-->

Pages

That's right! Sarah Palin's book.

OK, first I just want all I my liberal friends to know that I am really enjoying your reaction to that dust jacket being on my blog. To my many conservative friends, no I have not drunk the kool-aid and no, I am not going to trash the queen of the moment, Ms. Palin. Although I guess by calling her Ms. I have already insulted some right-wing, crypto-fascist dogma. But enough about politics.

Please notice that I have not linked to the book with my Amazon Associates account, even I understand the thirty pieces of silver possibilities here. Sarah Palin's book is not yet available for shipping, wipe the drool off your reading glasses Richard, it ships November 17th.

So why am I writing about a book many of my friends would not even handle for fear of contamination?

Well, first of all it is already a best-seller, meaning lots and lots of folks have pre-ordered it. Not surprising you say. Well a little investigative reporting might reveal a hidden reason for its popularity. Amazon.com sells a lot of books, all at a discount. It's what all the online sites do. For example, Check-Raising the Devil is listed at $24.95 and sells on Amazon for $16.47; that is the near standard 1/3 off.

Going Rogue lists at $28.99 and has sold on various online sites and in brick and mortar stores for somewhere in the $15-$16 range. Right now if you go to Amazon. com, you will see that Going Rogue is the first book advertised for sale. Today's price --- $4.97!

Yes, folks there is no better way to becoming a best seller then to sell your book for less than than it costs to print it. Trust me, Amazon is not using this brilliant tome of political literature as a loss leader, they are buying it for a lot less than five bucks. So good old almost-VP Palin will not be donating a lot of her royalties to the local Planned Parenthood for indigent, indigenous Inuits.

By the way, the title of her book actually has nothing to do with the word rogue, which has mostly negative connotations. Whether or not the true origin of the title says anything at all about Sarah Palin or not is, well... you decide.

This is the sited source for the chosen title:




With 10 days to go until election day, long brewing tension between Sarah Palin and key aides to John McCain has become so intense, it is spilling out into the public.
Several McCain advisers have suggested to news media they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin “going rogue” recently, while a Palin associate says she is simply trying to “bust free” of what she believes was a mishandled roll-out that damaged her.
McCain sources point to several incidents where Palin has gone off message, and privately wonder if they were deliberate. A McCain source tells Fox News 'she appears to now be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.'
Maybe they meant to call it--Going Rouge?

Writing Inspiration

At least half of all writing involves just sitting and staring into space. Letting your brain out to hunt down ideas, bringing them back all warm and bloody between its teeth. - Warren Ellis

I consider myself a master of sitting and staring into space. I also have graduate training which includes wandering in the woods, vegetating on the veranda and a certificate in morning meditation disguised as sleeping in. Ideas come to me in all of these and many other places, however, I have yet to sink my metaphorical fangs into a single one of them. No, my process is more welcoming. I tend to nurture a new idea, giving it a proverbial saucer of milk.

I don't like to take notes unless the idea comes to me as I drift off at night. All writers abhor the thought of waking in the morning with no chance of recalling what the Pulitzer idea was they had the night before. But unless I am about to commune with Morpheus, I prefer to wander a bit, perhaps take a walk or at least pace about a snow bound house and let a new idea percolate and flourish.

Some new ideas are just scenes that may be part of a story yet undiscovered. All I really need is some time to lock the key pieces into memory where it can await the rest of the story from which it has prematurely erupted. There are times when a day or two later, I check my mental, paper or cyber notes to find what I have is not a scene from a story but, in fact, a blog post. Something like this one today.

Pondering Warren Ellis' rapine writing habits, I wonder if I might add a touch of the carnivore to my sitting and staring routine. Gives a whole new perspective to the practice of vegetating. Perhaps the tone and tenor is different when one ravages an idea.
---
photo credit: archives

Check Critiquing the Devil


I have been a published book author for six months today. Recently I have begun to sense a theme in the negative aspects of our reviews. Now I must say that the majority of the reviews for Check Raising the Devil have been positive, at times glowingly positive. What has interested me is that what negative comments we have received all seem to focus on one critical decision we made the first day we met with Mike to see if we all could, would or should collaborate on the project.

