go either way if you have. In the meantime, expect me to pick up the old M-W-F update schedule for the time being.
If anyone *has* found their way back, are there any subjects you wish me to viciously savage, secure as I am aloft my high horse, riding about the indoor polo field I had installed within my gleaming ivory tower? Or shall I just babble about whatever comes to mind in a typically cynical, nerdy way as per usual? The ball is in your court, my (largely imaginary) gentle readers.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Way to Ruffle My Feathers
So, you know something that's been bothering me lately? The portrayal of archery in movies. I am merely a hobbyist when it comes to archery, but as a nerd, it becomes my duty to whine about irrelevant crap. The first thing to kick this off my rampage was a meandering but generally enjoyable Jackie Chan movie called Little Big Soldier.
You'll notice, as an example, that those arrows are using artificial feathers. The movie took place roughly 2,500 years ago before China was unified by the first emperor, Shi Huang Di. Yes, I know I'm a nerd, and yes I know I'm making myself look even worse by throwing out ancient Chinese History, but whatever. In any event, artificial feathers. 2,500 years ago. I can only imagine that the Qin troops who fired those arrows plucked them from the bodies of artificial birds they shot out of the artificial sky. Next, look at the nocks. That is, those little slots on the end of the arrow. Those are used to attach themselves to the arrow string. Don't they look a little off to you? Maybe it's because they, along with everything else about those arrows seems oddly mass produced. To be fair to the movie, one of Shi Huang Di's big accomplishments was "the standardization of weights and measures." Maybe the historians just forgot about standardizatio of arrows. Even so, I'ma call bullshit on that presentation of them. Even more so when it took like 8 arrows at point blank range to take down one guy. I know they were going for effect and all, but really? At that range, a professional strength longbow would've buried itself to the feathers. Even through his armor. No way you could get four or five in the torso (not to mention a few in the extremities) and still be standing for a second round.
Next up, the Hunger Games. I'm sure you've all seen some of the promotional pictures or the trailer, be it at the theater or in a news post or as an advertisement on IMDB or whatever. Well, let's check it out, shall we?
The first thing I want to point out is- she's using gloves. Why would she do that? Archery is sort of like playing the guitar. Overdo it at first and you'll tear up your fingers, but do it regularly and you develop calluses. This is important because, as a general rule the less between you and the string the better. Take the guy who runs the store where I get my supplies. He doesn't use protection at all. I'm only a hobbyist and I alternate between no protection and the lightest gloves I could get- much lighter than the ones she's using. I have a hard time believing a master archer who gets a perfect score as a candidate in the games purely as a result of her skill with a bow, who hunts everyday, would need or want any finger protection that would only make it harder for her to feel the string.
That said, her stance etc. isn't bad compared to a lot of movies, but the bow itself bugs me. It's a straight short bow. On the one hand, this was probably an intentional choice of the movie makers. For those two or three people in the world who haven't read the book, the Hunger Games are a blood sport designed to be unpredictable and savage. It would make sense for them to deny her a *good* bow because it would give her too much of an advantage. If memory serves, however, she has experience making her own. I'm not saying every archer can or should be their own bowyer and fletcher, but let me spell this out- straight bows suck. They're weak and harder to handle and require more strength to pull for the same effort when compared, as an example, to a simple recurve bow.If I were Katniss and they said, "here's a stick with a string attached, go have fun" I might take my chances making my own bow. It's also the case that despite a decently realistic depiction in most of the pictures I've seen, you know she's going to make some totally insane shots that will one-hit-kill targets from fifty yards and I tell you here and now- no way. That is, at best, a forty pound lift. That'll get you *maybe* thirty yards as an effective range, and considering the character will be worn out by then, and considering a forty pound lift on a straight bow requires forty actual pouds of pressure on the string, I have a hard time seeing a worn out, injured, teenage girl pulling it to its full capacity. Don't believe me? Go find an archery place and (go ahead and lie if you must) tell them you might be interested in picking it up as a hobby and would they measure your draw length. When they offer to a 32 pound recurve or a 40 pound compound, pooh-pooh it. Go for the straight bow.
Not that any of that will stop me from seeing the movie. Just not until the crowds have had a chance to die down. Besides, much as I like bows, they didn't make that book. Bread made that book. You guys know what I'm talking about, right? If they took that airlifting the bread in bit out, it'll be the last straw. That was the best part of the best scene in the bloody book.
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it all transfers to the big screen. In the meantime, I don't feel as bad about this post as I thought I might when I chose it as a topic. It's a lonely world sometimes, when you can think "there are six billion people out there and I must be the only one who cares about this stuff." So hooray for the internet for bringing people (read: nerds) together.
You'll notice, as an example, that those arrows are using artificial feathers. The movie took place roughly 2,500 years ago before China was unified by the first emperor, Shi Huang Di. Yes, I know I'm a nerd, and yes I know I'm making myself look even worse by throwing out ancient Chinese History, but whatever. In any event, artificial feathers. 2,500 years ago. I can only imagine that the Qin troops who fired those arrows plucked them from the bodies of artificial birds they shot out of the artificial sky. Next, look at the nocks. That is, those little slots on the end of the arrow. Those are used to attach themselves to the arrow string. Don't they look a little off to you? Maybe it's because they, along with everything else about those arrows seems oddly mass produced. To be fair to the movie, one of Shi Huang Di's big accomplishments was "the standardization of weights and measures." Maybe the historians just forgot about standardizatio of arrows. Even so, I'ma call bullshit on that presentation of them. Even more so when it took like 8 arrows at point blank range to take down one guy. I know they were going for effect and all, but really? At that range, a professional strength longbow would've buried itself to the feathers. Even through his armor. No way you could get four or five in the torso (not to mention a few in the extremities) and still be standing for a second round.
