I once volunteered to babysit the son of a couple of dear friends so they could spend some time together without worrying about the baby. I forget how old he was a that time, but he was still in diapers and mobile. Not a terribly good combination for someone who had previously never changed a diaper before. But I marched right in to help out my friends, and hoped I’d be lucky enough that the baby wouldn’t make a mess while I was on duty.
I’ve never had good luck. About an hour into my duties, the baby made a doody. So, I made an effort to change the diaper. It was dismal. He wouldn’t stop squirming, wouldn’t stop giggling about it, and certainly wouldn’t listen to reason. There I was, a grown man with a moist towelette, trying to negotiate with an obstinate two-year-old with poop smeared all over his butt. A baby covered in shit doesn’t care that he’s covered in shit as long as the diaper is off.
Finally, I quit trying to reason with the poop-covered baby, picked him up, tucked him under my arm like he was a football, and I cleaned the crap off him despite the crying and struggling.
It was a valuable lesson I learned that day: sometimes, obstinate, unreasonable, screaming babies covered in poop should just be washed and re-diapered whether they like it or not. At that point, trying to treat them like dignified little human beings is uncalled for, if not outright impossible. Ignore their crying and simply do what’s best for them.
This is how I feel about every religious/social conservative, Faux News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, Tea Bagger. They’re just a bunch of screaming, shit covered babies.
People who are so obstinately, aggressively, and willfully ignorant that they can look at a Hawaiian birth certificate and still be convinced Obama was born in Kenya - who can be on Medicare and carry protest signs demanding that the government stay out of their healthcare - who don’t want to pay taxes but want to be protected from criminals and terrorists by those public servants called cops, or bitch and moan about the poor quality of roads and highways, the slow response of the sand trucks on icy mornings, the long lines at the DMV, and then panic every time they’re told Social security will go bankrupt - are just not mentally mature enough to be part of the public debate. They are simply shit-covered babies who need to be cleaned up and put to bed for a nap while the grown-ups go have a serious conversation about how to fix the economy and provide for a secure national future where everyone has an equal chance to grown up healthy and educated regardless of their social class, racial background, sexual orientation, or - yes - conservative or liberal leanings.
But letting shit-covered, screaming babies like Limbaugh, Faux News, and Sarah Palin into the public debate when they have nothing constructive to contribute but fistfuls of flung poop, isn’t helping. It’s just making the mess worse.
Some people may argue that there are big shit-covered liberal babies out there - maybe, but I’ll bet you money that if you put the belligerent shit-covered conservative babies down for a nap, the liberal ones will quiet right down.
Because, let’s face it, I would not have ended up tucking that kid under my arm if he hadn’t first made a mess of himself and then refused to be cleaned up.
Monday, November 9
Saturday, November 7
Thursday, November 5
Great Big To-Do List (But Short)
Here it is, November, and The Evolution of Shadows has been loose in the world - officially - for about 18 days and I’m at the point now where I no longer know what to expect next.
I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s now time to move on to other things, especially since I finally sent the manuscript for my second novel off to my editor, Fred Ramey. My natural inclination is to be critical of myself (and of the mss), but I’m going to refrain because, well, that’s what’s expected of me.
Besides, there is plenty more to do.
1) Get the next issue of The Project for a New Mythology ready. My idea for binding it this time is, well, complicated. That means I’ve got to get a mock-up put together to make sure it’s feasible and can be done quickly with a small staff of volunteers (probably just me). Most of the issue will be essays this time, but I do have some poetry and prose submissions that have trickled in that I may include.
2) Resurrect my third novel that was unfairly abandoned because of a person who shall remain nameless, and the sudden relocation from Boulder to Wichita. This is going to be a task. The project was already about 300 pages - and really, really, complicated. I called it my Kitchen-sink-conspiracy-theory book because it was all about the conspiracy of kitchen sinks . . . ((pause) - See, I’m not funny). Anyway . . . . because there’s so much going on in it, I’ve decided that I’m going to use it as an excuse to try a new writing program. I’ve been scoping them out for years. They all offer outline functions, character tracking and charting functions, whiteboard functions - basically all the stuff I used to keep in an assortment of college ruled composition books (which are often bloody hard to find, by the way). I love Moleskine’s but they’re just too expensive to use for this kind of work - especially with the sloppy way I take notes and jot down ideas. I’m not even sure the program I’ve decided to go with (Copywrite) will actually work completely with the way I write, so I’m augmenting it with a few other things: namely a note organizing program called Notes and another called Personal Brain. And, of course, there’s always MacJournal that works as my catch-all. We’ll see how it goes. The first step is to get the existing 300 pages, plus all my notes into these programs. It doesn’t sound very fun, but the story is so complex and I’ve been away from it for so long, there’s really no choice.
