Mood:  down

Does your life seem a little vapid? Maybe a little empty? Maybe a little lonely?

There might be a reason for that, scientists say:

The entire Earth might exist in a giant region filled with... well... a whole lot of nothing.

Scientists today say that our local area is generally devoid of matter (including that miraculous bit of handwavium, "dark matter / energy")

How do they know this? Well, see, matter in OTHER distant places isn't accelerating towards / away from us at the right speed (hence the reason for the "dark matter" phenomenon in the first place) but now even THOSE predictions of gravitation are coming out wonky.

Conclusion? Well, of course, we just don't HAVE any dark matter / energy in our neck of the woods. The next step in this tortuous process is for them to claim that, because we don't seem to have much matter in our local area, this proves the existance of dark matter in OTHER regions!

...confused? Yeah, me too.

Why the hell is it that cosmologists never seem to "get" the tenants of Occam's Razor when they probably should? Now, I don't have a doctorate or anything, and I'm not saying that "dark energies" don't exist in our universe (trust me, they do...) but why doesn't anyone ever stop to think of the alternative explanation...

...ah, hell: nevermind... I'm done belaboring that point...

Jeez: we're just stretching ourselves thin all around, aren't we? Given some paranoid wankers' predictions, though, we could have really "consolidated" all our matter in the local area if the Large Hadron Colider were to misbehave (it didn't, naturally, but neither did it detect "teh Higgs boson" either...)

In case you didn't know, there were concerns that the Large Hadron Collider would  produce a small black hole which, left unchecked, would engulf the earth in a material so dense and with such suckage that nothing, not even light, could escape the inane densiosity.

That void would have been small: say, on the order of five feet tall or so... and we don't need one of those around...

After all, we've already got one of 'em nipping at our heels, don't we? Two would be a crowd.

Scientific Progress eats a three-foot long hoagie to compensate for the extraordinary emptiness within...

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 2:11 PM ADT

Updated: Wednesday, 1 October 2008 2:20 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Shane recently got a tiny promotion at his J-O-B.

Tisn't a fireworks and confetti moment, mind you, but maybe a cheap domestic champagne moment (oops: that's an oxymoron, actually, ain't it?)

The result will likely prove to stabilize my schedule more than anything, actually, and my free time won't be increased by any stretch of the imagination, but it'll be easier to regulate.

That's a fancy way of saying that I'll gonna get to write more, soon, among other things. Whether that's a good thing or not... well... depends on your point of view.

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 4:26 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  caffeinated

Makes you wonder why characters with half a facial disfigurement are so very common in genre literature and films, huh?

I'll never say I'm above cliches (cause I ain't, obviously), but I suppose its that wonderful visceral reaction you get from the character in question: an aria of beauty and a nocturne of beast clashing together in one amelodic screech (visually, I mean) to rival even that annoying "Murder" song from Psycho's shower scene.

...right: few things could top that, but a two-faced character does play up to some very cheap, readily available and deep-seated archetypal sentiments in an audience.

In my own defense, though,my own Antithesis doesn't ever really appear as pictured above anywhere in TYPERS: the rendering is just artistic liberty, 'natch, but it plays into the same semi-tired cliche we've seen time and again. Why is it trotted out so often? Well.... 'cause it's effective, I must say.

Actually I find the picture contrast up there amusing, too: if I were to ever describe Antithesis in one sentence (and using only two derivative descriptors) I would say thats he's "a cross between the Joker (not that one: this one...) and the T-1000".

...honestly, though, I do get annoyed that it's always the LEFT side of the face that's always disfigured... see, being left-handed myself I really take offense at such blatant stereotyping-

...ah, wait... I did it too, didn't I?

Eh, forget it...

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 6:51 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  caffeinated

This is gonna be a fairly long rant, so I apologize in advance... 

Close your eyes (go ahead, if you're not scanning this page on your iPhone while driving...) and imagine some of the worst cliches in the history of... well... cliches.

There's some doozies out there, alright, but it's one in particular that I have the most disdain for... in principle, at least. It's a writer's adage: an admonition to fiction writers so breathtakingly simple in its premise that it's refreshing, but so utterly limited in its contextual scope that it's retarded.