Next up, the Hunger Games. I'm sure you've all seen some of the promotional pictures or the trailer, be it at the theater or in a news post or as an advertisement on IMDB or whatever. Well, let's check it out, shall we?
The first thing I want to point out is- she's using gloves. Why would she do that? Archery is sort of like playing the guitar. Overdo it at first and you'll tear up your fingers, but do it regularly and you develop calluses. This is important because, as a general rule the less between you and the string the better. Take the guy who runs the store where I get my supplies. He doesn't use protection at all. I'm only a hobbyist and I alternate between no protection and the lightest gloves I could get- much lighter than the ones she's using. I have a hard time believing a master archer who gets a perfect score as a candidate in the games purely as a result of her skill with a bow, who hunts everyday, would need or want any finger protection that would only make it harder for her to feel the string.
That said, her stance etc. isn't bad compared to a lot of movies, but the bow itself bugs me. It's a straight short bow. On the one hand, this was probably an intentional choice of the movie makers. For those two or three people in the world who haven't read the book, the Hunger Games are a blood sport designed to be unpredictable and savage. It would make sense for them to deny her a *good* bow because it would give her too much of an advantage. If memory serves, however, she has experience making her own. I'm not saying every archer can or should be their own bowyer and fletcher, but let me spell this out- straight bows suck. They're weak and harder to handle and require more strength to pull for the same effort when compared, as an example, to a simple recurve bow.If I were Katniss and they said, "here's a stick with a string attached, go have fun" I might take my chances making my own bow. It's also the case that despite a decently realistic depiction in most of the pictures I've seen, you know she's going to make some totally insane shots that will one-hit-kill targets from fifty yards and I tell you here and now- no way. That is, at best, a forty pound lift. That'll get you *maybe* thirty yards as an effective range, and considering the character will be worn out by then, and considering a forty pound lift on a straight bow requires forty actual pouds of pressure on the string, I have a hard time seeing a worn out, injured, teenage girl pulling it to its full capacity. Don't believe me? Go find an archery place and (go ahead and lie if you must) tell them you might be interested in picking it up as a hobby and would they measure your draw length. When they offer to a 32 pound recurve or a 40 pound compound, pooh-pooh it. Go for the straight bow.
Not that any of that will stop me from seeing the movie. Just not until the crowds have had a chance to die down. Besides, much as I like bows, they didn't make that book. Bread made that book. You guys know what I'm talking about, right? If they took that airlifting the bread in bit out, it'll be the last straw. That was the best part of the best scene in the bloody book.
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see how it all transfers to the big screen. In the meantime, I don't feel as bad about this post as I thought I might when I chose it as a topic. It's a lonely world sometimes, when you can think "there are six billion people out there and I must be the only one who cares about this stuff." So hooray for the internet for bringing people (read: nerds) together.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Descendency
Because it's saturday and I'm tired.
Here's another thing I've noticed about pulp. Pulp kinds of stories, that is, experimental, over the top, throwing ideas at you left and right, fast moving stories and emotional roller coasters. These still exist. Indeed, I think they're more popular now than ever before.
Some of them are so intentionally over the top (and clever enough to reference pulp) that they end up being labeled as "literature." Paul Malmont, as an example. Paul, my friend you are not literature. But that's okay, because when you write books where the guys who write The Shadow and Doc Savage hang out with the founder of Scientology to investigate the death of H.P. Lovecraft and its connection to a Chinese Warlord and a ten year old unsolved murder in China Town, I honestly don't care if people call you Jesus or the Devil because I'm still going to read that book. I have, and I enjoyed it enormously. In case you're interested, that's the Chinatown Death Cloud Peril. Also, it apparently has a sequel called the Astounding, the Amazing and the Unknown. I only just realized that, but is it going on my to-read list? You bet your ass it's going on my to read list. And it damn well better be on yours. Check that shit out, maaaaaan.
Another way pulp style, if not pulp publishers per se, exist to this day is as YA and upper MG. Those are fast moving stories, that take sheerest delight in being ludicrously over the top. I have things to say about the Hunger Games for instance, but since I have a slightly different topic for that, I'll hold off. So instead I'll just say- Alternate WWII where the Brits have genetically engineered monsters, the Germans have giant robots, girls dress as boys and are so dashing they get kissed by turkish rebels? I am so there, mofos. Come to think of it, the third one in that series must be out by now. I'm talking about Scott Westerfeld, and more specifically, his Leviathan series. We all know how popular upper MG and YA are these days, even amongst adults. I would argue that it's because those books throw caution to the wind, freely acknowledge the elephant in the room, and run with it like men and women insane. They are, in short, very pulpy in style. The big difference being only that classic pulp was on a super strict schedule, especially the popular ones. Walter Gibson used to write 2 novels *a month* and consulted on other projects. I mean, that's insane. And certainly these upper MG and YA authors aren't doing that, and there's surely a bigger marketing budget behind them, whether or not it gets used. But look me in the eys (or if you don't live near NY, look a picture of me in the eyes) and say "YA is nothing like pulp. At all. Ever. Never will be. You're nuts. For reals." I dare you.