See, short - but big.
I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s now time to move on to other things, especially since I finally sent the manuscript for my second novel off to my editor, Fred Ramey. My natural inclination is to be critical of myself (and of the mss), but I’m going to refrain because, well, that’s what’s expected of me.
Besides, there is plenty more to do.
1) Get the next issue of The Project for a New Mythology ready. My idea for binding it this time is, well, complicated. That means I’ve got to get a mock-up put together to make sure it’s feasible and can be done quickly with a small staff of volunteers (probably just me). Most of the issue will be essays this time, but I do have some poetry and prose submissions that have trickled in that I may include.
2) Resurrect my third novel that was unfairly abandoned because of a person who shall remain nameless, and the sudden relocation from Boulder to Wichita. This is going to be a task. The project was already about 300 pages - and really, really, complicated. I called it my Kitchen-sink-conspiracy-theory book because it was all about the conspiracy of kitchen sinks . . . ((pause) - See, I’m not funny). Anyway . . . . because there’s so much going on in it, I’ve decided that I’m going to use it as an excuse to try a new writing program. I’ve been scoping them out for years. They all offer outline functions, character tracking and charting functions, whiteboard functions - basically all the stuff I used to keep in an assortment of college ruled composition books (which are often bloody hard to find, by the way). I love Moleskine’s but they’re just too expensive to use for this kind of work - especially with the sloppy way I take notes and jot down ideas. I’m not even sure the program I’ve decided to go with (Copywrite) will actually work completely with the way I write, so I’m augmenting it with a few other things: namely a note organizing program called Notes and another called Personal Brain. And, of course, there’s always MacJournal that works as my catch-all. We’ll see how it goes. The first step is to get the existing 300 pages, plus all my notes into these programs. It doesn’t sound very fun, but the story is so complex and I’ve been away from it for so long, there’s really no choice.
See, short - but big.
Wednesday, November 4
Tuesday, November 3
Tuesday, October 27
That's Not Funny
There was recently a long review of my book done by an occasional commenter here on the blog. Scaea wrestled with some things and it was a positive review overall. It was actually kind of like being back in a writing workshop; the criticism was useful.
The only part I can solidly take issue with is the bit about humor. It’s not that I disagree with the suggestion of using humor, nor any of the assertions concerning humor’s abilities to sneak past people’s defenses.
It’s that I suck at it.
I’m good with funny anecdotes delivered in person, but that’s just because I can be very animated and rely heavily on anger-comedy and self-deprecation (think George Carlin or Lewis Black with a bit of Woody Allen - except I’m nowhere near as funny as any of those guys). Plus, in person, I don’t use humor to get past other people’s defenses, I use it as a defense. That doesn’t translate well to the written page.
So far, if there’s been humor in my fiction, it’s been accidental, which is the worst kind. That doesn’t mean I haven’t tried. I’ve tried to write humor. I used to be a big fan of Tom Robbins and tried, for a while, to imitate his style, but it was horribly unsuccessful. I’ve even tried writing a play or two that was intended to be a comedy. It sucked.
Essentially, it’s a tremendous difficulty to try to be funny on the page, and an effort that’s 98% doomed. I simply don’t imagine that way - if that makes sense.
The only part I can solidly take issue with is the bit about humor. It’s not that I disagree with the suggestion of using humor, nor any of the assertions concerning humor’s abilities to sneak past people’s defenses.
It’s that I suck at it.
