I firmly believe Saddam Hussein was an evil man. I am for use of the death penalty (not in all cases, but generally when the person to be executed remains a danger to others). I think the world is better off without Saddam. I think the U.S. is better off without Saddam. Iraq too.
But ... I don't feel any safer. And something bugs me about his execution. I'm not sure what it is ... perhaps the way it was handled, all of a sudden in the middle of the night (though early morning in Baghdad).
It didn't quite seem fair to me. It didn't seem just. A quicky appeals trial, then slam bam and he's hanging from a noose.
I often think U.S. appeals courts take way too much time when dealing with murder cases, but the speed of Saddam's execution has shocked me, I suppose..
I just don't know. Something about Saddam's death didn't feel right.
Can anyone explain this to me? Then I'll go back to writing about writing.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Busy, busy, busy
Just wanted to let folks know that if I'm not posting much here for a while it's because I'm busy. I'm still working my old job, looking for a new job and moving two hours away in a town where I've bought a house but still don't have a job. All the while I'm still trying to edit the third book of my trilogy.
Call me Stupid.
Call me Stupid.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Merry Christmas!
As I'm going to be on the road for the holidays, and away from a computer, I wanted to wish everyone who checks this blog a happy holidays and Merry Christmas!
May all your writing dreams become realities in the new year of 2007!
May all your writing dreams become realities in the new year of 2007!
Friday, December 22, 2006
So, I'm royalty
Figure I had to get in on this one too.
And for Kron Darkbow ...
 | My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: Earl Ty the Appropriate of Deepest Throcking Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title |
And for Kron Darkbow ...
| My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: Viscount Kron the Bovine of Snotting on Wold Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title |
Monday, December 18, 2006
Writing methods
There are various ways for a writer to work. I'll mention a few below, and my opinions of them, but keep in mind I'm only talking about the actual writing process. Editing and other work can be for another post.
Longhand method: Some writers write their stories out by hand, usually in a notebook or pad of sorts. Then, when finished, they proceed to type the work into a computer or on a typewriter, or they have someone else type it for them. I've tried this method a few times, but my hand tires too much, and I can't write fast enough to keep up with my brain. One of the great things about this method of writing is the cost: A pad and a few pencils cost only a few dollars, though finding a typewriter or typist might run you some more bucks.
Recording: Some authors actually carry around a recording device of some kind, and they record their own voice as they "speak" the story. Then, later, they type the story up or have someone else type it. I've tried this method only once or twice, and I found it laborious. I'll skip it, thanks.
Typewriter: This is a more traditional method, where one types their story straight onto a page with a typewriter. There are some drawbacks to this, mainly having to deal with mistakes while typing. This method is nearly forgotten nowadays, as the typewriter has been replaced by computers.
Word processing: This is probably the most common manner for writers to write today. They type their stories directly into word processing software on their computer. This method allows for easy editing and revision, and saves your story in a file without taking up the space a bulky manuscript would. The main drawback to this method of writing is the cost; computers, paper and ink cartridges can be expensive. Still, this is the method of writing I normally use.
There probably are a few other writing methods I've forgotten, or I'm not as familiar with (stone tablets and a chisel come to mind), but feel free to let me know of something different than I've mentioned.
Longhand method: Some writers write their stories out by hand, usually in a notebook or pad of sorts. Then, when finished, they proceed to type the work into a computer or on a typewriter, or they have someone else type it for them. I've tried this method a few times, but my hand tires too much, and I can't write fast enough to keep up with my brain. One of the great things about this method of writing is the cost: A pad and a few pencils cost only a few dollars, though finding a typewriter or typist might run you some more bucks.
Recording: Some authors actually carry around a recording device of some kind, and they record their own voice as they "speak" the story. Then, later, they type the story up or have someone else type it. I've tried this method only once or twice, and I found it laborious. I'll skip it, thanks.
Typewriter: This is a more traditional method, where one types their story straight onto a page with a typewriter. There are some drawbacks to this, mainly having to deal with mistakes while typing. This method is nearly forgotten nowadays, as the typewriter has been replaced by computers.
Word processing: This is probably the most common manner for writers to write today. They type their stories directly into word processing software on their computer. This method allows for easy editing and revision, and saves your story in a file without taking up the space a bulky manuscript would. The main drawback to this method of writing is the cost; computers, paper and ink cartridges can be expensive. Still, this is the method of writing I normally use.
There probably are a few other writing methods I've forgotten, or I'm not as familiar with (stone tablets and a chisel come to mind), but feel free to let me know of something different than I've mentioned.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The typewriter
Ever miss the days of the typewriter? Every so often I do.
Yes, the benefits from writing with word processing software on a computer are enormous, but typewriters had a few benefits. For one, once you had typed out the work, it was already there for you; no sitting around for hours while waiting for a proof of your 300+ page novel to print out for editing or mailing (which is what I'm doing while writing this).
