I just read my sister's blog today, in which she talks about some of the zany ideas she's had recently. As I went to respond to her entry, my initial thought was that I didn't have any really zany ideas. (A dog groomer? Really?) But then I stopped and looked at what I do on a daily basis, and I discovered that about half of it is based on zany ideas. For one thing, I'm a librarian, a career I got into based on a zany idea that came to me in the aftermath of the wreckage that was the PhD application process for me. In the space of about a month, I went from being dead set on being an English Professor to trying my darndest to become a librarian. I even applied to Florida State from a computer terminal inside a library in Slovakia. That seems pretty zany.
And then there's the writing bit. I've written something like nine books, and I keep churning them out. And what am I writing right now? A screenplay adaptation of one of my unpublished books. Zaniness? Check. And how about that alpaca fantasy novel? I'd say that was on the zanier side of zaniness. (What's more, I keep getting reports from alpaca shows that I have an actual fan base out there somewhere, anxious for book two to come out--I'd write a second one, if the opportunity presented itself. Zany.)
Did I have any other zany ideas in the course of my life? When I was little, I wanted to open up a chain of pet stores called Pet Palace. (So maybe me poking fun at the idea of being a dog groomer was a tad hypocritical.) I also wanted to be a Disney animator. And the only reason I'm married today to DKC is because I had the zany idea that I could date 30 girls in one semester. I'd say that's high on the zany scale. (Would that mean it has a high zanocity rating?)
So my question to you is: what zany ideas do you have, that you've actually followed through on? Or are there any that you'd like to follow through on but haven't? Or any that you've had the idea for, then dismissed soon after? Share away--the zanier the merrier.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Time for a Few Movie Recommendations
I (obviously) watch a lot of movies. And a lot of the time, I end up recommending movies that I know a lot of my readers won't watch due to their rating. (For you non-Mormons out there, there's a strong Mormon sentiment against R-rated films. One which I don't want to get into right now.) In any case, I've felt bad that so many of my Must See movies have been R-rated. I'd like to be able to spread the love to all readers. Well, today you're in luck. (As long as you're not PG-13 averse, too, that is.) I've got two recommendations for you: the first is a flawed film, but fascinating for any groundhogger out there. You'll see why in a bit. The second is just a flat out fantastic comedy, one which I'd never even heard of before Netflix. (I've gotta say it again: those Netflix recommendations are fantastic for me. I've found so many great movies that I would have overlooked otherwise.) Anyway--on to the recommendations.
The first is 12:01, a made for TV movie remake of a short film (25 minutes) with the same name. This one clocks in at 92 minutes, BTW. In any case, the main reason I watched the movie was because the makers had filed a lawsuit against Groundhog Day for plagiarism. When I was still writing my groundhog book (a project that is on hiatus right now as I adapt Ichabod), I came across this bit of information and decided I really needed to see the movie to see what the hubbub was. Having seen the movie, I can only give it two and a half stars, tops. So why am I recommending it so highly? Well, first of all, it's like a sci-fi/spy thriller Groundhog Day. What if Phil fell in love with Rita, only to have her shot dead in front of him later that day? And what if that night, a scientific lab experiment caused time to begin to loop, with all people (except Phil) caught with no memory of it? So not only does Phil need to keep getting Rita to fall in love with him, but he also has to save her life and stop the science experiment, all on the same day.
Yeah.
Really, this film is so close to being excellent. There are some cheesy acting moments (and one unforgivably stupid plot point) and a whole lot of bad soundtrack, but it's thought provoking and fascinating--especially for Groundhog Day fans. It also had no chance in the world of winning a lawsuit against Groundhog Day. The time loop is about the only element the two films share, and that's just not copyrightable. Sorry, 12:01. In any case, if you can get your paws on this movie (not sure how obscure it is), then it's worth a watch. Trust me.
