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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.