But more than that, I kind of miss the mechanics of writing with a typewriter. My first typewriter was some foreign brand, a portable manual that was quite dodgy mechanically, but I loved it. My mom got my second typewriter for me in high school; it was a fancy electric Smith Corona that even had an erase key on it that would allow me to go back and automatically white-out a bad keystroke. Boy, I thought that was big time!
Then, at the age of 18 I entered college, and that's when I discovered Macintoshes. These newfangled computers were far and away better than the Vic 20 and Commodore 64 computers I was familiar with from high school. Since then, I've never looked back and I've never owned another typewriter. My (now old) Smith Corona sits unused in my mom's house five hundred miles a day.
Ah, nostaliga.
Yes, the benefits from writing with word processing software on a computer are enormous, but typewriters had a few benefits. For one, once you had typed out the work, it was already there for you; no sitting around for hours while waiting for a proof of your 300+ page novel to print out for editing or mailing (which is what I'm doing while writing this).
But more than that, I kind of miss the mechanics of writing with a typewriter. My first typewriter was some foreign brand, a portable manual that was quite dodgy mechanically, but I loved it. My mom got my second typewriter for me in high school; it was a fancy electric Smith Corona that even had an erase key on it that would allow me to go back and automatically white-out a bad keystroke. Boy, I thought that was big time!
Then, at the age of 18 I entered college, and that's when I discovered Macintoshes. These newfangled computers were far and away better than the Vic 20 and Commodore 64 computers I was familiar with from high school. Since then, I've never looked back and I've never owned another typewriter. My (now old) Smith Corona sits unused in my mom's house five hundred miles a day.
Ah, nostaliga.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
This is not a review
Okay, I'm reading "The Da Vinci Code." I'm a little more than halfway through it. Yes, I've seen the movie. So why read the book?
Simple, to see how and why Dan Brown's novel has become so popular.
The plot is fairly generic, though has a fast pace to keep interest up. The main character is different, thus interesting, but most of the other characters aren't anything special. The writing is okay, not great but not awful, reminding me a little of Michael Crichton's work in the last 20 or so years. It almost reads like a screenplay, with a little exposition thrown in from time to time to explain the more complicated elements of the story.
True, I'm not finished with the book, but since I've seen the movie I know how the story works out. As far as I can tell, the novel is so popular because of its background material, most of which is quite explosive from a religio-political point of view.
However, none of that background information is anything new, nothing I hadn't read years ago. Apparantly, though, it was new to the public at large.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, I spent years and years reading occult material, fiction and non-fiction that touched upon or was fully engulfed by "secret history," "lost books" and unique individuals and the like. I wanted to be a horror writer then, so it made sense to study all that stuff. I spent lots of time reading about the history of vampirism, cults, witchcraft, Le Comte de St. Germain, the Rosicrucians and thousands of other subjects that are truly useless to know about ... unless one is writing about occult matters.
So, "The Da Vinci Code" held no surprises for me.
It's just a halfway decent book that likely would never have been a best seller if its opponents had kept their mouths shut.
Wow. Eureka. Sorry, I've got to go. I think my next novel is going to be about a conspiracy by a U.S. president to start a war for no other reason than to make his buddies rich. THAT should be controversial enough to get me published.
Simple, to see how and why Dan Brown's novel has become so popular.
The plot is fairly generic, though has a fast pace to keep interest up. The main character is different, thus interesting, but most of the other characters aren't anything special. The writing is okay, not great but not awful, reminding me a little of Michael Crichton's work in the last 20 or so years. It almost reads like a screenplay, with a little exposition thrown in from time to time to explain the more complicated elements of the story.
True, I'm not finished with the book, but since I've seen the movie I know how the story works out. As far as I can tell, the novel is so popular because of its background material, most of which is quite explosive from a religio-political point of view.
However, none of that background information is anything new, nothing I hadn't read years ago. Apparantly, though, it was new to the public at large.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, I spent years and years reading occult material, fiction and non-fiction that touched upon or was fully engulfed by "secret history," "lost books" and unique individuals and the like. I wanted to be a horror writer then, so it made sense to study all that stuff. I spent lots of time reading about the history of vampirism, cults, witchcraft, Le Comte de St. Germain, the Rosicrucians and thousands of other subjects that are truly useless to know about ... unless one is writing about occult matters.
So, "The Da Vinci Code" held no surprises for me.
It's just a halfway decent book that likely would never have been a best seller if its opponents had kept their mouths shut.
Wow. Eureka. Sorry, I've got to go. I think my next novel is going to be about a conspiracy by a U.S. president to start a war for no other reason than to make his buddies rich. THAT should be controversial enough to get me published.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)