Finally, pulp is, I think, probably a bit of an inspiration for many modern zines, both in print and online, though most zines seem to take the short story route rather than a serialized novel route, probably on the grounds that it would make it hard to follow- locking new readers out. Even so, authors line up to get so much as flash fiction in an e-zine, and if you look around, there are plenty of them.
With all these legacies of pulp hanging around, you'd think people wouldn't be so down on the concept of pulp, nor the word itself, which is unjustly equated to "low budget, bad writing, poor editing, throw away nonsense." It ain't. It ain't like that at all. And I would be a happy man if I could convince all's y'alls that pulp is not a dirty word.
Here's another thing I've noticed about pulp. Pulp kinds of stories, that is, experimental, over the top, throwing ideas at you left and right, fast moving stories and emotional roller coasters. These still exist. Indeed, I think they're more popular now than ever before.
Some of them are so intentionally over the top (and clever enough to reference pulp) that they end up being labeled as "literature." Paul Malmont, as an example. Paul, my friend you are not literature. But that's okay, because when you write books where the guys who write The Shadow and Doc Savage hang out with the founder of Scientology to investigate the death of H.P. Lovecraft and its connection to a Chinese Warlord and a ten year old unsolved murder in China Town, I honestly don't care if people call you Jesus or the Devil because I'm still going to read that book. I have, and I enjoyed it enormously. In case you're interested, that's the Chinatown Death Cloud Peril. Also, it apparently has a sequel called the Astounding, the Amazing and the Unknown. I only just realized that, but is it going on my to-read list? You bet your ass it's going on my to read list. And it damn well better be on yours. Check that shit out, maaaaaan.
Another way pulp style, if not pulp publishers per se, exist to this day is as YA and upper MG. Those are fast moving stories, that take sheerest delight in being ludicrously over the top. I have things to say about the Hunger Games for instance, but since I have a slightly different topic for that, I'll hold off. So instead I'll just say- Alternate WWII where the Brits have genetically engineered monsters, the Germans have giant robots, girls dress as boys and are so dashing they get kissed by turkish rebels? I am so there, mofos. Come to think of it, the third one in that series must be out by now. I'm talking about Scott Westerfeld, and more specifically, his Leviathan series. We all know how popular upper MG and YA are these days, even amongst adults. I would argue that it's because those books throw caution to the wind, freely acknowledge the elephant in the room, and run with it like men and women insane. They are, in short, very pulpy in style. The big difference being only that classic pulp was on a super strict schedule, especially the popular ones. Walter Gibson used to write 2 novels *a month* and consulted on other projects. I mean, that's insane. And certainly these upper MG and YA authors aren't doing that, and there's surely a bigger marketing budget behind them, whether or not it gets used. But look me in the eys (or if you don't live near NY, look a picture of me in the eyes) and say "YA is nothing like pulp. At all. Ever. Never will be. You're nuts. For reals." I dare you.
Finally, pulp is, I think, probably a bit of an inspiration for many modern zines, both in print and online, though most zines seem to take the short story route rather than a serialized novel route, probably on the grounds that it would make it hard to follow- locking new readers out. Even so, authors line up to get so much as flash fiction in an e-zine, and if you look around, there are plenty of them.
With all these legacies of pulp hanging around, you'd think people wouldn't be so down on the concept of pulp, nor the word itself, which is unjustly equated to "low budget, bad writing, poor editing, throw away nonsense." It ain't. It ain't like that at all. And I would be a happy man if I could convince all's y'alls that pulp is not a dirty word.
Friday, March 23, 2012
No Mercy Asked, No Carter Given
So I opened my (much heralded) return to blogging by making a reference to A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Namely, that I had returned from the Valley of Dor down the River Iss. Or in other words, from the dead. That particular example stood out to me because, you know. The movie just came out. So today, here's a brief run-down of the 1917 novel (based on even older pulp stories starting in 1912) and the 2012 movie. As a note, this is not a review, and it will make infinitely more sense if you're familiar with at least one or the other. That said, it may inform your decision if you've been on the fence about jumping into Burrough's Barsoom series, several of which are free at project Gutenberg.
The Premise: After the Civil War, a soldier of fortune who had formerly fought for the CSA named John Carter seems to die on a prospecting trip to Arizona and awakens in a mysterious land called Barsoom. It isn't long before he finds that the lower gravity has allowed for local creatures to become giant in size, and yet his own strength and speed far outdoes their own since his body was built for to accomodate the more difficult conditions of Earth, allowing him to jump forty feet or fell mighty beasts with one punch. In a one of a kind position, can a life long soldier put an end to the war tearing the land apart in order to save the beautiful Martian Princess Dejah Thoris, or will the fierce competition over his power only add fuel to the fire.
