The Pecman

I try to use what I think is the best of both: I write on the computer, then print it out and edit and revise on paper. Once that's all done, then I make the changes back on the computer. The other advantage is, if the computer blows up, I still have a paper copy of what I write. That has only happened once in the last 20 years, but I was glad to have the paper when it did.

Half of my real-world job is coming up with workarounds for badly-designed computer software used for sound recording and picture editing. Usually at that point, I mutter, "OK, now we have to get out the hammer," and I pound the computer into submission until it does what I want. You can blame the hardware, the software, or the programmer, but I like to think there's Cosmic Interference from Evil Elves.

Lotsa those on the net... (thee and me excepted)...

And I confess I'm reading not one but two non-fiction 600-page books simultaneously right now -- in print. But... I finished reading two or three books on the iPad in the last month. Try it -- ya might like it.

Another video that does not have a hot guy in it, but man, this guy has a voice. 9 of them, as a matter of fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wSbLa2uGg#t=91 I'm normally opposed to religious songs, but I'll make an exception with harmonies this good. Fantastic vocals and an exceptionally good arrangement. As much as I know about music, I'm stumped on how to arrange 9-part harmony, even if half of them are an octave apart. [And once again, the forum software will not allow me to embed videos -- with two different browsers. Just sayin'.]

I'll sign up for that, provided there's lots of filthy-dirty scenes.

That's weird, because it's clear by the end of the first book (and movie) that Ender himself is overcome with terrible guilt and remorse at the realization of what he's done. Several subsequent novels make it clear that he was keenly aware of the genocide he had instigated, and he spent the rest of his life trying to make up for it. Not only has Orson Scott Card written some brilliant, award-winning science fiction, he also wrote some great books on writing in general. One of his early-1990s texts on How to Write Science Fiction and also Characters and Viewpoint helped me a great detail in figuring out the basics of how to write. But he's a terrible, horribly-flawed human being. I hope the failure of the movie did little to promote sales of his books.

You can buy paperbacks of Salinger and Lee for less than $1. But there's whole generation of readers who only want to read eBooks on their Kindles, iPads, computer screens, and other eBook readers. It's sad to me that these authors' estates (and actually Lee herself, who is still alive) are ignoring this huge market and missing out on making hundreds of thousands of dollars on potential eBook sales. It took J.K. Rowling almost ten years to (reluctantly) allow eBook sales of the Harry Potter books, but that came after millions of illegal PDFs -- of extremely good quality -- flooded the internet. I'm glad that young people will read at all in this modern era; what they read them on is of little importance. When you think about it, 90% of most books and magazines are a tremendous waste of trees, ink, and transportation; if you can have a beautifully-readable publication as an eBook that takes up maybe a couple of MB, it's a lot more efficient in terms of sales and readability. Only the idea and artistry of the work matters, not how it's delivered. On the other hand: I wouldn't want to read an iPad in the bathtub, particularly if I dropped it. I think there's a time and place for everything. I just spent $120 on printed books this past week, but I think I have about 250 books on my iPad (which is not even 2/3 filled). Each has its place, but I tend to buy physical media when there's a chance I may give it away to a friend, or it's particularly illustration-heavy and needs the benefit of high-quality color printing. But for fiction, eBooks are fine. Try one for yourself and see what you think. iPads have some severe limitations, but for certain things -- watching videos, listening to music, streaming movies, reading eBooks, web surfing -- they're OK.

Terrific story. Can't wait to see the Penn & Teller documentary film. Thanks, F.T.!

What's baffling about J.D. Salinger (and also Harper Lee, who is still alive) is that they adamantly refuse to allow their works to be legitimately sold as eBooks. As a result, the only way you can get bona fide American classics like Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird on eBooks is to do so illegally, which is sad to me.

Our cat looks (and acts) exactly like that.

I think I could be good at math if I applied myself -- I do an awful lot of very fast calculating in my head -- but I have almost zero interest in mathematics. I'm more an English guy; I exempted two years of college English when I was a senior in high school. Many years later, I got interested in databases and started building (from scratch) an enormous database of information about all the charted American hits from the early rock era to the present. About halfway through the project, where I had to learn scripting and some low-level programming language techniques, I realized to my shock: "oh, crap! This is math!" It's frightening to consider how much of everyday life boils down to a database. The ATM, your credit cards, your mail, the gas pump, your paycheck, your taxes... it's all being compiled in a database. God help you when that database gets screwed up. I like the idea of putting knowledge in a database so that you can access it in many different ways, but I quickly learned that a lot depends on how the information is entered into the database. Type it in wrong... nobody will ever be able to find it. I see a lot of problems like this on the web. Google has done an amazing job at interpreting what you meant to search for vs. what you actually typed.