I’m good with funny anecdotes delivered in person, but that’s just because I can be very animated and rely heavily on anger-comedy and self-deprecation (think George Carlin or Lewis Black with a bit of Woody Allen - except I’m nowhere near as funny as any of those guys). Plus, in person, I don’t use humor to get past other people’s defenses, I use it as a defense. That doesn’t translate well to the written page.
So far, if there’s been humor in my fiction, it’s been accidental, which is the worst kind. That doesn’t mean I haven’t tried. I’ve tried to write humor. I used to be a big fan of Tom Robbins and tried, for a while, to imitate his style, but it was horribly unsuccessful. I’ve even tried writing a play or two that was intended to be a comedy. It sucked.
Essentially, it’s a tremendous difficulty to try to be funny on the page, and an effort that’s 98% doomed. I simply don’t imagine that way - if that makes sense.
Let's Talk About Disgust Part III
In an opinion piece that appeared Tuesday in the Wichita Eagle, written by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group (should tell you something right there), yet another person tried to make the case that the 30 Republicans who voted against Senator Franken’s amendment to a recent defense bill did “the right thing.”
She buried her argument amid mounds of posturing against rape and even came out against companies trying to use binding, private arbitration to resolve criminal accusations against employees, but her ultimate argument is nonetheless specious.
Here’s the important paragraph:
In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Defense Department in a letter to senators, saying that the department or its contractors “may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic.”
(Read more: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/1028561.html#ixzz0VBFpgeRV).
Problematic enforcement is no kind of reason to avoid doing the right thing - and the right thing to do was to vote for that amendment, as imperfect as it may have been, to send a very simple message: companies cannot bury their crimes in the arbitration graveyard because they don’t want the bad publicity and the possible economic hit they may take from a criminal or civil case.
Instead these 30 Republicans, Senators Brownback and Roberts included, sent a very clear signal to corporations that, despite the amendment’s passage, they stand willing protect the corporation’s economic interests over the rights of individual citizens, even if those individual citizens are gang raped.
It’s over the top to accuse Brownback and Roberts of being directly “pro-rape.” I’m sure they would be very much against the rape of their wives or daughters or sisters or mothers. And I’m sure they are adequately appalled by why happened to Jamie Leigh Jones. The problem is they are much more slavishly devoted to corporate patronization than they are appalled by rape. They’re willing to look the other way, ignore people’s suffering, as long as they get the political backing they lust after.
Brownback and Roberts aren’t pro-rape, they’re just callous and afraid of offending the lunatic fringe of America.
She buried her argument amid mounds of posturing against rape and even came out against companies trying to use binding, private arbitration to resolve criminal accusations against employees, but her ultimate argument is nonetheless specious.
Here’s the important paragraph:
In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Defense Department in a letter to senators, saying that the department or its contractors “may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic.”
(Read more: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/1028561.html#ixzz0VBFpgeRV).
Problematic enforcement is no kind of reason to avoid doing the right thing - and the right thing to do was to vote for that amendment, as imperfect as it may have been, to send a very simple message: companies cannot bury their crimes in the arbitration graveyard because they don’t want the bad publicity and the possible economic hit they may take from a criminal or civil case.
Instead these 30 Republicans, Senators Brownback and Roberts included, sent a very clear signal to corporations that, despite the amendment’s passage, they stand willing protect the corporation’s economic interests over the rights of individual citizens, even if those individual citizens are gang raped.
It’s over the top to accuse Brownback and Roberts of being directly “pro-rape.” I’m sure they would be very much against the rape of their wives or daughters or sisters or mothers. And I’m sure they are adequately appalled by why happened to Jamie Leigh Jones. The problem is they are much more slavishly devoted to corporate patronization than they are appalled by rape. They’re willing to look the other way, ignore people’s suffering, as long as they get the political backing they lust after.
Brownback and Roberts aren’t pro-rape, they’re just callous and afraid of offending the lunatic fringe of America.
A Bad One
This may be the hardest thing to explain, but all the positive reviews were making me uncomfortable. Now, there’s a bad one and I’m a bit relieved. Somebody hated it - now I have someone to fight with.
It’s not that I think the person was particularly correct about anything. But people do have their opinions and a bad review, like that one guy in the fiction workshop who doesn’t like anything, is a good leveling agent in that it keeps me from thinking I’m infallible. It’ll keep me from slacking off.
