dolphinwriter

1. BE happy. Happiness can be cultivated. My happiness does not depend on other people.

2. The only guarantee in life is death.

3. Everything that happens in my life is a result of the choices that I made (unless, of course, someone took the choice away by force). Think before acting. The first reaction is not always the best.

4. I do not own my children. They owe me nothing.

5. I do not spank my children. Their bodies belong to them. No one has the right to touch them without their permission. No one has the right to invade their personal space. Not even me.

6. Let go of the past.

Meeting reminder here...( Meeting reminder... )

I have seen Star Trek a grand total of 6 times, and I'm still counting.

I was sixteen when I gave up trying to believe in God. I had never been convinced of a higher power, but at sixteen, I just couldn’t fake it anymore. It felt cheap.

Praying had always felt like a conversation with myself. At that time in my life, it only made me feel more insane. In a world that had spun out of orbit, and into a mirror universe, I had to start believing in myself and not a magical fix-it guy.

I could no longer justify that adage, god helps those who help themselves. If he did, hardworking people wouldn’t be starving, or living in the streets, or dying from cancer. And how did he justify heaping horrible abuse and disease on children? Children couldn’t take care of themselves. They couldn’t be expected to help themselves out of appalling situations.

On a television talk show one day, a woman crying about her dead child told the audience that god sent the baby to teach him/her a lesson. How arrogant, to say that god would cause a child to suffer just to teach her a lesson. There had to be another way for her, or me, or everyone else in the world, to learn a lesson. Frankly, I would rather die than allow a child to suffer because of me. But whatever makes her feel better, right?

No. I don’t agree. She, like other parents in similar situations, went on television to proselytize to the world that her/their child died so that the audience could learn a lesson, too. So, basically her child died so that the parent of a child with the same disease/illness could learn a lesson.

How about no child has the disease/illness at all? Then, no one has to die, and no one has to learn the lesson. We can all move on to the next lesson. How about that scenario?

Why do people say, you were lucky to survive. god must have been watching out for you. Shouldn’t god have stepped in before the crash? Wouldn’t it have been lucky to have NOT crashed at all, rather than just to survive?

I once wrote a paper on Satan in which I praised Satan as the Hero of Paradise Lost. I used much the same arguments in the paper. The instructor accused me of being angry with god.

Let me be clear. I believe that the Judeo-Christian concept of god/gods (as I understand it) cannot, and does not, exist. Therefore, I cannot be angry at him/her/it.

I’m angry with the people who use their belief to hide from the world. I’m angry with the people who force their beliefs on other people, including those people who force their beliefs on their children. I’m angry because they don’t use their god-given [pun intended] brains to think through what they are saying.

Some people believe that faith is the absence of reason. At the least, it is the subjugation of reason. I reasoned myself out of believing, but I believe that someone else can justify belief based on reason. Unfortunately, I have yet to see that.

I know this will sound like sacrilege to many book lovers (I’m one, too), but sometimes I want to see the movie before I read the book. Why? Well, actually, there are several reasons.

In the case of Atonement, I had Ian McEwan’s book on my TBR list for a number of years. I just never got around to it. Then, I found out that the movie was going to star James McAvoy and Keira Knightley.

The thing about it is, when I’ve read the book first, I spend the entire movie nitpicking.

“That didn’t happen in the book.”

Or, “That didn’t happen that way in the book.”

Knowing that two of my favorite actors were going to be the leads, I didn’t want to spend the entire movie comparing it to a book it could never properly imitate anyway. (Though, I do think the movie didn’t deviate all that much.) Let’s face it, there is only so much you can show on film which is superficial by nature.

Michael Crichton knew this, and used it to his advantage. If you’ve read Jurassic Park, you know that Alan and Ellie are not lovers. In the movie adaptations, the relationship was invented to give Ellie a more compelling catalyst for venturing into the jungle. She isn’t just trying to save her boss, but the man she loves. Alan isn’t just trying to save two children, he’s preparing for fatherhood. (Granted, the point is moot by Jurassic Park III, but I prefer to ignore that movie.)