(Ah, sorry: don't wanna get into the same trouble that Tropic Thunder is in at the moment... I meant that this adage is very 'differently-abled'...)

But still, calling it the 'r-word' is really being too kind, when you really stop to think about it.

Oh, yeah: just what are we talking about, exactly? Why, that age-old adage that's found such a great burst of life in our soundbite era. It's stated with a sacrosanct authority by numerous literary luminaries and critics, giving one the impression that God the Father The Almighty Himself called the words to Moses as he came down from Mount Horeb, warning him to include this premise as the Eleventh Commandment (yeah, I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but what can I say?)

The Commandment in question?

That thou shalt "SHOW, DON'T TELL" when writing fiction.

...uh... 'kay. Er... what?

On its face the quip takes a bit of thinking over to understand, and then once you DO understand it you realize its brilliance, and that it has a distinct possibility to be a helpful aid for making your writing come alive. That is to say: on its face, it's pretty nice advice.

But, when you really stop to take a closer look at it, you realize that is has about as much usefulness and cost-benefit ratio as an Alaskan public-works project.

I preface this by stating that I'm no master of the English language by any stretch of the imagination, and one of the tenants of writing is that if you THINK you know everything then you know significantly less than nothing, but I'll try backing up all my points, here...

Right, let's back up a bit and think about the overall intent of the "show, don't tell" message: in writing (that is, good writing that doesn't put one to sleep within a matter of pages) the emphasis should be on describing character personalities, characteristics, flaws, biases, emotional states etc... by way of character action, not narrator description.

...'kay... I'm with them so far, in principle. So, then, if I were to jam out a li'l passage about, let's say myself, right now (ie: sitting down, sipping Galliano straight out of a martini glass) "telling" versus "showing", it would be something like this:

Example I: Telling (supposed "no-no"):  Shane sipped the Galliano. Shane really liked the Galliano.

Example II: Showing (supposed "yup-yup"): He swished the glass, relishing the bright yellow reflection of afternoon sunlight streaming through the liquid's divine body. With his nose to the rim that unmistakable scent of vanilla and anise bled up through his sinuses, tickling the very underside of his brain with playful whispers of licorice. With lips locked on the glass he sipped, slowly at first, his throat all the while trembling with a sound both terrible as it is content. If it couldn't be called a purr (for how absurb a notion is that!) then at least he would agree that man, if he were ever given suitable reason to purr, would most certainly find that reason staring right at him in the form of a narrow, foot-tall bottle in the back of the liquor cabinet... "Against the wall", as the bartenders might say.

So, obviously, in example II, I never actually say "Shane really likes the Galliano", but the reader should walk away with the distinct impression that I do. That paragraph also states this information in a far more interesting and tactile manner. Goody, goody...

So, then, what's my problem with the "Show, Don't Tell" adage? Two things:

1. It's written as an absolute.

2. People who swear by it tend to treat it as an absolute.

One phrase I've seen and heard far too often from people critiquing other people's work is that "you're telling, not showing".

WTF?

Now, it's certainly a problem if one makes a habit out of using straightforward exposition at every possible corner: "...he was happy that she came to see him... she was angry about the vase... he was upset that she was angry... she was livid at his upsetness... he was happy that she left..."

You get the point...

That is lazy writing: taking the non-scenic route, and it should be discouraged when it so utterly dominates a work as to make character actions secondary to their automatically-labeled states.

But when the f**k did simple Narrative Summary, in and of itself, become so reviled by so many?

There are out there many nitpickers who scream like banshees at any glossing over of action or summing-up of character status. "Show, don't tell!" they protest, but I think it's damned important to keep in mind that, sometimes, it's okay to attach easy labels and throw down simple, explicit definitions to action and mental states. That is to say, it's sometimes quite appropriate to "tell" and not to "show".

Sheesh! But to say "show, don't tell?" Please.

Besides the fact that, if this phrase were taken as an absolute, each book published in the US would be on the order of 10,000 pages in length, "telling" has its place in a truly rich narrative structure. Like the passive voice (of which I've touched upon before...) I can confidently state that not only is "telling" important: it can be critical to maintaining narrative structure.