It is the darker version of what James Tate’s poem “Teaching the Ape To Write Poems” does for me. Reminds me that I am, after all, just a hairless ape with a keyboard (and so is the reviewer).
There was one earlier review that wasn’t exactly bad, but, to me, it wasn’t exactly good either. I’m not going to name names or rattle cages, but I will say that the writing in this lukewarm review was worse than the writing in my book.
Anyway. Take your pick. The bad review from Curled Up, or the good review from Publisher’s Weekly, or, better yet, the starred review from Library Journal.
Meh.
It’s not that I think the person was particularly correct about anything. But people do have their opinions and a bad review, like that one guy in the fiction workshop who doesn’t like anything, is a good leveling agent in that it keeps me from thinking I’m infallible. It’ll keep me from slacking off.
It is the darker version of what James Tate’s poem “Teaching the Ape To Write Poems” does for me. Reminds me that I am, after all, just a hairless ape with a keyboard (and so is the reviewer).
There was one earlier review that wasn’t exactly bad, but, to me, it wasn’t exactly good either. I’m not going to name names or rattle cages, but I will say that the writing in this lukewarm review was worse than the writing in my book.
Anyway. Take your pick. The bad review from Curled Up, or the good review from Publisher’s Weekly, or, better yet, the starred review from Library Journal.
Meh.
Saturday, October 17
Let's Talk About Disgust Part II Why Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts and those who defend them are douchebags
I posted a link to the Daily Show’s bit about 30 Republican senators voting against Al Franken’s “No Government contracts for Gang Rapists” amendment on Facebook.
An acquaintance tried to defend Brownback and Roberts and the rest of the gang of 30, stating that Franken’s amendment was nothing but political bullshit designed as a gift to trial lawyers. He then went on to state that Jamie Leigh Jones was not denied the ability to pursue criminal charges against the men who raped her, she was just barred from suing Halliburton and KBR.
At first, I thought about giving my acquaintance the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, this acquaintance didn’t know that much about the case. But then I realized no, there’s no reason to offer someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to gang rape, false imprisonment, denial of medical treatment, and destruction of evidence.
So, just to make sure there is no confusion here about Franken’s amendment and the fact that it is in no way a “gift” to trial lawyers or a bunch of political bullshit, let’s review the case.
All statements will be paraphrased from the following sources:
Wikipedia page on Jamie Leigh Jones
ABC article
The Age article
Guardian UK article
Jamie was drugged into unconsciousness and then gang raped by seven KBR/Halliburton firefighters in the Iraqi Green Zone.
Jamie awoke the next day “naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery.”
A US Army doctor was brought in to examine her and a rape kit was completed.
The rape kit was handed over to KBR officials and Jamie was locked in a trailer under armed guards, denied food, water, and further medical treatment. The rape kit would conveniently be “lost” for the next two years.
She was told that if she reported it or tried to leave Iraq for medical treatment she would be out of a job with KBR both in Iraq and in Houston.
Jamie was able to convince one of her guards to let her use a cell phone. She contacted her father, who got in touch with Texas Representative Ted Poe (a Republican) who, in turn, contacted the State Department.
State Department officials in Iraq retrieved Jamie and brought her home to Texas.
Without the rape kit, and with Jamie only able to identify one of her attackers, criminal proceedings were unlikely. Also, KBR claimed they were protected from prosecution by CPA order 17. And, although a section of the US Code provides for jurisdiction by the DOJ, the DOJ has not yet filed any criminal charges and it does not appear that they will.
In May 2007, a State Dept. diplomat recovered the rape kit (which never should have been handed over to KBR in the first place), but the kit is missing the important notes and photographs taken by the Army doctor. Without the notes and photographs, criminal prosecution is next to impossible due to a lack of evidence.
Jamie and her family and lawyers, unable to pursue a criminal case, chose the civil courts as a path to justice. However, KBR states that the terms of Jamie’s employment contract require that she enter into private arbitration with KBR.