The point is, there are changes that have to be made in order to make the movie more exciting. You can’t read a novel in the 2.5-3 hour time span of a movie. You also cannot shove a novel’s worth of plot and subplot into that time allotment. Something has to be cut. Some things have to be combined. And, sometimes, even the ending has to altered in the interest of entertainment.

The cost of a movie ticket and the cost of a mass market paperback are somewhat similar. However, when you compare the time invested in each, a movie costs more per minute of use. It damn sure better be an exciting adaptation.

That’s why, sometimes, I prefer to see the movie before I read the book. 

What is the most fundamental technique of the mystery novel? What is the easiest way to surprise your readers during a significant moment? Kill off a minor, but important, character. This was brought home to us in a big way during this summer’s blockbuster film, Star Trek.

For the writer, murdering characters can be both horrifying and cathartic. It can be hard to let go of a good friend, even an imaginary one. On the other hand, it can provide a catalyst for a story that has stalled or for a protagonist whose commitment is wavering. 

One of the best methods for this killing spree is poison. The most obvious examples include arsenic, cyanide, and strychnine. Some of the lesser known poisons, though, include nutmeg and caffeine, in large doses. Lucrezia Borgia became infamous for the cache she kept hidden in a ring. In fact, women are more likely to murder by poison, rather than a weapon, because it’s more personal and the clean-up is minimal.

So, the next time you read a novel and a character is poisoned, should you suspect a female? Don’t count on it. If you’re writing a novel and feel a great need to poison a good guy, know that your readers may be apt to suspect a woman. Write, or don’t write, accordingly.

I've calmed down since my rant this morning. I'm sorry you had to witness it. I usually keep my beliefs to myself, but I took exception to something another atheist (at least, that's what s/he called themselves) said.

It pisses me off when people insist that Atheists have to prove God/gods do(es) not exist. I don't have to do that. I am not the one making a presumption.

If there were another term, one that didn't involve the root theos, I would use that. Atheism is a misnomer because the word itself presupposes the existence of gods. A-theism is "without gods." Essentially, it means that gods exist, I just choose not to believe it. It's like saying, "I can't believe you wore those shoes with that dress" when obviously you did.

Granted, it is hard not to mean A-theism in this day and age. (Of course, I live in the Southern United States. It could be different elsewhere.) God is like some kind of insidious creature whose minions are lying in wait. They want to trap you, and drag you over to their side so they can build more fabulously expensive - and expansive - architecture.

Everyone, it seems, starts out with the assumption that gods are staring down like celestial Big Brothers. Like guardian angels have their clipboards and pens, and they're standing on your shoulder juding your every move.

"Excessive cussing?" Check.
"Premarital sex?" Check, and double check.
"Blasphemy?" Check.

Our laws are made according to the values of the Christian majority. We're taught that, as Americans, we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Then, we're told, "Screw that, gay people." I'm not gay, but I am an American. I have an OBLIGATION to be upset when someone's rights are denied.

"In God we trust" is stamped on our money. Politicians are careful to be caught on camera coming out of church on Sunday. Convicts wanting early parole find God in prison. Sunday morning television sucks.

I reject religion because I don't need it. I don't need the image of a benevolent, vengeful god, or a glorious afterlife, in order to make my life feel worthwhile.

I start with the belief that nothing exists, and I build on that.


Okay, all that could have been better said. I think I lost the point somewhere in the middle.

Devouring Legend

 

hot summers

spent

schooling

in the springs

 

spying

indians

along clear

Itchetucknee

 

chasing

rumrunners

at Rum Island

 

cooing

at the baby manatee

nursing on the bottom

 

drifting

with the current

of age-old

Poe

 

cool spring

days

devouring

watermelon and legend

Wolfchase Writers Group meeting

Saturday, April 13, 2009

2:30 p.m.