The Differences: Are numerous. The book, after all is Tarzan. IIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAACE. I'm totally serious. If you've ever read Tarzan, you probably remember how the first half or so of the book was taken up by acclimating the reader to the world of the Apes, as well as Tarzan's cursory introduction to the civilized world (teaching himself to read from books left behind by his dead parents.) A Princess of Mars is much the same way with a good half the book being a primer on Martian culture. It's largely narrative, with almost no dialogue at all, and it does its job quite well. You'll be as confused as Carter. Once things start happening, it barrels through the rest of the story very quickly. It almost feels like two entirely different books, but both halves are very enjoyable. The movie on the other hand keeps a more consistent pace of high-flyin' adventure from the get-go. Hooray for ADD? Except as action sequences go, I'd rate them to be generally "okay." For ludicrously over the top movie punch-ups, you're probably better off waiting for the Avengers. Or for more "realistic" punch-ups, there's the Hunger Games, though if I were you, I'd consider not going until it's been out for a few weeks.
How about the characters? Well, the cast is largely the same. John Carter befriends Tars Tarkas, Jeddak of the Thark, and together they ride their mighty thoats into battle against the Wicked Zodangans and in defense of the wise Heliumites. If that sounds confusing, it's no wonder half the book is spent on the complexities of Martian culture. The movie actually throws in an extra curveball by making the driving force behind the Zodongans the Holy Thern, who actually aren't introduced until the *second* Barsoom novel Gods of Mars. What they did to the characters for the movie was a pretty mixed bag, but on the whole, I'm going to have to fall in favor with the book. The big improvement was to Dejah Thoris, the princess of Helium, who in the book was stately and intelligent and whatever, but posesses no special skills outside of being a good public speaker. In the movie she's a scientist and she can kick your ass. I much prefer sidekicks and love interests that aren't just helpless dolts there to ask questions to move the plot along or be kidnapped to show off the incredible powers of the hero. A few problems. First, they go a little overboard with Dejah. Second, in the books, she was naked the whole time and I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have wanted to see movie Dejah slicing dudes up whilst postulating scientific theories in the buff. Can you say "perfection?". Third, most of the rest of the cast gets shafted. Sola, one of the very few gentle, deep thinkers amongst the wild green Martians plays a large role in Carter's acclimation to the culture of Mars. Having glossed that over, her role is of minimal importance. Woola, the super powered Martian guard dog is largely unchanged in importance. That is to say, helpful, but essentially a plot device to ocassionally need rescuing or come to the rescue. The closest thing to a typical sidekick, the talented but extraordinarily unlucky Kantos Kan barely shows up in the movie at all. Tars Tarkas gets far less development, and the entire Green Martian species, in all it's tribes and sub-tribes is represented in a far more simplistic way with numerous characters being either cut or combined. While I'm all for cutting that which is unecessary, it needs to be done with precision. Which the movie failed at when they introduced the Warhoons, a tribe which is an enemy of the Thark, and then went nowhere with them. Way to drop the ball on that one, movie.
As far as the plot...well, the outline is the same, but the details are totally different. Many of the same things happen, but for different reasons. Other times, totally different things happen. I'd go into it, but I could be here all day and you won't know which way is up by the time I'm done with my explanation. So I won't bother.
Final analysis: I read the book in a day and it's worth it, doubly so since it's out of Copyright and consequently free. The movie is about 2 hours long and not free. If you have to pick one, go with the book. I thought a lot of stuff became unclear in the movie due to cutting vital information.
On a side note: the movie makes the ninth ray (a ninth color of light) central to its plot. It rarely, however, mentions the 8th ray which is used to create flying Machines on Mars. Since Burroughs doesn't name the ray anything but "the 8th" in the first book, I have decided that it is, without doubt, Octarine.
The Premise: After the Civil War, a soldier of fortune who had formerly fought for the CSA named John Carter seems to die on a prospecting trip to Arizona and awakens in a mysterious land called Barsoom. It isn't long before he finds that the lower gravity has allowed for local creatures to become giant in size, and yet his own strength and speed far outdoes their own since his body was built for to accomodate the more difficult conditions of Earth, allowing him to jump forty feet or fell mighty beasts with one punch. In a one of a kind position, can a life long soldier put an end to the war tearing the land apart in order to save the beautiful Martian Princess Dejah Thoris, or will the fierce competition over his power only add fuel to the fire.
The Differences: Are numerous. The book, after all is Tarzan. IIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAACE. I'm totally serious. If you've ever read Tarzan, you probably remember how the first half or so of the book was taken up by acclimating the reader to the world of the Apes, as well as Tarzan's cursory introduction to the civilized world (teaching himself to read from books left behind by his dead parents.) A Princess of Mars is much the same way with a good half the book being a primer on Martian culture. It's largely narrative, with almost no dialogue at all, and it does its job quite well. You'll be as confused as Carter. Once things start happening, it barrels through the rest of the story very quickly. It almost feels like two entirely different books, but both halves are very enjoyable. The movie on the other hand keeps a more consistent pace of high-flyin' adventure from the get-go. Hooray for ADD? Except as action sequences go, I'd rate them to be generally "okay." For ludicrously over the top movie punch-ups, you're probably better off waiting for the Avengers. Or for more "realistic" punch-ups, there's the Hunger Games, though if I were you, I'd consider not going until it's been out for a few weeks.