KBR has won over 80% of its arbitration cases, including sexual assault cases similar to Jamie’s. Also, under the terms of this private arbitration, there would be no public record, no criminal charges, and no recourse if arbitration were to go against Jamie. In other words, Jamie’s brutal victimization would have an 80% chance of going completely unpunished.
Finally, in September 2009, the 5th circuit court of appeals decided that Jamie’s case should be tried in open court.
Also in September, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, the senators from Kansas, voted in favor of stripping government funds to ACORN because a few gullible employees were caught in a sting operation by two “Conservative activists” posing as a pimp and a hooker looking for way to beat government taxes. Although some unwise ACORN employees did attempt to answer the poseur’s questions, no actual crime was committed and a number of ACORN employees didn’t fall for it and some even contacted police - but ACORN still lost its government contract to help with the next US Census.
Just last week, Senator Al Franken added an amendment to a defense spending bill that would deny government contracts to companies, like KBR, that have placed clauses in their employment contracts requiring that employees working overseas go through arbitration instead of seeking criminal or civil proceedings in all complaints against the company.
Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts voted against Franken’s amendment because they must believe it’s OK to give government money (our tax dollars) to companies that have employees who gang rape a female employee, lock her up behind armed guards, deny her medical treatment, threaten her with the loss of her job, destroy evidence, and and then try to avoid any public accountability for those criminal acts.
To say that voting against Franken’s amendment is standing up to political bullshit, or preventing the enrichment of trial lawyers, is simply morally reprehensible. The ACORN vote established the principle that it’s OK to strip a government contract from a group for giving hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions from a fake pimp. But for 30 Republicans, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts being two of them, it’s just political theatre the strip a government contract from a group that committed a real crime and then tried to cover up that crime.
Fake crime = no government cheese for you.
Real crime = Here’s billions of dollars for you, and we’ll turn a blind eye the next time some of your employees decide to drug, gang rape, and imprison one of your own employees.
Franken’s amendment is indirect justice. Franken’s amendment is good politics, proposed for the right reasons - to ensure that Americans working abroad, can’t have their right to seek justice for crimes committed against them heard in open court.
Corporations are not more important than people. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts need to learn that.
Pat Roberts needs to be voted out of office, and Sam Brownback should not be elected the Governor of Kansas.
An acquaintance tried to defend Brownback and Roberts and the rest of the gang of 30, stating that Franken’s amendment was nothing but political bullshit designed as a gift to trial lawyers. He then went on to state that Jamie Leigh Jones was not denied the ability to pursue criminal charges against the men who raped her, she was just barred from suing Halliburton and KBR.
At first, I thought about giving my acquaintance the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, this acquaintance didn’t know that much about the case. But then I realized no, there’s no reason to offer someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to gang rape, false imprisonment, denial of medical treatment, and destruction of evidence.
So, just to make sure there is no confusion here about Franken’s amendment and the fact that it is in no way a “gift” to trial lawyers or a bunch of political bullshit, let’s review the case.
All statements will be paraphrased from the following sources:
Wikipedia page on Jamie Leigh Jones
ABC article
The Age article
Guardian UK article
Jamie was drugged into unconsciousness and then gang raped by seven KBR/Halliburton firefighters in the Iraqi Green Zone.
Jamie awoke the next day “naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery.”
A US Army doctor was brought in to examine her and a rape kit was completed.
The rape kit was handed over to KBR officials and Jamie was locked in a trailer under armed guards, denied food, water, and further medical treatment. The rape kit would conveniently be “lost” for the next two years.
She was told that if she reported it or tried to leave Iraq for medical treatment she would be out of a job with KBR both in Iraq and in Houston.
Jamie was able to convince one of her guards to let her use a cell phone. She contacted her father, who got in touch with Texas Representative Ted Poe (a Republican) who, in turn, contacted the State Department.
State Department officials in Iraq retrieved Jamie and brought her home to Texas.
Without the rape kit, and with Jamie only able to identify one of her attackers, criminal proceedings were unlikely. Also, KBR claimed they were protected from prosecution by CPA order 17. And, although a section of the US Code provides for jurisdiction by the DOJ, the DOJ has not yet filed any criminal charges and it does not appear that they will.