Barnes and Noble Wolfchase

Topic of the month:

 Weapons and Poisons:
How to Kill Your Characters

Okay, so I haven't kept up. I've been in crafting-mode since the end of May. I have a few items to sell now, though not as many as I'd hoped.

Labor day weekend, we went to Dragon*Con in Atlanta. What a blast! My girls and I are such total geeks. When I get pictures, I'll post them. My daughter has them on her digital camera. I have one of those outdated, film ones. So, I'm not only waiting for mine to come back from the photo-mat, I'm also waiting for my kid to remember I want my pictures.

The Night Watch by Sarah Waters tells the story of four Britons during the World War II era. The story is actually told backward, starting in 1948 and ending in 1941. It's an interesting way to tell the story, but I became confused. Is the end of the story meant to be the end, or the beginning? What was the point of structuring the tale in this way? Certainly, it showed how humans repeat history over and over, but did anyone learn anything? Were we supposed to get to the end, then reflect on the beginning?

This is why we have reading groups. So, we can work out the questions that we're left with after reading a good book. 

I liked this book, but I'm not sure (yet) I would recommend it to anyone. I'll have to read more Sarah Waters, and I will. I look forward to reading Fingersmith and Tipping the Velvet in the future. Maybe it will give me more insight into The Night Watch.


Next up: The Yiddish Policemen's Union or The Final Solution, both by Michael Chabon.

I recently acquired a copy of Zane Grey's Stranger from the Tonto, so I thought I would give it try. I like Western movies. I didn't think it could be much different. I knew some of it was going to make me cringe, especially the Native American stereotypes. 

I mean, I love John Wayne movies. McClintock is one of my favorites - I watch it all the time - but there is one particular scene that annoys me. The entire town is fighting. The brawl has escalated to the point that they are all muddy. Right in the middle of all this, a chief walks through the throng yelling, "Where's the whiskey?" I tend to fast-forward through that.

So, what does that have to do with Zane Grey? Well, I struggled through a few chapters. The language was written in vernacular, which was fine. After you've read Huckleberry Finn, you should be able to get through any type of vernacular. Then, the main character began traveling with a Navajo. I rolled my eyes at the broken English and persisted. But, then, the Navajo said, "Ugh." 

At that point, I put the book down. Maybe I'm too sensitive. I'm not Native American. In fact, I'm so white, I'm practically a ghost. Also, I realize this book was written in the 1950's, or so. That was how people portrayed the Indians back then. It says something about our culture at that time. Zane Grey is a beloved writer of Westerns. Perhaps, it is worth continuing to read, but...

Ugh.

As if there wasn't enough wrong with me already, now I have Vertigo. It's my fault, really. I ran out of Effexor (which I take to control my social anxiety), but I wasn't able to get to the store for a few days. So, in those three days that I was off my medication, everything started to spin. I am not kidding when I say, I could feel the Earth rotating on its axis.

My boss suggested I ask to be taken off the Effexor. NO WAY!! I love this stuff. It is the only medication that has effectively stopped the stomach aches and nausea without causing other issues (of a more personal nature).

I hear people complaining about medication all the time. 

"It makes my head feel fuzzy." 
"It costs too much."
"It makes me gain weight."
"We're a nation of neurotics..."
"The drug companies are evil..."

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying I don't agree--particularly where the drug companies are concerned. Granted, what works for me may not work for someone else. And, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Etc. etc. etc. It's just that I think the pay off is worth the side effects.

I don't constantly check address to make sure I'm in the right place. I don't constantly check and recheck dates and times for appointments. I don't feel the need to arrive somewhere an hour early, so that I know where I'm going (then, leave and come back on time, so I don't look overzealous). I don't replay conversations in my head for days afterward, wondering if I said something stupid or offensive.

At least, I don't do it as much as I used to. Hey, it's a start.

