The Pecman

In most major urban areas, there are recycling programs in place for people to give their old electronic devices. The major problem is that lead solder, picture tubes, and ni-cad batteries are very bad for the environment. None of these can be recycled. I'm a big believer in recycling, but the sad reality is that in the U.S, we recycle far less than 10% of a lot of our electronics products. I try to give my old computers to friends and relatives, so at least they don't wind up on the trash dump. But it's definitely an ongoing problem. Japan has an interesting thing where one day a year is a holiday, where everybody drags out all their electronics junk in a special spot on the curb, and trucks come by to pick them all up for recycling. They've been doing this for decades, partly because it's in their best interests to keep people buying new stuff, rather than hold on to the old stuff.

I forgot to add these specific items on some of what ex-Senator Craig did in the past: * Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) * Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) * Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) * Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) * Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996) Me personally, I hope he roasts in hell.

I believe the series was (and is) successful because Rowling captured the essance of the trials and tribulations of adolescence, framed in a traditional British boarding school, but stirred in elements of magic and adventure in a way that lifted it out of the ordinary. I also think that Harry somehow knowing he was different long before he understood his own power, while also wanting to be accepted by people like himself, is a universal experience that we all face. We want to be individuals, but at the same time, we also want to be part of something bigger. And I think the story's ongoing theme of friendship, honor, and loyalty cut to the heart of the book. As Dumbledore reminds Harry several times, "this is your greatest strength that makes you different from Voldemort." BTW, I saw the Phoenix film tonight, and thought it totally sucked. Good god, they must've cut out 3/4 of the book! Tons of great stuff omitted, compressed, avoided, or otherwise changed. I have to confess, there was one or two nice touches added only to the film -- for example, Sirius accidentally calling Harry "James" during the battle scene at the end of the film -- but those were very few. I'll say this, though: the theater was totally packed, and I expected it to be mostly empty, since it's been out for weeks and weeks. It's already made $900 million worldwide (!!!), so it's a success by any definition. Maybe they'll cut the deleted scenes back in for the DVD. (In particular, Dobby's scene and the entire sequence at St. Mungo's Hospital were sorely missed.) We can only hope...

This schmuck senator just resigned a few hours ago: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/01/cra...rest/index.html I would have a teeny bit of sympathy for him, except for his hostile past record in voting against numerous gay initiatives. I pity the guy, but there's an old saying about how karma catches up with you eventually...

Hey, Colinian, I said the same thing in my Spoiler review elsewhere -- that there's some long stretches of the book where not a whole helluva lot happens, with the whole "living in a tent" thing. It definitely did seem padded, and the only reason as to why this happened was because I think Rowling wanted to postpone the final battle to the spring. I think you basically have a 3-month story dragged out to 9 or 10 months. What's there is still good -- it's like a good 2-1/2 hour movie that, unfortunately, is about 3 hours long.

BTW, I went back and just re-read Book 5 (small confession: this time, I listened to the book-on-tape in my "vast amounts of spare time"), and was again reminded of what a brilliant book it was. No question, hands down, Order of the Phoenix was the best Potter book ever. But I'd say the final book was the second-best. What I liked most were the vast amounts of solid plot, fascinating characters (particularly the hideously evil Dolores Umbridge), and unexpected twists and turns. I may have enjoyed it even more the second time around -- and now, knowing all the end details, many nuances became more obvious. Terrific, terrific story.

Boy, that sounds tempting! I once worked a little bit on the 1992 film Hoffa (about the life of notorious mob-connected Teamsters union prez Jimmy Hoffa), and there's a scene where a newspaper reporter gets a strange package delivered to his desk. He opens up the package and sees something in a glass jar filled with water, then throws up. We never get to see what's in the glass jar. I assume your company was involved. Nice work!

Hey, terrific reviews. I think the Times critic was a little too harsh, but I concede that he brings up some good points. What he omits is that all the bad moments in the novel are generally overcome by the good ones, and that the climax is a mother-of-all-battles worthy of any epic story. I also think the ongoing message of friendship and loyalty is really the core of the novel, and those ring true throughout book 7. I have to confess, though, trying to rationalize the Potter books and conventional religion is a real dichotomy. BTW, I noticed that this was the only Potter novel I can recall where somebody actually used the word "God" in a sentence. (That, plus one or two people almost swearing, as in "get this f-ing guy out of my way.") I found both amusing.

