Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Teleportation may be the answer to solving environmental and transportation problems and an end to the energy crisis. No more planes. No more cars. A teleportation station in every garage. You wouldn't even need to leave the house unless it was a Beautiful Day. As it has been pointed out to me, teleportation is the transfer of matter, and matter is energy, therefore the energy use of teleporters might be nominal (see Mr. Fusion). If this technology isn't too far off and it is found to be reliable and cheap, what type of impact would this create?

It has also been said that a great idea and a bad idea are indistinguishable to the ignorant. So, what bit of logic might be missing? Please feel free to leave a comment below. I love to hear how wonderful and smart I am.

Holy Hell

I don't pretend to understand the situation fully in Iran. What I gather, was how undemocratic Iran's recent 'election' was. The Ayatollah perhaps picked the President under the sham of a democratic election. The reaction to this, fueled mostly from Iran's youthful population is understandably one of WTH? But, the backlash from these protests sparked an evil response. The Iranian government has apparently imprisoned protesters, known reformists, those that pose a threat to the well being of tyranny.

What the hell? I am most upset because there is very little we as observers can do (sort of the measures taken by the U.S. in Iraq). If there is change, then it has to be a movement originating from the people of Iran. Hopefully, the extreme measures taken by the government against its own people serves only to undermine it. If true democratic ideals are what the people of Iran want, then I hope they are successful against tyranny.

This also serves as a counterpoint. The U.S. is indeed a free country. One is free to protest, print and publish one's thoughts, criticisms and ideas without fear of false imprisonment or death. We can march in the streets, demanding rights. We can, without fear of reprisal, openly criticize our government. We can sit in our coffee shops, surf the uncensored net and read the gamut of literature. This is what those who died for us, at our country's birth, gave us. Though our British masters were not the tyrannical dictators our history texts made them to be, particularly against the true tyrant, what birthed from our independence was to become the free-est country in the World.

Where do your Loyalties Lie?

Independence Day is forthcoming. Within a Fortnight, Americans will take to their grills, pools and picnics and then crane their necks skyward to see the explosive night sky. A recurrent theme in my current project is loyalty. Despite research, intelligent conversations with intelligent individuals, and the handy dandy dictionary, I still don't have a firm grasp on the concept. Our American forbears never intended a break from the crown, a revolution, nor Independence (save for the radicals, of course). They were still loyal to the King, if not Parliament.

What then, triggered these same men, only months later, to pick up a standard, rally others behind it and declare their loyalty not to a King, but to an idea? This was a treasonous act, that by the thinnest of miracles, did not result in tragic consequences for these men. Were these men right? Was their cause righteous? More importantly, were their loyalties to themselves, their wealth, their status, or was it truly loyalty to principle, an ideal they held in higher esteem than even loyalty to the crown? And how many Americans will be thinking of this when stuffing down hotdogs and watching Fireworks?

Pro's of Prose

I've mentioned before on this blog that the story is more important than how you tell it. Well, I haven't changed that opinion, but I wanted to quantify it. Some of the greatest works of literature are among those hardest to read. It takes involvement to engage oneself in those works, i.e. Melville, Dostoevsky, Poe and Tolkien (his prose is particularly harsh for a work of Fantasy). While a manuscript should not exist with one extraneous word, one superfluous thought, it may be equally true that a sentence which require multiple readings to understand is also detrimental to the unfolding of the story. Unless, of course, it's simply the reader's fault for not 'getting it'. I know that I've put down a great work simply because I didn't understand it and couldn't be bothered to put forth the effort to involve myself. Has that ever happened to you?

There needs to be a flow to the prose. It must quickly engage the reader and be hard to put down. At the same time, it must cover the essentials of a good story: plot, setting, themes, characters and development (did I miss anything?). Dialogue should be sparse and used to convey characterization, not to tell the story. The narrative should not be interrupted by bringing attention to the writing. Again, each word should add something relevant to the overall work. (Of course, this is all subjective, and shouldn't be treated as a rule).

How is it then, as readers, we fall prey to a writer's self-indulgence? J.K. Rowling admits that her characters essentially got away from her. But, she jammed those characters back into the storyline that she envisioned. And my question to her: did there really need to be half a dozen books or so to tell the story of Harry Potter? The answer to the question I pose lies within her purple prose.

Free Health Care isn't Free

I really don't like the idea of the U.S. adopting any sort of Universal Health Care System. I think it is both presumptuous and arrogant of us to believe that we could enact a health care system like the U.K. or Canadian systems without any of the inherent problems and inabilities of those systems.
Even the the best model for universal healthcare, the U.S. Military medical system, would be an unlikely model to use. The military healtchare operates under ideal circumstances, but is still unable and inadequate to take to task the needs of its clients (please google Walter Reed for references, this is a blog, and I can't be bothered with facts, references or whatnot). Most military members are healthy (being as everyone is medically screened before acceptance) most workout daily, do not smoke, and eat fast food in moderation. Why then, is military medicine not better than privatized healthcare?
I am in the military (as a dependent). Under ideal circumstances, I waited 40 minutes for my doctor's appointment today. Spent 15 seconds with the doctor and was referred to a specialist. But, my visit was free. Why then, do I feel like I was robbed an hour of my life?

Manuscript Away!

I submitted my first short story manuscript today to the fine folks at Asimov's Science Fiction. I eagerly await my rejection letter. It's not that I'm being hard on myself, but it would be more fantastic that an aspiring writer would be published on his first attempt. After all, if it was easy, than anyone could do it. More than likely, I'll get a form letter back with a, "thanks, but no thanks", but what I would really like is feedback from a major editor. As I hinted in my last post, there aren't necessarily any rules for writers, (grunt, grunt) but Editors like to think up a few.