The second movie is Noises Off, a film adaptation of a play by the same name. Basically, it's the story of the production of a Broadway play, showing the difficulties behind the scenes that the play goes through. It's going to be a tough one for me to describe, really. IMDB summed it up as, "A travelling theater group find so much action going on behind-the-scenes, they almost ruin the performances." That's pretty close. What's great about it? Well, for starters, the cast and crew. Carol Burnett, Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, John Ritter, Peter Bogdanovich--really a great assembly of talent there, all put to scintillating use. Bogdanovich, for those of you who don't know, also directed What's Up, Doc?, and he puts that talent for controlled chaos to good use in this movie. It takes it a bit to establish what's going on--who the characters are, what their conflicts and past issues look like, but once it gets going, this movie is non stop. Yes, it does have some naughty words, and it's got one cast member in lingerie for practically the whole movie--so I can't really say it's exactly a family movie--but it's one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. Four stars.
So how about it, readers--have any of you seen either of these films? Both of them are available at Orem Public Library's excellent collection. Or if you live in Maine by me, you can come over and watch Noises Off with me over my Netflix streaming connection. I'd watch it again for sure--it seems like a movie that would only get better with repeat viewings. Anyway--that's all I have time for today. Enjoy your Monday!
The first is 12:01, a made for TV movie remake of a short film (25 minutes) with the same name. This one clocks in at 92 minutes, BTW. In any case, the main reason I watched the movie was because the makers had filed a lawsuit against Groundhog Day for plagiarism. When I was still writing my groundhog book (a project that is on hiatus right now as I adapt Ichabod), I came across this bit of information and decided I really needed to see the movie to see what the hubbub was. Having seen the movie, I can only give it two and a half stars, tops. So why am I recommending it so highly? Well, first of all, it's like a sci-fi/spy thriller Groundhog Day. What if Phil fell in love with Rita, only to have her shot dead in front of him later that day? And what if that night, a scientific lab experiment caused time to begin to loop, with all people (except Phil) caught with no memory of it? So not only does Phil need to keep getting Rita to fall in love with him, but he also has to save her life and stop the science experiment, all on the same day.
Yeah.
Really, this film is so close to being excellent. There are some cheesy acting moments (and one unforgivably stupid plot point) and a whole lot of bad soundtrack, but it's thought provoking and fascinating--especially for Groundhog Day fans. It also had no chance in the world of winning a lawsuit against Groundhog Day. The time loop is about the only element the two films share, and that's just not copyrightable. Sorry, 12:01. In any case, if you can get your paws on this movie (not sure how obscure it is), then it's worth a watch. Trust me.
The second movie is Noises Off, a film adaptation of a play by the same name. Basically, it's the story of the production of a Broadway play, showing the difficulties behind the scenes that the play goes through. It's going to be a tough one for me to describe, really. IMDB summed it up as, "A travelling theater group find so much action going on behind-the-scenes, they almost ruin the performances." That's pretty close. What's great about it? Well, for starters, the cast and crew. Carol Burnett, Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, John Ritter, Peter Bogdanovich--really a great assembly of talent there, all put to scintillating use. Bogdanovich, for those of you who don't know, also directed What's Up, Doc?, and he puts that talent for controlled chaos to good use in this movie. It takes it a bit to establish what's going on--who the characters are, what their conflicts and past issues look like, but once it gets going, this movie is non stop. Yes, it does have some naughty words, and it's got one cast member in lingerie for practically the whole movie--so I can't really say it's exactly a family movie--but it's one of the best comedies I've seen in a long time. Four stars.
So how about it, readers--have any of you seen either of these films? Both of them are available at Orem Public Library's excellent collection. Or if you live in Maine by me, you can come over and watch Noises Off with me over my Netflix streaming connection. I'd watch it again for sure--it seems like a movie that would only get better with repeat viewings. Anyway--that's all I have time for today. Enjoy your Monday!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Adapting Yourself
So I'm about a third of the way through the Ichabod screenplay project now, and it's teaching me quite a few things--the only trick is that I'm not entirely sure yet what those things are. Some things are obvious: my dialogue needs some work here and there to get it up to snuff. Thinking about someone actually saying what I'm writing in a conversation is different than writing it, if that makes sense. I should keep that in mind when I'm writing my next project. On the other hand, other things this process is teaching me are muddier. For example, I'm cutting out a lot. The book's something like 70,000 words, give or take. 110 pages, where the length of "pages" in this case doesn't really matter--it's just a way of breaking it up. They're Times New Roman single spaced pages, if that makes you feel better. Anyway. I'm shooting for 110 screenplay pages. For those of you who haven't seen a screenplay page, there's a lot less real estate to work with. Courier, for one thing, and dialogue is centered and has drastically reduced margins. So when you have a lot of dialogue, you burn through your page count pretty fast. I'm having to really be picky about what I put in and what I leave out.