I don't agree. To me, this violates the classic "show, don't tell" rule of fiction. I think what the story needs is a prologue to introduce that situation: start with the storm, go inside where Worthington is having sex with the guy, then wind up with the family killed by lightning. (BTW, I grew up in an area with the worst lightning storms in the world, and I can tell you it's unbelievably rare to have this many people killed at one time by lighting. Two or three people -- maybe. Not a dozen.) I think there's a way to do this that would still show that Worthington was detached, almost uncaring at their deaths. But it's a small criticism of an otherwise good story. I only hope that the novel doesn't get bogged down in technicalities, which has plagued some of Dan's past stories (including his Do Over novels, which get sidetracked with politics and military minutiae). I think his stories are more interesting when they're more about people and plot than about technology, but I confess to having read all of the Do Over tales, which get so complex, you'd have to have a road map to explain the time-travel paradoxes experienced by several of the main characters.

No, no -- I said the kid sounded a little verbose. No way did I intend this to be taken as a slam. It's a terrific story, very unusual, and a terrific idea, and the dialog is fine. I gotta say, I caught on quick that the kid was in a chair by a few tips early on, but maybe I was on my guard already. I think the concept of having a handicapped gay kid is a unique idea, and the story was good enough to make me stop and think, "jesus, what would that be like... having to live with two tough challenges to deal with as a teenager?" As it is, I often quote John Cleese's classic line from Fawlty Towers where he shakes his fist at the sky and sarcastically yells, "oh, thank you very much, God! Thank you so f@cking much!" And that's how I deal with my piddly-wink problems. I could argue that it's a little too convenient that each kid would have an incredibly-understanding mom who have no problem trying to get their teenage sons laid -- excuse me, have a friendship -- but at some point, the reader has to throw in the towel and just suspend their disbelief. I want to believe it could happen, so what the hell. In fact, I could definitely see this going further. You might want to think of extending this out to a full novel. Maybe the wheelchair kid could somehow help the running kid train (though how that would work would require some doing). Maybe the wheelchair kid could get some miracle operation to give him a little more mobility. It'd be interesting to see the wheelchair kid forcing himself to go back to high school, and have to deal with trying to fit in (plus having the additional challenge of being gay). Maybe each kid could have their romance challenged by other people, or want to cool things off because of their fear of being discovered. There's a lotta different directions you could go with this. BTW, Cole, I didn't compliment your use of mood and description, which I thought were excellent. The stuff about the light and shadow on the porch were very moody, and I also liked the running kid's speech impediment. I actually know someone who has similar problems, and despite years of speech therapy, he's still hard to understand -- yet is a great guy (with wife and kids and the whole deal).

Very interesting story. I have two main critiques (both minor): 1) I think author Kirk would've been better off describing the opening attack in great detail. Instead, we open in the attorney's office, and the parents' death is dismissed in a brief discussion (and again, later on, in a very minor flashback). To me, the story begs for an opening chapter showing the attack, then ending with the kid discovering his family dead. And then, after that, we go to the scene with the attorney. Omitting something this huge is just bizarre to me. 2) I think a lot of the dialog is overly stiff and formal. I've come into contact with a handful of people who were very wealthy, and trust me, they use contractions and slang in their conversation as much as everybody else, especially nowadays. (Some of them do it to a fault, like Donald Trump and Ted Turner.) I think Dan was trying to use it as a gimmick to show the stilted speech of Worthington/Mikey vs. the casual speech of his cousins, but I think it was a little heavy-handed. But beyond that, it's a dynamite concept and I like where it's going. I think the idea of a wealthy family whose power lies not only in money but also in magic is a very unique plotline, and I can't recall ever seeing it done before. This is good enough to use in an actual published novel, let alone a freebie on the net. Very intriguing premise -- and the sex is used well, too.

That is a nice story. If I have one criticism, it's that the wheelchair kid's vocabulary is a little verbose for a teenager, but let's assume he's extremely well-read. But very charming nonetheless. I once worked on a documentary about quadraplegic teenagers, and it was an emotional wringer, having to listen to the stories of what happened to these kids and how they live day-to-day. Once in awhile, when I start feeling sorry for myself, I think about those kids and realize, hey -- maybe things aren't that bad.

Yeah, I agree with both your points. Both Dumbledore and Snape were humanized -- Dumbledore with newly-discovered faults, and Snapes with a realistic touch of pathos. I often thought it was unfortunate that Harry didn't take Snape aside after he used the Sieve to go through Snape's thoughts, and tell him, "I'm sorry for what my father did to you when you were both in school." In the book, he considers for a moment doing just that, but then decides not to -- I dimly recall because he felt it would just embarrass them both. Alan Rickman is also a knock-out actor, and nobody could play the part of Snape better. To this day, I still quote his memorable line from Die Hard: "OK, we do it the hard way," right after he cold-bloodedly shoots the Japanese exec point-blank through the head. I just hope they don't cut down his part, as they did in the current film. BTW, there's some great discussion on Wikipedia on the differences between the Potter books and films. It's shocking, how much as wound up on the cutting room floor...