In May 2007, a State Dept. diplomat recovered the rape kit (which never should have been handed over to KBR in the first place), but the kit is missing the important notes and photographs taken by the Army doctor. Without the notes and photographs, criminal prosecution is next to impossible due to a lack of evidence.
Jamie and her family and lawyers, unable to pursue a criminal case, chose the civil courts as a path to justice. However, KBR states that the terms of Jamie’s employment contract require that she enter into private arbitration with KBR.
KBR has won over 80% of its arbitration cases, including sexual assault cases similar to Jamie’s. Also, under the terms of this private arbitration, there would be no public record, no criminal charges, and no recourse if arbitration were to go against Jamie. In other words, Jamie’s brutal victimization would have an 80% chance of going completely unpunished.
Finally, in September 2009, the 5th circuit court of appeals decided that Jamie’s case should be tried in open court.
Also in September, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, the senators from Kansas, voted in favor of stripping government funds to ACORN because a few gullible employees were caught in a sting operation by two “Conservative activists” posing as a pimp and a hooker looking for way to beat government taxes. Although some unwise ACORN employees did attempt to answer the poseur’s questions, no actual crime was committed and a number of ACORN employees didn’t fall for it and some even contacted police - but ACORN still lost its government contract to help with the next US Census.
Just last week, Senator Al Franken added an amendment to a defense spending bill that would deny government contracts to companies, like KBR, that have placed clauses in their employment contracts requiring that employees working overseas go through arbitration instead of seeking criminal or civil proceedings in all complaints against the company.
Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts voted against Franken’s amendment because they must believe it’s OK to give government money (our tax dollars) to companies that have employees who gang rape a female employee, lock her up behind armed guards, deny her medical treatment, threaten her with the loss of her job, destroy evidence, and and then try to avoid any public accountability for those criminal acts.
To say that voting against Franken’s amendment is standing up to political bullshit, or preventing the enrichment of trial lawyers, is simply morally reprehensible. The ACORN vote established the principle that it’s OK to strip a government contract from a group for giving hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions from a fake pimp. But for 30 Republicans, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts being two of them, it’s just political theatre the strip a government contract from a group that committed a real crime and then tried to cover up that crime.
Fake crime = no government cheese for you.
Real crime = Here’s billions of dollars for you, and we’ll turn a blind eye the next time some of your employees decide to drug, gang rape, and imprison one of your own employees.
Franken’s amendment is indirect justice. Franken’s amendment is good politics, proposed for the right reasons - to ensure that Americans working abroad, can’t have their right to seek justice for crimes committed against them heard in open court.
Corporations are not more important than people. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts need to learn that.
Pat Roberts needs to be voted out of office, and Sam Brownback should not be elected the Governor of Kansas.
Let's Talk About Disgust.
Let’s talk about disgust. In fact, let’s talk about naked, blatant, disregard for human beings and sick, pandering to corporations.
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang raped by her Haliburton/KBR co-workers. Then locked in a shipping container, and denied treatment, and outside contact until someone assigned to guard her took mercy and loaned her a cell phone. She was told that a clause in her contract prohibited her from filing charges against Haliburton/KBR.
Sen. Al Franken proposed an amendment to a recent defense bill that would deny government contracts to companies that have clauses in their contracts that bar employees from filing criminal charges in cases like Jamie’s.
Both Kansas Senators voted AGAINST this amendment. Sen. Sam Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts.
Brownback and Roberts took the side of the rapists.
Link to a video and more links, including the original news piece.
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang raped by her Haliburton/KBR co-workers. Then locked in a shipping container, and denied treatment, and outside contact until someone assigned to guard her took mercy and loaned her a cell phone. She was told that a clause in her contract prohibited her from filing charges against Haliburton/KBR.
Sen. Al Franken proposed an amendment to a recent defense bill that would deny government contracts to companies that have clauses in their contracts that bar employees from filing criminal charges in cases like Jamie’s.
Both Kansas Senators voted AGAINST this amendment. Sen. Sam Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts.
Brownback and Roberts took the side of the rapists.
Link to a video and more links, including the original news piece.
Thursday, October 15
Volume 4 2009-2010 Issue of The Project For a New Mythology
I’ve been busy this year. However, I have a plan.