And here's the link: http://www.awesomedude.com/jovincent/tbsd/index.htm

I saw the editing: they're trying very hard to be fast-paced and look professional, and inviting money. I've worked on productions for free and given them excellent sound for zero money. All you have to do is try hard and know what you're doing. One Google search will give you the basic instructions on how to get good sound on location, though nothing will solve the problem better than just to get a better location. Their pictures and editing look fine. This is not the first time I've seen a decent idea undermined by mediocre audio, and it's a pet peeve of mine. It's kind of like a guy who writes a brilliant story, but does it in a 4-point cursive font.

I would make a different argument from the opposite side, which is that the danger is that kids can (and will) get contemptuous of knowledge because it's so easy to get. It used to take a lot of effort, time, and diligence to do (say) a report on the Civil War; now, you do a few Google searches, read Wikipedia, and you have the answers in an hour. I feel like kids are too casual and not respectful enough of the effort needed to collect and write information. Sometimes, they forget that what's up on the web had to be written before it could be searched. I think I've written about 20 Wikipedia articles from scratch, plus I've corrected a hundred or so other ones that were in my field of expertise. What's funny to me is when I see what I've written show up in other people's work, word-for-word (sometimes including the mistakes). Do you remember the 1960 movie The Time Machine? I'm reminded of the Eloi, the young remaining humans on the earth who led a carefree and lackadasical existence, ignoring the vast amounts of knowledge at their fingertips because they had the bare minimum of what they needed: food, water, air, a roof over their heads, and (one assumes) sex. But the thirst for knowledge wasn't there. My fear is that this could be a possibly real direction for our future.

Doh, they definitely need to spend some money and hire a sound guy to do better dialogue. Wind noise is killin' them. I don't disagree that the kid has an engaging personality, and with more money spent on production, the show could be reasonably good.

Doh. I spent almost every weekend from about 3rd grade through 10th or 11th grade in the library (1960s/early 1970s), reading everything I could get my hands on. It stuns me that young people think research is the same thing as just doing a Google search, grabbing the first three hits, and cutting and pasting what you find. Don't forget we also had encyclopedias. My sister and I read the entire mid-1960s edition of the World Book Encyclopedia probably at least 15 or 20 times. Eventually, that crap sticks in your head and you begin to realize there's a bigger world out there. I think the view of the world you get on the net is much different from what you get from books. Interpreting that knowledge is an individual thing, but I do think we've kind of lost something in people confusing "fast and easy" access with broad access to information. The art of footnotes is slipping away.

And just to update this very dated topic... I just read a news item today about a real-life high school football star who has been charged with murdering his gay lover. It seems the other person was trying to blackmail the high school kid, and the football star retaliated by stabbing the guy repeatedly outside his house. This is eerily reminiscent of some of the details of my novel, which surprised the hell outta me. Full details here on the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/tarence-mitchell-accused-stabbing-ronald-taylor_n_4329189.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

I'm so dense, sometimes I take people at their word, especially when it's without the benefit of obvious spoof or a smiley. This is a problem when staring at ASCII text on a screen, minus the raised eyebrow or tone of voice you'd have in real life.

It can be, but fans always tend to take things to an extreme, being fans. I like but did not love the book, and think it has good moments and is well-written. I don't see any deep psychological issues in the book at all -- it's just a story about a fairly militaristic society who trains children as soldiers from a very young age, and tells them only the bare minimum about their training. Salon magazine had the initial statement, and if anything, we were just discussing that. Elsewhere, I posted the beginning of a long thread about gay protests against Orson Scott Card and the movie. In the end, the protests were unnecessary because the movie was poorly received and quickly bombed. I think it bombed because a mass market audience didn't want to see a large group of young teenagers fighting aliens in a simulated video game war. Previous movies with similar plots -- and I'd put Last Starfighter in that category -- also did poorly. As far as the old "get a life" message goes, one wonders about the sense of negatively commenting in a thread rather than taking part in the discussion -- the true meaning of thread-crapping -- which is never a wise way to start off in a new discussion group on the web. Get to know us first before you come to the snap decision that we either don't know what we're talking about, or that your point of view is profoundly better than ours. It may just be we have a simple difference of opinion, neither side right or wrong.