Deal with it, nitpickers.

Let's use my Galliano example to bolster my point: Which example from earlier would you place on the blank line of each scene?

Scene #1:

The man pounded his fist on the table, rattling Shane's martini glass:

"Of course we should do things my way," he said. "No one would enjoy having things turn out the way you want. Ha! If you were left in charge of this project it would turn out to be as popular as that crappy yellow Galliano in your glass!"

With that he stormed out of the room, slamming the door behind him.

__________________________________?

Scene #2:

Chapter 13:

Shane took his Martini glass from off the desk.

__________________________________?

The door burst open, bringing a most unwelcome visitor, and ruining Shane's quiet Galliano moment.

Well, we've demonstrated that Examples I and II both say the exact same thing (though one is "telling" and the other "showing"). Example I, the inexcusably bland "telling" example, brings a succinct point to the end of Scene I, as well as a smidgen of understated humor. If you used Example II here the reader would end up forgetting the preceding conversation by the time they'd finished with the paragraph. Therefore it is this bland, colorless sentence that is most appropriate to use. Why? 'Cause it isn't bland when considered in conjunction with the rest of the narrative structure. Doubtless some absolutists in the "show me" community would cry foul: "You're telling, not showing!"

You're damned right I am. F**king deal with it.

Now, Scene II is the beginning of a chapter and the whole opening mood and tone of the scene is set by establishing my deep love of Galliano: it is here that "telling" wouldn't quite cut it. The depth of "showing" sets the stage and violently contrasts with the later intrusion (the door bursting open).

What's my point with all of this? Simple: the adage should NOT be "Show, don't tell", but rather "Show when you need to show, tell when you need to tell, and be sure to know the f**king difference between the two situations".

The trick to all of this (to quote Kenny Rogers... *shudder*) is that you need to "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." And implicit in this is another little truth to keep in mind about absolutists:

If a great mind, even the most brilliant mind in existence, tells you that you should "never, never, never, never ever" do something, they are almost assuredly wrong.

And if 999 out of 1000 people you speak with tell you to "never, never, never, never ever" do something, those 999 out of 1000 people are still wrong, but you need to fully understand why they're telling you not to do something before you go off and do it.

Case in point: chronic "telling" makes for a drip-dull story, but "show, don't tell" is not much better, 'cause when it comes to creating new worlds of wonder, it's all really a matter of "show" and "tell", isn't it?

Huh... I guess I did learn everything I need to know in kindergarten...

Of course how much "telling" versus "showing" one does is also a matter of preference: distinct narrative flow, after all, is largely an individualistic thing and develops just like any other distinct and aquired taste.

...And with that Shane sipped the Galliano. Shane really liked the Galliano.

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 9:06 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  cheeky

Well, out with the old and in with the new...

I recently updated to Firefox 3 and haven't noticed much difference (except for that annoying 'bookmark star' on the address column).

That, and the fact that all the, oh, 12 or so widgets and add-ons and whatnot I had on the last version of the browser no longer work (hell: why would they? I mean, was this update supposed to be better, or something?)

Well, Firefox still beats IE, 'natch (except on those damn sites that 'require(s) Internet Explorer 6 or later...' to function). That's casting a narrow net, ain't it? May I ask why anyone would limit their internet commerce to users with only one type of browser?

Maybe 'cause they think that it's Firefox that's unreliable...

'Ungraceful', maybe, but not quite unreliable, as such...

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 6:18 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Remember me?

Well, anyway, for whom it concerns, TYPERS' chapter "On the Razor's Edge" is up.

It's long....

It's very long, actually (not so much as Cohesion-Tension Theory, but still...)

Actually, it's kinda like a few smaller chapters sourrounding one main storyline, making it a conglomorate of chapters (in other words, nothing could stand alone, so I bunched everything up).

Not that I'm trying to screw readers over with huge chapters on purpose, mind you, and remember your Heinlein, people: don't mistake my stupidity for malice, eh?

Now that's a razor that can cut through a lot of complications, isn't it?

Anyway, after this and the follow-up "If one Wake at midnight" I'm looking at two more chapters before we close the book (he,he...) on His Moral Antipathy...

...wanna see the closer-chapter's cover art?