As I do that, though, I find some sections that can really be cut without too much of an impact on what I'm trying to do. This leads me to ask myself why I kept those scenes in there in the first place. For a while, I was thinking that I really ought to trim down the manuscript, as well. But then I realized that there's always something to cut. If you keep at it, you can get the Lord of the Rings down to a sentence: Furry small people have to throw a ring into a volcano or everybody dies. But what's the fun in that? So much of the interest in literature isn't just found in the plot. It's found in all the different layers. Characterization, dialogue, setting, subplots. To trim too much of one would be disastrous, just like watching a film without any soundtrack would really detract from the film's power.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I've studied adaptation a lot, but it's one thing to study it and another to do it--and even another to do it to your own work. I put those things I'm cutting out in there for a reason. Sometimes it pains me to cut them, but *surprise*--books aren't movies, and movies aren't books. You've got to change things to be successful. So the next time you go into a movie and come out saying "it wasn't as good as the book," maybe you ought to ask yourself what you wanted in the first place, because that's like biting into an apple and saying "it wasn't as good as an orange." Sure, they're both fruit, but they both of drastically different evaluative standards to determine a "good" apple or a "bad" orange. I like my apples crisp, for example. If I bit into a crisp orange, I'd probably spit it out and wonder what was wrong with it.
And if you're *still* thinking about how bad a job the movie you just watched did of adapting the book, start to think about what it was that went wrong. Why was it such a bad film? Because if your only justification is that it didn't capture what you liked about the book, once again, I'd say your expectations were in the wrong place. Think about how you would go about adapting the book. What would you have kept in--and more importantly, what would you have kept out? Because no one wants to watch a seven hour exact filming of a book, regardless of what you might believe. At least, not enough people want to watch it that the movie would ever be profitable. The difference with books is that there are enough people willing to go through 900 pages or whatever. That make sense? 'Cause if it doesn't, I'd be happy to elaborate. :-)
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
As I do that, though, I find some sections that can really be cut without too much of an impact on what I'm trying to do. This leads me to ask myself why I kept those scenes in there in the first place. For a while, I was thinking that I really ought to trim down the manuscript, as well. But then I realized that there's always something to cut. If you keep at it, you can get the Lord of the Rings down to a sentence: Furry small people have to throw a ring into a volcano or everybody dies. But what's the fun in that? So much of the interest in literature isn't just found in the plot. It's found in all the different layers. Characterization, dialogue, setting, subplots. To trim too much of one would be disastrous, just like watching a film without any soundtrack would really detract from the film's power.
I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I've studied adaptation a lot, but it's one thing to study it and another to do it--and even another to do it to your own work. I put those things I'm cutting out in there for a reason. Sometimes it pains me to cut them, but *surprise*--books aren't movies, and movies aren't books. You've got to change things to be successful. So the next time you go into a movie and come out saying "it wasn't as good as the book," maybe you ought to ask yourself what you wanted in the first place, because that's like biting into an apple and saying "it wasn't as good as an orange." Sure, they're both fruit, but they both of drastically different evaluative standards to determine a "good" apple or a "bad" orange. I like my apples crisp, for example. If I bit into a crisp orange, I'd probably spit it out and wonder what was wrong with it.