We decided as a group (Mike, his manager, Amy and me) that the book would be written in the first person. I was the lone dissenter but gave in to the overwhelming desires of the others to have the book be completely in Mike's voice. In the last few months I have gotten my wish while writing the screenplay; movies are third person vehicles and I have gotten to write and say the things that did not make it into the book.

But back to the criticism, rather than summarize; I will give you the essence of the critique from the most articulate expression we have found. This is from the Journal of Gambling Issues.





Being written by Matusow and his co-authors, Amy Calistri and Tim Lavalli, the books's first-person narrative is riddled with colloquialisms and crude language. Based on my familiarity with Matusow's conversational style from radio shows, sound clips, and television appearances, the prose captures his voice well. Although it is authentic, it is also distracting at times; it seems that the book compromises good writing for the genuine portrayal of Matusow's propensity to insert curse works unnecessarily into every other sentence.


Guilty! But as this reviewer points out, it was an artistic decision and one that we agreed to live with. By the way, Mike does not unnecessarily insert anything into his conversation, he simply speaks, as do we all. In retrospect, do I regret not winning the first-person argument back on day one? No, I do not. Our format did indeed tell Mike's story in his own voice. We struggled to find that voice and to stay in that voice for the entire book. A few internet babble-heads have actually questioned why Mike needed co-authors, when clearly we just "wrote down what he said." We would like to thank those cyber wonks for probably the best compliments Amy and I have received on the book. If the reader doesn't notice our input, then we did our job to perfection.

Well I feel better now. I think I will go read the NYTimes Sunday Book Review and find that one caustic, withering piece they always have each week. I do love blood mixed with newsprint.
---
photo credit: TribuneNewsPhotos

Gay Maine

I know a lot of my liberal friends are distraught over the latest vote on gay marriage. The citizens of Maine, in an unusually high turnout for a minor election, voted against homosexual unions in that state this Tuesday past. What I would like to say to both my liberal and conservative friends and readers is that this matters not at all in the greater scheme of things.

Allow me to expound.

In nearly all two-sided arguments there are four positions. Your position (+), their position (-), your position from their point of view (-), their position from their point of view (+) and, of course, the mirror image if you are them and they is you. As the graphic below illustrates.

In the case of gay marriage, those positions are approximately:
A. Marriage is a right that should be available to all persons regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, number of limbs or facial warts.
B. Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman only; despite the fact that over 50% of marriages piss on this sacred bond in the foam of divorce.
C. You are godless, soulless heathens who seek to destroy the very fabric of the nation; somehow that fabric is not freedom, but is in fact marriage.
D. You are close-minded bigots, who couldn't handle freedom if it came gift wrapped and delivered on a rainbow bus.

I believe I have captured the essence of the various positions. But as I said before, it doesn't matter. Why you ask?

Every state in the nation, yes even Arkansas and Mississippi will eventually vote to legalize gay marriage. Every single one. What? Why? How?

Well folks, I hope this doesn't come as a shock to all you breeders out there, but you have birthed and raised a generation of children who are not bigots. They don't care who is gay or straight or even who is black, yellow, white or brown. While they may still believe that heterosexual marriage is sacred, they don't believe they should impose those beliefs on others. Yes, even you right-wing fascists are donating sperm and ovum to children who actually believe in liberty and justice for all.

I know, I know that kid down the street is just as big a red-neck as his daddy; but he is a member of a dwindling minority. The attitudes on gay marriage will change as these children become voters and express their will that basically adheres to a policy that they should not legislatively impose their will on others. And don't look now but many of those kids are already eighteen and they are registered to vote.

Now I realize that I have once again slammed social conservatives here, by defaming them with words like bigot and red-neck; I have also defamed Mississippi and Arkansas, when it was Maine which prompted today's rant. So allow me to balance the scale.

You liberals, particularly you gay liberals. You are now going to point out that this change will be too late for you. You want to be married now. Actually what you really want is to have the societal recognition of your union and the accrued benefits of marriage. But! I do not have those rights available to me. You see I am a single-American. I chose not to marry, so I will never receive the tax advantages, health care benefits and other social protections of a married person.