How about the characters? Well, the cast is largely the same. John Carter befriends Tars Tarkas, Jeddak of the Thark, and together they ride their mighty thoats into battle against the Wicked Zodangans and in defense of the wise Heliumites. If that sounds confusing, it's no wonder half the book is spent on the complexities of Martian culture. The movie actually throws in an extra curveball by making the driving force behind the Zodongans the Holy Thern, who actually aren't introduced until the *second* Barsoom novel Gods of Mars. What they did to the characters for the movie was a pretty mixed bag, but on the whole, I'm going to have to fall in favor with the book. The big improvement was to Dejah Thoris, the princess of Helium, who in the book was stately and intelligent and whatever, but posesses no special skills outside of being a good public speaker. In the movie she's a scientist and she can kick your ass. I much prefer sidekicks and love interests that aren't just helpless dolts there to ask questions to move the plot along or be kidnapped to show off the incredible powers of the hero. A few problems. First, they go a little overboard with Dejah. Second, in the books, she was naked the whole time and I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have wanted to see movie Dejah slicing dudes up whilst postulating scientific theories in the buff. Can you say "perfection?". Third, most of the rest of the cast gets shafted. Sola, one of the very few gentle, deep thinkers amongst the wild green Martians plays a large role in Carter's acclimation to the culture of Mars. Having glossed that over, her role is of minimal importance. Woola, the super powered Martian guard dog is largely unchanged in importance. That is to say, helpful, but essentially a plot device to ocassionally need rescuing or come to the rescue. The closest thing to a typical sidekick, the talented but extraordinarily unlucky Kantos Kan barely shows up in the movie at all. Tars Tarkas gets far less development, and the entire Green Martian species, in all it's tribes and sub-tribes is represented in a far more simplistic way with numerous characters being either cut or combined. While I'm all for cutting that which is unecessary, it needs to be done with precision. Which the movie failed at when they introduced the Warhoons, a tribe which is an enemy of the Thark, and then went nowhere with them. Way to drop the ball on that one, movie.
As far as the plot...well, the outline is the same, but the details are totally different. Many of the same things happen, but for different reasons. Other times, totally different things happen. I'd go into it, but I could be here all day and you won't know which way is up by the time I'm done with my explanation. So I won't bother.
Final analysis: I read the book in a day and it's worth it, doubly so since it's out of Copyright and consequently free. The movie is about 2 hours long and not free. If you have to pick one, go with the book. I thought a lot of stuff became unclear in the movie due to cutting vital information.
On a side note: the movie makes the ninth ray (a ninth color of light) central to its plot. It rarely, however, mentions the 8th ray which is used to create flying Machines on Mars. Since Burroughs doesn't name the ray anything but "the 8th" in the first book, I have decided that it is, without doubt, Octarine.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Real Life Pulp
Getting away from pulp fiction for a second, I feel the need to vent a bit about a few pulp-sounding but real life events.
1) My Facebook account was hacked by someone from their phone in Malaysia. Hell yeah. So far it doesn't look like they changed anything. I wonder why they did it. I've got the most boring facebook page in the world.
2) Samsung models in testing have cameras and microphones so that you can control them with your voice or eyes (and how do you accidentally avoid turning the TV off when you get up to get a drink?) and this has sparked worry over whether or not the TV could be hacked, resulting in somebody watching you through your TV.
3) Some of the leading conteners for "Big Brother" status are the ones most vehemently protecting the flow of information. See: all that SOPA/PIPA nonsense, which we have not heard the last of.
4) Recently, what with the economy in ruins for years at a time, my argument that the world is overpopulated has actually gained some tractions with people, whereas historically people pretty much told me I'm insane, and that I'd have to either be an insane murderer (think: Ethical Suicide Booths a la Welcome to Monkey House) or a communist (See: China's one child policy.) This is ironic on so many levels, since it's worse to do nothing, since China hasn't really been communist since Deng Xiao Ping took over and declared that "to get rich is glorious." It's also worth noting that historically, even into 20th century the Chinese in particular were known for flooding a place until its native inhabitants were marginalized (see: Xinjiang) so for them to be leading the charge for voluntary de-populations, and to be doing it to themselves... you know, even as a Politics guy with a focus on Asia, I'd never really considered it except from a practical point of view. If you compare it to China's historical actions, it's nothing short of astounding. A complete 180. And if they can keep it up, I'm sure Xinjiang would be just thrilled since the Uighurs might retake their own territory, but whatever. My point is, if the Chinese can do it, so can everyone else.
5) I try not to talk about US politics too much in public. It makes me too mad. Some people say it's funny, though. I used to agree. I still remember watching the news as Bush Jr. won his second term with my Poli-Sci professor. I was surprised at his disappointment. If nothing else, he must've known it was coming. But many years have come and gone since then. Many, many years. And I am now an old man. And I don't find it funny anymore. Here, however, are a few key points, and you'll notice, though it's not intentional, it applies far more to the GOP
-Stop insulting women.
-Cutting educational budgets is never the answer. Neither is anti-intellectualism. How anyone can seriously look ten thousand experts in the eye and say "well, I don't know nothin' 'bout that, but I know yer wrong." with a straight face is completely beyond me. See for instance, debates on intelligent design- an issue which got under my skin just recently since the latest reports from my alma mater state that the Biology department got a big grant from the Templeton foundation, one of the largest anti-evolutionist groups in the country. I should also point out that our universities would not be susceptible to such biased, outside influence IF YOU'D STOP CUTTING THEIR BUDGETS.