(Well: since whatever you say is actually irrelevant to this post, here it is...)

Eyes look familiar? Nah...

And as for foreshadowing the finale (besides the note I made in the header on page 1...): those eyes 'belong' to Quint, presumably...

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 10:08 PM ADT

Updated: Friday, 29 August 2008 10:16 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  incredulous

I don't wanna talk about movies anymore, and after this post I won't for awhile. So there... 

Right, we're getting in the height of the 'Summer Blockbuster' era and all, so I've got one last comment on movies for the time being: as we all know (or desperately want to ignore, anyway) The Mummy 3 is out today (yeah: it's got a real name, but given those dumb-as-toast trailers for it (complete with the unforgettable line: "you've all got mummy-madness!"... ah, brilliant...) and of course the pickings off the rancidly-rotten Tomatometer, it is not deserving of even a very long name for its title. Hell: 'Mummy 3' takes too many syllables to describe this effort, even).

By the way: ever notice how usually a movie's title will correlate negatively with its goodness? There are exceptions, of course. I, for one, really liked *deep breath* Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Second Star to the Right, Third Ocean from the Left, Down the Hall from the Bathroom, No Your Other Left....

But, generally, any film with a colon or a comma in its title should immediately reek of suspicion.

Let me be clear: I do not hate the 'Mummy Franchise' (at this point). The first movie was a delight for me: just about the right combination of heavy-handed CGI-pulp-action and irreverant genre-mocking put together (I'd use the word 'serio-comic'.... but I hate that word, so I won't). It kinda channeled Raiders for me, in a way, because there wasn't a moment I didn't feel entertained, nor a moment that I felt bogged down in stupidity. Unlike Raiders, of course, it wasn't... well... brilliant and completely without a flaw... but it was quite good.

Even the second one was at least watchable, although quickly drifting into the realm of stupidity and worn premise (it's a bad film, by any account, but not horrible...). In fact I just watched the whole movie a few days ago on television while treadmilling (this movie is made for that kind of thing: enough flashes and colors and semi-cohesive plotiness to keep one's brain marginally occupied and distracted from the screaming protest of one's own aching muscles).

Ironically, then, this film does not appear to be the Achilles's heel of either the franchise or of me.

...unless you wanna compare it to Casablanca, or something... by comparing any film to a great film we find that every movie will "always have  [its] Paris"... 

That's enough of that.

Now, they say that the Scorpion King ain't technically part of the Franchise, but I say that's a cop-out: that movie is so utterly and blatantly retarded (in pace as much as wit, even) that it could leave the Mummy Franchise, head on over to the Friday the 13th Franchise and raise the IQ of both Franchises by 50 points.

(but, again, the first one is quite good...)

I seem to have gotten off track (fancy that, eh?) My point is that I don't hate the Franchise, per say, and I'm not utterly biased, but c'mon: dumb-as-toast is dumb-as-toast, and this third film is an embarrassment, indeed.

So what's got me so hot under the collar? The making of one bad film, you say?

Nah... not that. See, the guy the've got playing the O'Connol kid in this one (who inexplicably grew quite old in no time at all... or did he?) has given some news to the media...

He's apparently signed on for THREE MORE MUMMY FILMS.....

*Sigh*...

In the mean time, I'm hoping this film makes no money (which, for various reasons, it is quite unlikely to do, unless the Chinese flock to it, and their government says it's okay, of course). If it makes no money, then how, pray tell, can you make THREE F**KING MORE FILMS?

Answer: you can't. And so the Mummy, like its namesake, will be given the proper respite it needs in the necropolis of spent film franchises (barring a spectacular reboot, or something, which has been known to happen sometimes). Other than that it deserves a much-needed rest.

Because (to paraphrase a sagacious source): the dead really ought sleep forever. 

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 4:13 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  chatty

So, as I sit in my parlor (yeah: I actually have a 'parlor'... you don't see those too often these days. But Shane also has a front porch, too; I'm nothing if not anachronistic)...

what was I talking about?... Oh, yeah:

So, as I sit in my parlor nursing my second Grolsch of the day, the wan light of the afternoon sun gently caressing my skin in a dusky golden hue while blue fire rising off my computer monitor glints lazily over my deep brown eyes, I'm reminded of the story of the guy who walked into a bar...