Are there any rules for writers?

I was at the bookstore yesterday, in a quest to find some reference material for a story. I don't normally go to the bookstore that often, as Wikipedia offers me the highest quality, accuracy and unbiased research material (The Encyclopedia Britannica are rolling in their storage boxes) found on teh internets. Of course, I didn't find the necessary reference material. It would've been under Biography, but there wasn't an actual biography section. There were a few biographies thrown into the American history section, which was surprisingly large, dwarfing the rest of History. No wonder the whole of Europe hates us.

I digress. What I did find was a rather large section devoted to the rules for writing. I wonder if there was a book on writing blogs? It was probably next to James Joyce's guide for writing stream of conscious. He would have had an excellent blog. Back on track. Writing is an art-form. While there are certainly better ways of doing things, and definite guidelines to follow if you desire to be published, I didn't actually think there were rules (my English teachers are rolling around in their storage boxes too). If so, what are these 'rules'?

Has language de-evolved, thanks to Twitters, textings and blogs like mine, to the point that grammar, sentence structure and spelling are not as important to literature, so long as the story is good, readable and makes sense?

Betrayal

Could you define betrayal in purely technical terms? Or is betrayal better defined through an emotional response? Can't everyone produce an instance where they have felt betrayed? More importantly, hasn't everyone betrayed another to a certain point and simply rationalized it as something else.

I've wondered what motivates someone to betray another. I've come to the conclusion that there is something underlying the circumstance. In simple terms, the betrayer feels betrayed. Did Robert E. Lee betray the U.S. when he declined Lincolns offer to lead the Union troops? Or did he first feel betrayed by the ever-growing centralized government that lessened State's rights?

Did Benedict Arnold, hero of the American Revolution and later traitor, feel betrayed by politics, a waning fortune, and American bedding up with the French? What motivated him; is it black and white, or is there some gray? After all, wasn't it the founding fathers who betrayed the English crown?

New Terminator Flick not a Salvation for Franchise

Apparently, in Hollywood, mediocrity is acceptable. Maybe there is hope for me yet. Fortunately, the new Terminator movie isn't Catwoman horrible (which, is itself a miracle, given the writing staff). But it isn't Terminator 2 good either. I actually enjoyed parts of the flick and felt it had potential. Maybe one could go back into time, pick up some street clothes, give the script a good rewrite, beg Cameron to helm, and ask Christian Bale to please play a bit part.

I really do like Christian Bale. He is a fantastic actor who really digs deep into the character he is portraying. But I felt the script didn't call for John Conner at the forefront. This story really wasn't about him, or his 'standing around doing not much' wife and staff officers. In a movie where he isn't the resistance leader, it would have been better served to have him as a background player in this first movie. It would also explain why the film failed to portray Conner as the bad-ass that Machines feared. Apparently, he hasn't developed into that character yet. So, why show him on his back, crawling away for most of the flick, and ultimately detracting from the more important storyline?

If one also forgives the bad editing, constant plot holes, gaps in logic, physics that would be pulled over for breaking the law, and the mind scratching question"What date will Conner give for Judgment day when he sends people back?" the storyline of Marcus was actually very good and could have been made into a Terminator movie.

Spoilers.

Usually, I skip over religious symbolism in film. I suppose the Christian bible is an easy source to rip off, and in public domain, so no-one has to pay any pesky royalties. But, while many flicks depict their hero as a post-apocalyptic savior (John Conner's initials are JC), not much attention is ever given to the original Savior's supporting cast. In this case, Marcus is a criminal, a cop killer, Cain and just not a nice guy. So in case you missed the plot point, the film stops for a minute so Marcus can be raised onto a cross for all the audience to see. Once the film resumes, Marcus is passed through a judgment of fire as the world is consumed by Judgment Day (which is one of the reasons I liked Terminator 3. Not many movies will actually blow everyone up). Marcus is reborn and in short order is on a quest to find John Conner and discover himself. To complete the religious parallel of the thief on the cross, it is through John Conner that Marcus will find his salvation. Too bad they didn't make a film of it. That, and an actual army of robots, a hard-core John Conner and plasma rifles (in the 40 watt range) would have made a great movie.

Gettysburg

Well, I'm back from hiatus. It's always difficult for me to jump back into writing after a long break. It's nice to have this blog to start things out, but it might be more honest for me to call it Writer's procrastination. During my break, I had friends and family over, fun times, and a bunch of miserable weather. Does anyone actually chose to live in Maryland?

One of the trips during the holiday was made to Gettysburg. I'd been there before a few years ago, and was unimpressed with the dereliction and deterioration of the historic sites. Someone got their act together. There has been major work done, from the shiny new tourist center and refurbishment of the Cyclorama, to restoring the battlefield from the overgrowth that prevented a view of what a soldier in 1863 would have seen. If you live near the area, even if you've seen Gettysburg before, I strongly recommend you go out and see it. Take a tour, then drive out into the town (be sure to stop at the Dobbin House for a bite) and drive through the battlefield again and take your time.

One of the things that struck me as most profound out on the field was the Union view of Picket's charge. The union line is the only thing standing between the full frontol assualt, launched by Lee, and ultimately, Southern independence. It is not a gamble. Lee knows that the Union flanks are strong, and therfore the center must be weak, unable to hold the line against a concentrated attack. Lee uses logic and sound military doctrine to attack Meade's forces, but ultimately fails. The position the Union has is a strong one and the line does not break. Lee ultimately never recovers from the defeat, but stays loyal to the men under his command and carries on the war for another two years. Would a lesser man have defected? Did Lee betray the Union by not leading the the U.S. forces, as Lincoln wanted? Lee made a choice, but what makes a man choose to rebel?