-TV and Radio hosts are not politicians, they're entertainers.
-Speaking of which, could you please try and debate on the facts rather than moral grounds based on misrepresentation? As an example: That whole Limbaugh debacle? It was a proposal to include contraceptives in group health care. So it's not government funded. It's funded by the premiums of those who are part of the insurance. It is therefore not asking someone to pay you for having sex, and the poor woman is therefore not a slut, you slanderous cretin.
- This is distinctly NOT a Christian country in it's founding. I could write forever about the contents of the Declaration, constitution, federalist papers and other founding documents and writings of founding fathers, and as a political scientist whose father was an American Historian, and who paid attention, take my word for it that our country became as strong as it did because we avoided a theocratic government, or even a government whose rule is legitimized by a friendly old man sitting in the clouds.
-Reagenomics don't work. Trickle down does not work. Even Bush Sr. had the sense to call it Voodoo Economics. Businesses won't recover if nobody has any money to spend. Our country was at its strongest when the Middle Class was at its height. For those of you paying attention, that'd be roughly the Eisenhower era. Best conservative president of the 20th century. Why not deify him instead of Reagan?
-I assume you all saw that Etch-a-sketch comment from Romney's advisor, right? Clearly he doesn't think much of the intellect of the American people. But see, the problem with ruining our educational system just because as your opponent Santorum might say "they are liberal indoctrination mills" is that even guys like you are too stupid to remember not to insult every single voter all at once with no plan or purpose in mind.
And hopefully, that'll get the politics out of my system for a while. I apologize for venting.
1) My Facebook account was hacked by someone from their phone in Malaysia. Hell yeah. So far it doesn't look like they changed anything. I wonder why they did it. I've got the most boring facebook page in the world.
2) Samsung models in testing have cameras and microphones so that you can control them with your voice or eyes (and how do you accidentally avoid turning the TV off when you get up to get a drink?) and this has sparked worry over whether or not the TV could be hacked, resulting in somebody watching you through your TV.
3) Some of the leading conteners for "Big Brother" status are the ones most vehemently protecting the flow of information. See: all that SOPA/PIPA nonsense, which we have not heard the last of.
4) Recently, what with the economy in ruins for years at a time, my argument that the world is overpopulated has actually gained some tractions with people, whereas historically people pretty much told me I'm insane, and that I'd have to either be an insane murderer (think: Ethical Suicide Booths a la Welcome to Monkey House) or a communist (See: China's one child policy.) This is ironic on so many levels, since it's worse to do nothing, since China hasn't really been communist since Deng Xiao Ping took over and declared that "to get rich is glorious." It's also worth noting that historically, even into 20th century the Chinese in particular were known for flooding a place until its native inhabitants were marginalized (see: Xinjiang) so for them to be leading the charge for voluntary de-populations, and to be doing it to themselves... you know, even as a Politics guy with a focus on Asia, I'd never really considered it except from a practical point of view. If you compare it to China's historical actions, it's nothing short of astounding. A complete 180. And if they can keep it up, I'm sure Xinjiang would be just thrilled since the Uighurs might retake their own territory, but whatever. My point is, if the Chinese can do it, so can everyone else.
5) I try not to talk about US politics too much in public. It makes me too mad. Some people say it's funny, though. I used to agree. I still remember watching the news as Bush Jr. won his second term with my Poli-Sci professor. I was surprised at his disappointment. If nothing else, he must've known it was coming. But many years have come and gone since then. Many, many years. And I am now an old man. And I don't find it funny anymore. Here, however, are a few key points, and you'll notice, though it's not intentional, it applies far more to the GOP
-Stop insulting women.
-Cutting educational budgets is never the answer. Neither is anti-intellectualism. How anyone can seriously look ten thousand experts in the eye and say "well, I don't know nothin' 'bout that, but I know yer wrong." with a straight face is completely beyond me. See for instance, debates on intelligent design- an issue which got under my skin just recently since the latest reports from my alma mater state that the Biology department got a big grant from the Templeton foundation, one of the largest anti-evolutionist groups in the country. I should also point out that our universities would not be susceptible to such biased, outside influence IF YOU'D STOP CUTTING THEIR BUDGETS.
-TV and Radio hosts are not politicians, they're entertainers.
-Speaking of which, could you please try and debate on the facts rather than moral grounds based on misrepresentation? As an example: That whole Limbaugh debacle? It was a proposal to include contraceptives in group health care. So it's not government funded. It's funded by the premiums of those who are part of the insurance. It is therefore not asking someone to pay you for having sex, and the poor woman is therefore not a slut, you slanderous cretin.
- This is distinctly NOT a Christian country in it's founding. I could write forever about the contents of the Declaration, constitution, federalist papers and other founding documents and writings of founding fathers, and as a political scientist whose father was an American Historian, and who paid attention, take my word for it that our country became as strong as it did because we avoided a theocratic government, or even a government whose rule is legitimized by a friendly old man sitting in the clouds.