I finished reading Skinny Dip. I liked this book for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it is a laugh riot. Chaz has got to be the most idiotic character created. If the guy didn't have a penis, he probably couldn't think his way out of a pair of pants. I thought Joey could have cried less, but I loved the way she handled her anger in the end. I recommend this book to anyone who likes laugh-out-loud funny novels.

I read Kitchen as part of the 2008 A-Z Author Challenge that is going on at BookCrossing.com.  I think it took me almost a month to get through this tiny little book (which is actually two novellas). I'm sure there is some sort of deeper meaning in both stories, but it completely escapes me. I wouldn't say that I disliked either of the stories. I enjoyed Ms. Yoshimoto's style very much. Hell, I think I'd love any book where the mother is the father and a girl scales a wall to deliver food. I just felt that there was some undercurrent of a relationship that failed to materialize. Perhaps one day, I will read it again, and everything I missed will suddenly become clear.

Ordinarily, I like to read the book before I see the movie. In certain cases, such as for Atonement, I make exceptions. The main reason was that I like Keira Knightley and James McEvoy, and I didn't want to be distracted by all the glaring inconsistencies. I had just seen The Golden Compass, after all, and couldn't enjoy the sight of Daniel Craig because of all the eye-rolling.

I enjoyed Atonement, the movie, even with all the crying. I did get confused with the jumping back and forth to show scenes from different POVs, at first. Once I caught on, though, the movie was easier to understand. And, it made the story easier to grasp once I started reading the book.

In the movie, Briony (the child) is portrayed as unfeeling and calculating. The distance between herself and her older siblings seems more than just age. The mutual adoration between Cecelia and Leon is more evident than is the love that Cecelia has for the little sister she has (practically) mothered. Had the relationship between Cee and Briony been explored in the movie, it would have given Briony's betrayal a deeper resonance. It would have made her relentless quest for atonement more convincing.

I was very happy with the book. I am always impressed by great writers. Mr. McEwan's skillful splitting of the book emphasized the development of Briony's character from spoiled child to an adult trying to make amends. I hope that I have learned something about characterization from Atonement as well as something about character.

This week, I read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. This is the first book in the classic Hitchhiker's series. I read this book for the first time when I was a teenager. I remembered some of the story, but most of it, I'd forgotten.

One Thursday, the Earth is destroyed, and Arthur Dent finds out that his friend is an alien. This, however, is the least of his problems. His biggest problem is the inability to cope with change. Of course, I'm not sure I wouldn't walk around stupid if I had the week Arthur has.

I have nothing insightful to say about this book that hasn't already been said, or that isn't obvious. I liked it. It certainly explains quite a few costumes that I saw at Dragon*Con last year, though not all. I will continue reading the series.


Next up: Atonement by Ian McEwan. Now that I've seen the movie, I can finally read the book. I cried during the movie. I can't wait to see if Ian McEwan is talented enough to make me cry while reading. (Especially considering I already know what's coming.)

I am sooo stupid! I can't believe I keep doing this! I wrote an entire piece, again. Then, hit the wrong button. Again. Now, I have to rewrite the %&*#&@# thing. Again. #*^%#^@#**#!!!!!!!!!!!


I have finished reading The Kingdom Keepers by Ridley Pearson. I love Disney World, so I was eager to read this one. Also, my daughter, who only reads manga, loved it and insisted I read it immediately.

This book was written for preteens and teens. Five kids have to save the world from the Overtakers, villains from Disney movies. Working together, the five seem to accomplish this. The book does leave the reader with several open-ended questions. I smell a sequel.

Did I like it? Sort of. The premise itself is intriguing. The story has its good moments. I like the little glimpses of the Magic Kingdom which is, and always will be, my favorite of the parks. 

What I didn't like was the constant "telling." This is one of my pet peeves. If a character is afraid, tell me what that looks like. Don't just tell me s/he is scared - over and over again. However, I do realize that this is a children's book, so I accept that this may be an acceptable storytelling device. 

This is me accepting it.


Next up: I have no idea!!