Since nobody's done it yet, here I go. Don't read any further if you haven't yet read the book! You have been warned. OK. My predictions were that 1) Snape was always a good guy and was working for Dumbledore, 2) Dumbledore wasn't really dead, and 3) Sirius would come back from The Phantom Zone (or wherever he wound up). I got #2 and #3 wrong, but I was glad to see I at least was right on #1. I also predicted 4) that the inept and bungling Neville Longbottom -- who shares Harry's birthday -- would be the one who killed Voldemort, but I was only half-right on that. He killed the snake, thus enabling Voldemort to die when he got hit by the richeting spell. So at least, Neville was instrumental in helping to kill Voldemort. But I was also positive that Hagrid would die, but that obviously didn't happen. Rowling said that she couldn't kill him because a) her sister told her she'd "never speak to her again" if she did, and b) because she wanted to open a chapter with Hagrid carrying the "dead" Harry Potter out of the forest. I was impressed that Rowling pretty much managed to resolve all the major plot-lines and characters from all the previous books. I also liked the fact that most of the character deaths were dramatic and well-justified. Even the death of Hegwig the Owl in the very beginning was a tip-off that a lot of characters were gonna bite the dust. All in all, I'd say this might be the best book of the series, but I still think #5 was the most enjoyable to read -- I think that was the one where Harry gets to view Snape's memories as a student, and finds out that Harry's father tormented Snape unmercifully when they were teenagers, which I thought was a surprising development. When you think about it, Snape is the most interesting character in the whole book, because he's such an asshole -- but once you understand why he's an asshole, he becomes a tragic character. Rowling revealed a few years ago, after being asked about "Snape's ultimate redemption." BTW, there's a ton of similarities to Star Wars between the two stories, if you do some comparisons. They share the same "power of myth" stuff that's detailed in Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces, which basically says that most of the great stories of all time are inspired by a lot of mythology that goes back to ancient times -- the young reluctant hero who's forced into battle, treachery from close associates, loyalty of friends, losing early battles but winning in the end, bad guys who turn out to be pitiable characters and redeem themselves... Lotta stuff like that. Rowling also revealed that the one moment that made her cry in writing the book was when Harry entered the forest and walked with the ghosts of his parents over to Voldemort. I tell you, I was pretty shocked that she killed off as many people as she did in the big battle-scene. In fact, during the "heaven" scene with Dumbledore, I thought, "sheesh, where's the big battle?" and sure enough, next chapter, it came on with a bang. That'll be a $10,000,000 sequence in the movie, for sure. I hope they'll have the guts to show the dead children, which I thought was kind of a shock for the book. My main criticisms of the book are that Harry, Ron & Hermione bicker and argue much too much, and there are long sections of the novel where weeks pass and not much happens. It seems to me that she had a 2-month-long story she had to drag out to a year, and so it got a little padded in the middle. Still, the surprises were decent -- finding out that Dumbledore had some skeletons in his closet, the deal about his brother being a bartender, and so on. Lotta good chunks of story. In many ways, this is by far the best-written book of the series, and I chalk that down to Rowling having ten more years of experience. Rowling said she initially was going to kill off Mr. Weasley, but finally opted not to do it because Harry had already lost several father figures (including his real father, Dumbledore, and Sirius), and doing it again would be "much too tragic." I think Fred Weasley was a replacement for this death. She did leave one tiny loose end: I think the piece of Voldemort that fell out of the stone (or whatever the hell it was in the forest) didn't die -- I think it got away. There was a line about that as well, so it makes you wonder... Then there's the loose end of the orphan kid from Lupin and Tonks, Teddy. They didn't say who was raising this kid, so that's an interesting question. BTW, there's a ton of great info on the whole massive plotline on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_potter_7 plus there's rundowns available on all the novels, plus every character who died, who killed them, and how they were killed. Pretty interesting stuff. I can imagine there's going to be dozens of "Harry Potter Encyclopedias" coming out now. Plus the inevitable "Super Limited-Edition 7-Volume Set of The Entire Saga." And a special iPod with all 7 books-on-tape as MP3s. And eventually, the massive DVD special editions (high def and regular). And on and on. Then the question becomes: how long before she does a sequel? I could see some new stories, if only showing a new generation of kids at Hogwarts (including Harry's sons). Lotta potential for possible novels, assuming she can come up with a new villain -- or maybe even find a way to resurrect the old one...

Yeah, but even by your own figures, 65% of them don't suck (or at least, don't suck as badly). The glass is 2/3 full. And I speak as somebody who never voted for Bush. The only president I ever voted for in 34 years who won was Clinton, and I'd vote for him again if he ran. Bush is far worse than even I ever expected him to be. Hell, I thought Reagan was bad in the 1980s (particularly for gays), but Reagan was a prince compared to Bush Junior.