-Reagenomics don't work. Trickle down does not work. Even Bush Sr. had the sense to call it Voodoo Economics. Businesses won't recover if nobody has any money to spend. Our country was at its strongest when the Middle Class was at its height. For those of you paying attention, that'd be roughly the Eisenhower era. Best conservative president of the 20th century. Why not deify him instead of Reagan?
-I assume you all saw that Etch-a-sketch comment from Romney's advisor, right? Clearly he doesn't think much of the intellect of the American people. But see, the problem with ruining our educational system just because as your opponent Santorum might say "they are liberal indoctrination mills" is that even guys like you are too stupid to remember not to insult every single voter all at once with no plan or purpose in mind.
And hopefully, that'll get the politics out of my system for a while. I apologize for venting.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
A Little Love
As promised, I will continue to talk a little bit about pulps. As a general rule, people seem to treat them as both terrible books and a relic of the past. Neither statement is factually accurate. For one, they're both sweeping generalizations, but even beyond that, they display a tendency to ignore very real and objective facts. Saying pulps are terrible old relics is right up there with saying "all self published books are crap."
Really? What about those self published authors who sold 100,000 copies on their own and then get picked up by major publishers? When you say "all" don't you really mean "most vanity publishing"?
Or how about another widely believed bilbiophile principle- "The book is always better than the movie." Really? Lord of the Rings was long, boring, confusing, slow, and had bizarre focuses. Tolkien's skill was in creating a world. His ability to actually tell a story was quite limited. On the other hand, the movies were so popular, they caused a comeback for the fantasy genre, immediately spawning Narnia movies and surely being in the backs of all our minds with the Game of Thrones' success as both books and TV. Or how about the movie Adaptation? Would you rather read a non-fiction about flowers or see a writer have a nervous breakdown while attempting to turn something so dull into a movie script? And then there are the times when it's not really better or worse: A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. As a fan, I give a heary thumbs up to both book and film.
If you want to argue over whether popularity, ease of understanding, and massive commercial sucess *actually* disprove the old truths, we can do that another day. Suffice to say, life ain't black and white. You can say, for instance, that none of my examples were of "substantial" works, but I disagree. A Clockwork Orange is an incredibly substantial book. It's also Sci-Fi, a genre many people frown upon. A genre that wouldn't *exist* the way we know it if not for the pulps.
So to return to the point: the claim that is often made that works of pulp are failures as books and are something irrelevant today. Consider the Shadow. He knows what evil lurks in the hearts of man. He's also one of America's most enduring fictional characters, having starred in about 300 books, years worth of radio dramas, and a number of movies, even inspiring music. And in case you think that's all old hat, it's worth noting that the radio dramas are being re-issued even now. The 1990 film Dark Man, directed by Sam Raimi (who would later be famous for Spiderman, and many of his roles as both director and producer are the TV equivalent of pulps- from The Evil Dead II to Xena: Warrior Princess) was "inspired" by the Shadow only because he couldn't obtain the rights, which is where the 1994 Alec Baldwin movie "The Shadow" comes in. Raimi is, to this day, trying to get a *good* Shadow movie made. Furthermore, the Shadow was the direct inspiration for a myriad of other fictional characters, most notably Batman. Batman was not so much "inspired by" as "ripped off from" the Shadow, and Walter Gibson, the Shadow's primary writer would later contribute stories to the Batman franchise. And good luck convincing me Batman's not a cultural icon.
Or how about your friend and mine H.P. Lovecraft? Along with Edgar Alan Poe, he's one of the defining voices in the Horror genre the world over. And like Poe he died poor, miserable, essentially alone and at least a little bit crazy. But would Steven King own Maine without Lovecraft? No. One of the interesting things about Lovecraft is that it's not whole properties that make a splash. Certainly there are books, movies, comics etc. based on his works, but he is probably more well known for individual characters, especially his faceless monstrosities. And certainly Nyarlathotep is a popular choice, but Cthulu is the hero of the internet with games, toys, especially plushes, his very own line of clothing, and so much more. Either we live in such a jaded age that infinite madness and universal destruction seems quaint (there's a scary thought) or the internet has freely understood and accepted itself as the hideous, insanity inducing maw of the mythical monster and has thus come to love Cthulu as a form of self love. And if there's anything we as a species are good at, it's self love.
So to all you pulp haters, I have but one thing to say. The pulp is where all the nutrition is. Seriously. Ask your dietician.
Really? What about those self published authors who sold 100,000 copies on their own and then get picked up by major publishers? When you say "all" don't you really mean "most vanity publishing"?
Or how about another widely believed bilbiophile principle- "The book is always better than the movie." Really? Lord of the Rings was long, boring, confusing, slow, and had bizarre focuses. Tolkien's skill was in creating a world. His ability to actually tell a story was quite limited. On the other hand, the movies were so popular, they caused a comeback for the fantasy genre, immediately spawning Narnia movies and surely being in the backs of all our minds with the Game of Thrones' success as both books and TV. Or how about the movie Adaptation? Would you rather read a non-fiction about flowers or see a writer have a nervous breakdown while attempting to turn something so dull into a movie script? And then there are the times when it's not really better or worse: A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. As a fan, I give a heary thumbs up to both book and film.