And if you're *still* thinking about how bad a job the movie you just watched did of adapting the book, start to think about what it was that went wrong. Why was it such a bad film? Because if your only justification is that it didn't capture what you liked about the book, once again, I'd say your expectations were in the wrong place. Think about how you would go about adapting the book. What would you have kept in--and more importantly, what would you have kept out? Because no one wants to watch a seven hour exact filming of a book, regardless of what you might believe. At least, not enough people want to watch it that the movie would ever be profitable. The difference with books is that there are enough people willing to go through 900 pages or whatever. That make sense? 'Cause if it doesn't, I'd be happy to elaborate. :-)
I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Mythbusters in Action
You know, I've been wondering for a while now when one of my favorite shows would return: Mythbusters. It seems like ages since I've seen those crazy guys bustin' teh myths. Then this morning I read this, and suddenly, I'm no longer concerned about Jaime and Adam. Because I know that somewhere in this great country of ours, they are bravely blowing stuff up, or making plans to blow stuff up, always. It's facts like those that bring order and balance to my life. :-)
Well, that and the fact that I'm down to 217 now. Take that, dieting plateau!
Well, that and the fact that I'm down to 217 now. Take that, dieting plateau!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
218
Okay, I'll admit: I'm frustrated. I just can't seem to go below 218 pounds. It's kind of depressing when you're following a strict calorie diet, and you're being good and doing everything you're supposed to be doing with it, but you still aren't losing anything. Sigh. I just have to keep reminding myself that I've lost 8 pounds so far in just about four weeks, which works out to 2 pounds a week, for you mathically challenged peoples out there. And that ain't bad. Of course, I've now been 218 for five days. That's got to stop. Now.
Lost tonight. This season has yet to have an episode that lets me down. Keep it up!
Lost tonight. This season has yet to have an episode that lets me down. Keep it up!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
You Know What's Sad?
Emily Bronte was a month younger than I am right now when she died. Have I written my Wuthering Heights already? I think not. Clearly, I've been slacking. I've also outlived Patsy Cline by a week. She had managed to come up with "Crazy" and "Walkin' after Midnight" in one week less time than it's taken me to . . . successfully be able to become a librarian and wannabe author. On the bright side, Emperor Nero was two weeks younger than me when he died. I don't even know how to fiddle yet, let alone fiddle while a city burns. So at least I won't be known for tyranny just yet. How do I know all this? Dead At Your Age, a fascinating website that ought to be motivating, yet ends up being depressing. At least for me. What thinkest thou?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Poll the Readers (and some Movie Reviews)
Alright, trusty blog readers. The time has come. I need some help from you. What I'm asking for is simple: I'd like to know what your favorite mystery films are. When I say mystery, what films come immediately to mind? As I'm working on the Ichabod screenplay, I'm starting to see that more than anything else, the book is a mystery. Yes, it has a very unique setting, and yes, there are fantasy elements in it. But in the end, it all boils down to the mystery aspect of it. (Incidentally, if any of you Ichabod readers out there just read that statement and firmly disagree, I'd be interested to know that, too.)
So anyway--I'm trying to get the balance right for the movie, and to do that, I'd like to remind myself of the really good mysteries out there. I don't want to post the ones I'm already thinking of--nothing to taint your suggestions. And please, don't go scouring the internets for suggestions. I can do that on my own. Just keep it simple.
I say "mystery" and "movie," you say: [fill in the blank]
Thanks so much!
And just to make sure I don't leave you feeling unfulfilled this Monday morning, here are some movie reviews for you.
Duplicity--In what feels like forever, DKC and I actually got to go out and see a movie opening night. And this one wasn't a waste of time and money, which was good. Of course, it also didn't blow me away, which was too bad. Really, all it would have taken to make me really satisfied with the movie was one twist fewer or one twist more. It stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen as two spies. Think Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but without the guns. Three stars, but be warned: it's a tangled web of a movie. Take about six plots, tie them all up in a massive jumble, then edit them together in a manner that makes you continually reevaluate all of them. You've got to stay on your toes to even hope to have a clue what's going on. But don't worry, all will be made clear (more or less) by the end.