I was musing that the other day with a friend of mine, telling him the number of close calls I've had in my life. By all rights, I should've been dead years ago, but miraculously, I've survived (so far). Like the time I flipped and rolled a convertible off a small cliff overlooking the Hollywood Freeway at 2 in the morning. Totalled the car, but I didn't hit anybody, nobody hit me, and I was able to crawl out on my hands and knees through busted glass and lived another day. My first and -- so far -- only serious car wreck. Weird experience.

I didn't like the way he did his dialogue in italics, and I hated the "song cues," but the basic story is good, and the description and mood are even better. Enjoyable as a short-story, but there's not much of a plot there. But I agree, the guy's got talent.

Eh, it ain't all that bad. I think eventually, people do the right thing. Hell, Bush's approval rate is below 35%, so that must tell you something.

Hey, don't forget drowning. You can drown somebody to death. Even though I was a really strong swimmer as a kid, I did almost drown once, when a canoe capsized in the middle of a lake. I was only 8 or 9 at the time, and the other kid and I were able to swim the two or three miles back to shore. The real trick was waiting for the wind to blow the canoe back to land so we could bring it back in, and I almost got bitten by a snake (a very small one) while trudging through the mud with the canoe. Somebody once published a list of the Top 10 Reasons to Murder Someone (for mystery writers), and I found that fascinating. One reason was "fear of embarrassment," if somebody knew something bad about you and threatened to reveal it and embarrass you. The easy ones were "Financial Gain" (killing Aunt Mytrtle for her dough), "Romantic Affairs" (killing the wife so the husband could shack up with the floozie), etc.

That is one damn funny ad. Practical, too. Me personally, electric razors don't work for me. Gotta have a blade. On this same subject, there's a whole website devoted to gay TV commercials from around the world: The Commercial Closet. Lotta good stuff there.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not in the habit of telling authors not to do something dramatic, or not to kill off a major character. But, particularly in the case of suicide, I think it's gotta be handled realistically, and I think you've got to add foreshadowing and other plot elements to give the death some resonance. In other words: more "why," more "how," and make it real, and not just something thrown in to freak out the reader. Some of my favorite books were long, long stories: Harry Potter and Stephen King's The Stand among them. But those stories have huge, gigantic chunks of plot and character in every chapter; I don't often see that in these long, convoluted internet stories. To me, they often wander and meander... or, as the great filmmaker Martin Scorcese would say, "they lose the narrative thread." Don't get me wrong: I actually have enjoyed much of Perry & Jesse, but it does go on a tad long in spots. To me, the author would have better served his audience by dividing the story up into separate books (similar to Potter), and let each one stand alone, with a complete story that has a beginning, middle, and end. BTW, I'm continuing to mull on Pieces of Destiny, and I just realized that I may have to consider a second novel -- a sequel, which I've never done before. I had a couple of "what the hell" moments over the weekend where I thought, "damn! This thing could get more complicated than I'd first thought." So -- assuming I can get Chapter 4 done this weekend -- I now have a new goal. But trust me, each novel will stand alone, as I said above.

Ah, I'm jealous. I've been in many places -- Rome, New York, Mexico, Japan, Hong Kong, California, Florida -- but never managed to find the time to visit England. One of my favorite places in the world, at least on paper. The Sherlock Holmes stories got me through most of my adolescence, and I think of London as this wonderful, mystical, mesmerizing place. Gotta get there, one of these days! Have fun -- watch out for the bad food.

Yeah, that one's bad enough that it should be on our list of "most-often used cliches in gay fiction." And I confess to having used it in my new one, Pieces of Destiny (though the circumstances are far different from a car wreck). At least in my case, the kids aren't gonna be home with the folks for the entire story. BTW, for those who asked, I'm going to try to revise chapters 1-3 and then post chapter 4 in the next few days. That all hinges on my workload, but if I can get this weekend free, I'll give it a whack.

Alright, already! It's been a week! When can we start talking about this thing? If nobody has any objection, I'll start a SPOILER ALERT thread elsewhere.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Potter stories succeed because Rowling captures childhood experiences that everybody goes through, and provides engaging characters everyone can relate to. In Harry's case, we have a character who's felt "different" all his life, and discovers he belongs to a world very different from the one in which he grew up. While wanting to fit in and be accepted, like everybody else, he also wants to be an individual and do things his own way. The books' ongoing themes of friendship, trust, and honor, as well as the ongoing threats and violence from mysterious forces, uplift the story beyond a mere "kid's tale." I'm really glad the books sold so well, and I hope that more people (young and old) learn the value in reading for pleasure. <in my wheezy old man's voice> Eh, these young'n's today... they spend too much gol-durn time on that infernal Internet! In myyyy day, we read books! And we... liked it!