If you want to argue over whether popularity, ease of understanding, and massive commercial sucess *actually* disprove the old truths, we can do that another day. Suffice to say, life ain't black and white. You can say, for instance, that none of my examples were of "substantial" works, but I disagree. A Clockwork Orange is an incredibly substantial book. It's also Sci-Fi, a genre many people frown upon. A genre that wouldn't *exist* the way we know it if not for the pulps.
So to return to the point: the claim that is often made that works of pulp are failures as books and are something irrelevant today. Consider the Shadow. He knows what evil lurks in the hearts of man. He's also one of America's most enduring fictional characters, having starred in about 300 books, years worth of radio dramas, and a number of movies, even inspiring music. And in case you think that's all old hat, it's worth noting that the radio dramas are being re-issued even now. The 1990 film Dark Man, directed by Sam Raimi (who would later be famous for Spiderman, and many of his roles as both director and producer are the TV equivalent of pulps- from The Evil Dead II to Xena: Warrior Princess) was "inspired" by the Shadow only because he couldn't obtain the rights, which is where the 1994 Alec Baldwin movie "The Shadow" comes in. Raimi is, to this day, trying to get a *good* Shadow movie made. Furthermore, the Shadow was the direct inspiration for a myriad of other fictional characters, most notably Batman. Batman was not so much "inspired by" as "ripped off from" the Shadow, and Walter Gibson, the Shadow's primary writer would later contribute stories to the Batman franchise. And good luck convincing me Batman's not a cultural icon.
Or how about your friend and mine H.P. Lovecraft? Along with Edgar Alan Poe, he's one of the defining voices in the Horror genre the world over. And like Poe he died poor, miserable, essentially alone and at least a little bit crazy. But would Steven King own Maine without Lovecraft? No. One of the interesting things about Lovecraft is that it's not whole properties that make a splash. Certainly there are books, movies, comics etc. based on his works, but he is probably more well known for individual characters, especially his faceless monstrosities. And certainly Nyarlathotep is a popular choice, but Cthulu is the hero of the internet with games, toys, especially plushes, his very own line of clothing, and so much more. Either we live in such a jaded age that infinite madness and universal destruction seems quaint (there's a scary thought) or the internet has freely understood and accepted itself as the hideous, insanity inducing maw of the mythical monster and has thus come to love Cthulu as a form of self love. And if there's anything we as a species are good at, it's self love.
So to all you pulp haters, I have but one thing to say. The pulp is where all the nutrition is. Seriously. Ask your dietician.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
From Beyond the River Iss
I have returned!
Hello?
Echo! *echo* *echo* *echo*
Aw, you can come out of hiding, guys. I know you're there, just waiting to greet me with song and cheer. In fact, I prepared a song for you to sing if you're not sure what would be appropriate. It's called "My Blogger's Back (Hayla, hayla)."
I suppose (if you're reading this) you're wondering where I've been. What I have been doing, and why I have returned. Well that's simple. I've been doing some thinking and some planning. I have an idea that will change everything, everywhere, forever.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Alternately, it won't do that. But we'll just have to see how it goes. In the meantime, I still get e-mails, however infrequent from former readers asking about how they should handle a query letter or if anyone might be interested in such-and-such kind of manuscript. That makes me feel good. Makes me feel needed. Makes me feel powerful.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh. Sorry. I've gone quite mad, you see. But that's neither here nor there. I figured, if people remember more than a half a year after I fell off the face of the Earth, then I must've done *something* right, and while I'm in an experimental mood, what with my secret plans mentioned above which have absolutely nothing to do with world domination, I swear, I thought I might jump back into blogging and see what happens.
Now, provided anyone ever sees this post, you may have noticed the title is a reference to A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It would, perhaps, be fresh in your mind because a major, Disney-made film adaptation was recently released into theaters as "John Carter." Suffice to say, my topic for the week will be pulp fiction.
And now, since I'm a little verklempt, you should talk amongst yourselves for a while. I'll give you a topic. Pulp. Get talkin'.
Hello?
Echo! *echo* *echo* *echo*
Aw, you can come out of hiding, guys. I know you're there, just waiting to greet me with song and cheer. In fact, I prepared a song for you to sing if you're not sure what would be appropriate. It's called "My Blogger's Back (Hayla, hayla)."
I suppose (if you're reading this) you're wondering where I've been. What I have been doing, and why I have returned. Well that's simple. I've been doing some thinking and some planning. I have an idea that will change everything, everywhere, forever.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Alternately, it won't do that. But we'll just have to see how it goes. In the meantime, I still get e-mails, however infrequent from former readers asking about how they should handle a query letter or if anyone might be interested in such-and-such kind of manuscript. That makes me feel good. Makes me feel needed. Makes me feel powerful.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh. Sorry. I've gone quite mad, you see. But that's neither here nor there. I figured, if people remember more than a half a year after I fell off the face of the Earth, then I must've done *something* right, and while I'm in an experimental mood, what with my secret plans mentioned above which have absolutely nothing to do with world domination, I swear, I thought I might jump back into blogging and see what happens.
Now, provided anyone ever sees this post, you may have noticed the title is a reference to A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It would, perhaps, be fresh in your mind because a major, Disney-made film adaptation was recently released into theaters as "John Carter." Suffice to say, my topic for the week will be pulp fiction.
And now, since I'm a little verklempt, you should talk amongst yourselves for a while. I'll give you a topic. Pulp. Get talkin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)