But wait you say! I at least have the choice, as a heterosexual single-American I could get married. False logic! Freedom of choice should not give rise to specialized freedoms available only to those who make the politically or socially correct choice. Certainly I think you should have the right to marry but stop your whining about inequality unless or until you tell me that you will renounce the unequal benefits that arise to marriage persons. Go ahead and marry the person of your hearts choosing but renounce the elevated status that marriage gives you over those who make a different choice. You understand the words "different choice" right? The words are: with liberty and justice for all. It doesn't say marriage makes you special or privileged.

We are all equal and free when there are no more down-trodden minorities but also when no group is a privileged minority.
---
photo credit: glca.com

Writin' 'Bout Writin'





That is actually a very recent quote from an opinion piece in the NYTimes by Olivia Judson. I like the way she writes, although recently I have been reading books and articles with styles I do not care for. It seems that like John Cage music there are some disconnected writing modes that really ring some reader's cerebral chimes. I am discovering that reading the discordant makes it oh so much easier to analyze the style if not the attraction. Right now I am plowing through Neil Stephenson's Cryptonomicon with it's over 1100 pages. Back when I was working in the cyber-reality, I enjoyed the darkness of his virtual world in Snow Crash, but his herky-jerky story line in this work is distracting. Yet, I persevere because I am trying to master the craft of reading a work I truly admire without getting lost in the author's world.

I want to see beneath the fiction and discover the structure that allows a reader to fall so deeply into the created world. I have read the Mars Trilogy at least three times trying to follow the seamless character transitions. I strive to some day be able to read Blake and understand how his hallucinations can become mine. Until then I will scribble away at my several nascent books and articles, hoping they will someday emerge into the light of public scrutiny and paint worlds yet unseen for my readers.

A Mix and Match Rant


Two items cross my path in the last forty-eight. Hmm, perhaps it was their paths that crossed. Whatever, I have been putting in a clump of hours on the Matusow screenplay and in that light I was interested in an article link sent to me by three separate friends. The title is: No I Will Not Read Your Fucking Script. If you are considering a screenplay, novel, short story or even a blog; I cordially invite you to read it. To my friends, buddies, pals and family members who will be getting our screenplay in a few weeks, thanks in advance and if you read this psot, maybe please thank-you also read the article.

Item two is a quotation from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig:

There is an evil tendency underlying all our technology - the tendency to do what is reasonable even when it isn't any good.

Now I'm no Luddite, my life has been dramatically changed by the personal computer and the internet. But all great advances have a dark underbelly. OK, most of them do; I haven't done an exhaustive list. And it is not just reasonable outcomes that can fail to be accretive to the good of humanity. There are simply less than satisfactory non-accomplishments that abound because of our really big technocracy. The primary culprit in today's rant is writing. Sure start a blog, write every day or twice a year; good for you, get it out, say it, write. But that does not make you a writer.

As the article says: "It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't. By the way, here's a simple way to find out if you're a writer. If you disagree with that statement, you're not a writer. Because, you see, writers are also readers."

Mind you I say this as an apprentice writer. No not a writer yet, despite having a book and a couple of hundred articles on poker out there plus several fiction pieces floating about the interwebs. But I am an aspiring, apprentice writer. Nasty (unpublished) comments I get on this blog regularly remind me of my shortcomings, real or imagined by my faithful if cranky readers.
---
photo credit: FlickrPhotos

Hollow Weenie


I am traveling today because my religion does not allow me to travel on a double holy day tomorrow. Nov. 1 is both All Saints Day and my sainted mother's birthday. And while that is not as significant as April 1st being my wedding day, well you get the idea.

Halloween plans include giving sugar infused trinkets to cold, wet youngsters and imbibing hot, alcohol infused toddies for the adults. But not until I make yet another geographic move. So short and distorted is the blog today. I need to build my Wii holiday avatar before I hit the open road yet again.

Shadows of a thousand years rise again unseen,
Voices whisper in the trees,
"Tonight is Halloween!"
---Dexter Kozen


---
Lisa Scream from Simpsons.com; The Scream by Edvard Munch