Volume 4 will be a “themed” issue. I have a few pointed questions I’d like to ask a few selected writers - past contributors, new friends, etc. I’ll be forming the questions over the next couple of days and then this weekend - I hope - I’ll send out emails with the questions and instructions to the selected writers.
Then we’ll see who responds.
Sounds like fun doesn’t it?
All the received responses will go into the issue, contributors will receive copies (I’m debating the actual number of copies since this will be another hand-bound issue - with some complexity), and I’ll sell copies through the PFANM websites and Watermark Books. Selected responses will be published in a condensed version online.
That’s the plan, anyway. I’ll also be sending out emails and facebook notices asking for volunteers to help with production. I hope to have the issue out by the end of January 2010.
Volume 4 will be a “themed” issue. I have a few pointed questions I’d like to ask a few selected writers - past contributors, new friends, etc. I’ll be forming the questions over the next couple of days and then this weekend - I hope - I’ll send out emails with the questions and instructions to the selected writers.
Then we’ll see who responds.
Sounds like fun doesn’t it?
All the received responses will go into the issue, contributors will receive copies (I’m debating the actual number of copies since this will be another hand-bound issue - with some complexity), and I’ll sell copies through the PFANM websites and Watermark Books. Selected responses will be published in a condensed version online.
That’s the plan, anyway. I’ll also be sending out emails and facebook notices asking for volunteers to help with production. I hope to have the issue out by the end of January 2010.
Tuesday, October 13
Oh Blog.
I haven’t forgotten you. Nothing to say these days. Been busy.
Trying to plan 2009 issue of PFANM.
Trying to finish revising By The Still, Still Water.
Working, working, working.
I’ll have something soon.
Trying to plan 2009 issue of PFANM.
Trying to finish revising By The Still, Still Water.
Working, working, working.
I’ll have something soon.
Thursday, October 8
Reading Tonight.
Just a few hours away now.
If you happen to be in the Wichita, KS area around 7pm tonight, come on by Watermark Books and listen to me read from my first novel “The Evolution of Shadows.” Then ask me questions and have your book signed by me. After that, if we’re still friends, come join me at The Anchor for drinks. I’ll be on the non-smoking side.
7-8 pm (or so) Watermark Books & Cafe, 4701 E. Douglas (the Lincoln Heights Village shopping center on the south west corner of the intersection).
The Anchor 8pm or so until whenever-ish, 1109 E. Douglas.
See you there?
If you happen to be in the Wichita, KS area around 7pm tonight, come on by Watermark Books and listen to me read from my first novel “The Evolution of Shadows.” Then ask me questions and have your book signed by me. After that, if we’re still friends, come join me at The Anchor for drinks. I’ll be on the non-smoking side.
7-8 pm (or so) Watermark Books & Cafe, 4701 E. Douglas (the Lincoln Heights Village shopping center on the south west corner of the intersection).
The Anchor 8pm or so until whenever-ish, 1109 E. Douglas.
See you there?
Tuesday, September 29
Well, What Does It All Mean?
Last week, as I was traveling around to the various tables full of booksellers during the “Moveable Feast” at the MBA conference, I spent some time at one table with a poet who, very nakedly talked about the themes in her book of poems.
It’s kind of a necessary task when trying to sell a book of poetry. There’s often no broad, unifying story hook to hang one’s sales pitch upon. So, this poet was in a tough situation and, of course, she was there for her own benefit and the benefit of the booksellers. Now, keep that in mind when I say this: her plan of attack turned me off of her book of poems because I hate being told what a poem is about.
Don’t get me wrong. I love poetry, but I almost never read the jacket copy on books of poetry until I’ve read most of the poems. It’s the same reason I get bored at poetry readings when the poet stands up there are and launches into some extended story about how they were hiking in the mountains one day and found a squirrel trapped in a soda bottle and so the poem they are about to read is about our abuse of nature. Well, fuck, now I’ve been assigned a meaning to “get” from all of this. Thanks. And, sure enough, there’s some constructed linguistic jungle gym where the poets gets in a description of the squirrel in the bottle followed by some lame, moralistic preaching.