I went back and re-read your original paragraph, and didn't get that impression. The wording could have been clearer. Mike above has the right impression: Howard does an act pretending to be a difficult, "shocking" character on the radio, but the truth is whenever anybody calls him on it, he immediately crumbles and backs down. He's a pussycat. I've been a longtime listener, and I have a problem with quite a bit of what he says, but having done radio before, I admire the fact that he can create compelling talk radio for four hours a day. One thing I have praised him for for years: he's been for gay rights and gay marriage for at least 10-15 years, long before it was popular, and also stopped using the word "fag" a decade ago, when it was pointed out to him that this was almost the gay version of the "N" word. So again, Howard has his limits. I object to some of the phoniness with Howard -- particularly when you consider he makes almost $100 million a year and yet pretends to understand and identify with the common man -- but his work is undeniably entertaining... some of the time.

Well, remember you're seeing the edited down version of what actually happened in real life, just a 2-minute distillation of a 15-minute event. On his radio show, Howard has said many times, "I can't understand the psychology behind parents who would willfully tell their kids, 'oh yeah, you're incredibly talented,' and then push them to be on a national TV show to be made fun of." You're the guy who started it by saying that Howard Stern was "the meanest man in America." My take is that you would have a very different impression if you actually listened to his show. I think Howard himself is manipulative, calculated, and puts on a very over-the-top act, and yet he also knows where to draw the line. It's beyond just an act, but at least he knows where to stop and backtrack and actually admit on the air, "OK, maybe I was just being a little too outrageous," which he admits much more today than he did 10-15 years ago. There are reasons I don't always like Stern, but those lie more around the deception that goes on during his show, not his outrageousness. I think it is pretty cruel to push a 7-year-old kid into a show like this. Although... America's Got Talent did have a 12-year-old girl who actually went pretty far in the competition and was championed by Howard on many occasions. Watch the segments where Howard gets out of his chair and gives contestants standing ovations, praising them to the heights. He's just as capable of compliments as he is wise-ass remarks, and (as he himself has often pointed out) is the only actual American judge on America's Got Talent. (There's a Canadian, a Scot, and a German on the show with him at the moment.) What is funny is when a moment of reality accidentally spills out on the show. On the episode following the one where the little kid burst into tears, Howard said, "man, I really had to re-think the reasons why I'm doing this show in the first place. That experience yesterday really shook me to the core." And Howie Mandel immediately shot back, "I can think of 15 million reasons why you're doing the show, Howard" (referring to Stern's $15 million salary).

That's my kinda church!

What about the soundtrack to Book of Mormon? I hear that's pretty entertaining.

Cowell is often right and honest in his comments, but the difference there is that he puts a pretty cruel spin on his evaluations sometimes. I don't dispute that he can be very witty and entertaining at times, though The X Factor has been a pretty big bomb in the U.S. so far. Howard at least doesn't turn the negative vote into an insult -- it's more often something like, "hey, I'm sorry, but I don't think your act will work for this competition," vs. "what on Earth made you think you have any talent?", which is the kind of thing I've heard Cowell say. One thing I think is interesting about all these shows (American Idol, The Voice, X Factor, etc.) is when somebody gets up who is "somewhat" talented, but winds up being merely good and not very good, let alone great. This is when Simon says something like, "well, you're what I would expect to hear on a cruise ship or a hotel cabaret," damning with faint praise. At the same time, it's great when a spectacular, unexpected talent on the order of a Susan Boyle comes out and just blows everybody away... but those moments are extremely rare. I'm often quick to remind people: these are not talent contests -- they're TV shows... meaning it's all very, very controlled and pre-determined in many ways. Do a search on the net and you'll see a variety of exposes on how these shows really work. There's a lot of skulduggery going on. If I live long enough to finish my current model and also get into a third installment, that one will show a character of mine going through what I call "American Voice," a fictitious TV show where the kid gets pretty far up in the ranks before some dramatic developments happen. Being a fairly obsessive student of pop culture for the last 40-odd years, I'm fascinated with celebrity, particularly with singers and groups whose careers rise and fall. My take is that the really smart ones are those who understand that you're lucky to have 2 or 3 years as a successful pop singer, and then it basically comes to an end and you're coasting from then on, playing revival concerts, state fairs, and smaller venues. I have some plans on what would happen with my character... but I'll keep those on hold for now.