...he said ouch. Get it?

Maybe that guy had one too many. Well, there's a certain tree shrew in Malaysia that seems to be unable to have 'one too many', physiologically, anyway: the little f**kers live entirely off an extract of palm oil with a 3.8% alcohol content exclusively, meaning that nearly every moment of their tiny li'l lives they're scampering around with a BAL several times the legal limit (adjusted for body weight, 'natch) and yet they neither succumb to the effects of alcohol poisoning or, more amazing yet, participate in drunken fratboy games:

these guys are incapable of being affected by the intoxicant ethyl alcohol.

Neat, huh? Also of interest: these li'l guys are candidates for the most recent common ancestor of the entire primate lineage. What does that mean? Well, effectively, it means that at one time all our furry li'l ancestors were immune to alcohol's deleterious effects (again: maybe) and as we diverged from the critters everyone started picking up the habit, genetically speaking...

...you know what I mean...

God-damned shrew! Can you imagine what life might be like if we were like those widdle mammals?... 

 Something like this, maybe? 

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 9:19 PM ADT

Updated: Tuesday, 29 July 2008 9:33 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  irritated

So, in addition to shattering just about every box office record known to man (and by 'shattering' I mean beating the downright bad film Spiderman 3 by about 3 million dollars...) it seems that the Dark Knight is currently in another lofty position, indeed...

It is the #1 movie of all-time at IMDB (I'll resist the urge to time-stamp this link, but suffice it to say, it ain't gonna be there for long at all...) But since it's there right now, I'll comment on it:

Really? The Dark Knight? The greatest cinematic film of all time?

...nope. It is not. Not even close.

Don't get me wrong: terrific movie. Terrific with a capital T (well, at least that 'terrific' has a capital T, given that it's starting a sentence... well, wait: actually that was a fragment, so... I dunno...)

As a superhero movie, well, it's the best ever made, prompting me to hand it 4-stars out of my own hat. Also, as part of the appeal, it wants to be more than just a genre-flick: it wants to be a high-crime drama film (like the Godfather, in some ways...)

On that level it does not fully succeed: its ambition is clouded by a glass ceiling, but not totally obscured. It gets about 3-stars for the effort, making my final tally a 3.5 star movie. Very, very good, but not the greatest effort ever.

It just isn't. Deal with it, fanboys.

Heath Ledger's performance has been overhyped (given his death, 'natch) but not by that much: he steals the show in every scene, sure, and in fifty years whenever someone brings up 'The Joker' in coversation it will be Ledger's performance that springs to mind. However, it ain't the best acting I've ever seen: again, it is just very, very, very good. Excellent, even.

Of course this IMDB list is nothing official and it is rank with the swarms of fanboys (and gals, I suppose) that fester in internet forums like mold on a shower floor. When LOTR:ROTK came out all the Tolkenite fanboys inflated the thing up to the #2 spot in short order (a perch from which it fell faster than Icarus himself as soon as the hype wore down and the TRUE timeless performers rightly overtook it... as things stand it is STILL greatly inflated at the #14 spot: I could see it possibly making the top 25 legitimately...maybe...)

Look for the list to sort itself out soon: the Dark Knight would be hard pressed to make even the top 150 as it stands, and no way on God's green earth is it the 'bestest ever' offering from Hollywood...

...but again it is really, really, really good. Really great, even.

And it is yet another example of something that benefits more from the audacity of hype than the capacity of substance.

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 7:45 PM ADT

Updated: Thursday, 24 July 2008 7:54 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  cool

Bein' an unspeakably fanatic Bond fan I'm finding myself psyched for the latest installment of EON's movie franchise to finally come out.

Still got awhile, naturally... November, by my reckoning.

No need to look into the future, though, when we've got such a colorful past: remember when the great Woody Allen himself played James Bond, agent 007?

...what? Don't look at me like that. He did, matter of fact, and that movie had hands-down the happiest and zippiest little opening theme song to any bond movie before or since...

Posted by shanekentknolltrey at 1:50 PM ADT

Share This Post

Permalink