There are two things going on there: 1) I hate being told how to interpret a piece of literature. It smacks of the group literature discussions in the English classes I endured in high school; and 2) The poet is, essentially, giving away the poem in such a way that he audience doesn’t have to work. It’s like literary TV.
I bring this up not because I was irritated by the poet specifically, but because at some point the poet asked me a question along the lines of what themes, or something like that, inspired my book. If I hadn’t been in a position where I felt a need to be charming, and if the booksellers weren’t there, I might not have frozen like a opossum on a highway.
I don’t go into a story inspired by a theme. I don’t shape my narrative or my scenes around a theme when I revise. It leads to being pedantic (and I do that enough here). I didn’t set out to write a book about love, loss, and friendship. I didn’t set out to write a book about the horrors or injustices of war. I set out to answer some questions I had about these particular characters. Why would Gray commit such a bizarre act of violence when Lian leaves him? Why would he go off to Bosnia? Why would these people go looking for him?
To me, the “theme” of a book is interpretive, therefore it is up to the reader. If I’ve answered the questions I’ve asked of myself, then, I assume, most readers will end up at the same spot. If I’m honest with the story and with the characters and don’t force it anywhere it wouldn’t naturally go, then my readers will fill in the “theme.” Theme is the answer, not the question - but the answer isn’t universal, it’s individual.
The interpretive nature of theme is why a book like “The Catcher In The Rye” is both one of the most widely taught books and one of the most widely challenged. It’s why Hemingway’s books mean different things when read at different points in a reader’s life. Hammer down a theme on a book, and you kill its power to adapt and to mean something to as wide an audience as possible.
That’s my thinking anyway.
It’s kind of a necessary task when trying to sell a book of poetry. There’s often no broad, unifying story hook to hang one’s sales pitch upon. So, this poet was in a tough situation and, of course, she was there for her own benefit and the benefit of the booksellers. Now, keep that in mind when I say this: her plan of attack turned me off of her book of poems because I hate being told what a poem is about.
Don’t get me wrong. I love poetry, but I almost never read the jacket copy on books of poetry until I’ve read most of the poems. It’s the same reason I get bored at poetry readings when the poet stands up there are and launches into some extended story about how they were hiking in the mountains one day and found a squirrel trapped in a soda bottle and so the poem they are about to read is about our abuse of nature. Well, fuck, now I’ve been assigned a meaning to “get” from all of this. Thanks. And, sure enough, there’s some constructed linguistic jungle gym where the poets gets in a description of the squirrel in the bottle followed by some lame, moralistic preaching.
There are two things going on there: 1) I hate being told how to interpret a piece of literature. It smacks of the group literature discussions in the English classes I endured in high school; and 2) The poet is, essentially, giving away the poem in such a way that he audience doesn’t have to work. It’s like literary TV.
I bring this up not because I was irritated by the poet specifically, but because at some point the poet asked me a question along the lines of what themes, or something like that, inspired my book. If I hadn’t been in a position where I felt a need to be charming, and if the booksellers weren’t there, I might not have frozen like a opossum on a highway.
I don’t go into a story inspired by a theme. I don’t shape my narrative or my scenes around a theme when I revise. It leads to being pedantic (and I do that enough here). I didn’t set out to write a book about love, loss, and friendship. I didn’t set out to write a book about the horrors or injustices of war. I set out to answer some questions I had about these particular characters. Why would Gray commit such a bizarre act of violence when Lian leaves him? Why would he go off to Bosnia? Why would these people go looking for him?
To me, the “theme” of a book is interpretive, therefore it is up to the reader. If I’ve answered the questions I’ve asked of myself, then, I assume, most readers will end up at the same spot. If I’m honest with the story and with the characters and don’t force it anywhere it wouldn’t naturally go, then my readers will fill in the “theme.” Theme is the answer, not the question - but the answer isn’t universal, it’s individual.
The interpretive nature of theme is why a book like “The Catcher In The Rye” is both one of the most widely taught books and one of the most widely challenged. It’s why Hemingway’s books mean different things when read at different points in a reader’s life. Hammer down a theme on a book, and you kill its power to adapt and to mean something to as wide an audience as possible.
That’s my thinking anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