High Plains Drifter--Clint Eastwood in his prime, playing a Man with No Name, come to a seemingly random town in the West. The plot soon thickens, with Clint seemingly being hired in the stereotypical "gunfighter must save the town from impending doom in the form of other gunfighters come to get revenge on the people who sent them to prison" vein. But there are hints that more is at work than a simple stereotypical plot, and those hints soon take control of the movie, and it becomes much more than a simple Western. Highly recommended. Three and a half stars--but it's pretty darn dark, even for an Eastwood.
Woman in the Green Dress--A classic Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film. Maybe I was in a bad mood, or too tired, but this one completely failed to hold my interest. The plot was just too slow, and the drama too limited. Maybe I've been ruined by more modern films with quicker pacing and higher stakes. Just two stars on this one for me. Maybe even just a star and a half. I fell asleep for part of it--and I never fall asleep in movies.
Be Kind Rewind--Jack Black being directed by Michel Gondry, the same guy who brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Really, I maybe expected too much from this. The plot is that Black wrecks an entire video store, and to cover his accident, he and a friend refilm movies for people. Those refilmings are the highlight of the movie--especially the most elaborate one they do: Ghostbusters. But this is all couched in a sentimental shell that really drew away from the zaniness that could have been. I didn't want to watch a movie about a run down neighborhood coming together. I wanted zany recreations of classic films. Two and a half stars, but the Ghostbusters bit is definitely worth watching.
Michael Clayton--Actually directed by Tony Gilroy, the same director as Duplicity. This is a much better film that Duplicity, though. Tighter, and with a much bigger "pow", if that makes sense. George Clooney is a lawyer who cleans up messes for other lawyers. Think of it as Erin Brockovich, with less playing on the heartstrings and more tension and intrigue. I really liked it--three and a half stars, and nominated for a slew of Oscars. Great flick.
So anyway--I'm trying to get the balance right for the movie, and to do that, I'd like to remind myself of the really good mysteries out there. I don't want to post the ones I'm already thinking of--nothing to taint your suggestions. And please, don't go scouring the internets for suggestions. I can do that on my own. Just keep it simple.
I say "mystery" and "movie," you say: [fill in the blank]
Thanks so much!
And just to make sure I don't leave you feeling unfulfilled this Monday morning, here are some movie reviews for you.
Duplicity--In what feels like forever, DKC and I actually got to go out and see a movie opening night. And this one wasn't a waste of time and money, which was good. Of course, it also didn't blow me away, which was too bad. Really, all it would have taken to make me really satisfied with the movie was one twist fewer or one twist more. It stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen as two spies. Think Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but without the guns. Three stars, but be warned: it's a tangled web of a movie. Take about six plots, tie them all up in a massive jumble, then edit them together in a manner that makes you continually reevaluate all of them. You've got to stay on your toes to even hope to have a clue what's going on. But don't worry, all will be made clear (more or less) by the end.
High Plains Drifter--Clint Eastwood in his prime, playing a Man with No Name, come to a seemingly random town in the West. The plot soon thickens, with Clint seemingly being hired in the stereotypical "gunfighter must save the town from impending doom in the form of other gunfighters come to get revenge on the people who sent them to prison" vein. But there are hints that more is at work than a simple stereotypical plot, and those hints soon take control of the movie, and it becomes much more than a simple Western. Highly recommended. Three and a half stars--but it's pretty darn dark, even for an Eastwood.
Woman in the Green Dress--A classic Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes film. Maybe I was in a bad mood, or too tired, but this one completely failed to hold my interest. The plot was just too slow, and the drama too limited. Maybe I've been ruined by more modern films with quicker pacing and higher stakes. Just two stars on this one for me. Maybe even just a star and a half. I fell asleep for part of it--and I never fall asleep in movies.
Be Kind Rewind--Jack Black being directed by Michel Gondry, the same guy who brought us Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Really, I maybe expected too much from this. The plot is that Black wrecks an entire video store, and to cover his accident, he and a friend refilm movies for people. Those refilmings are the highlight of the movie--especially the most elaborate one they do: Ghostbusters. But this is all couched in a sentimental shell that really drew away from the zaniness that could have been. I didn't want to watch a movie about a run down neighborhood coming together. I wanted zany recreations of classic films. Two and a half stars, but the Ghostbusters bit is definitely worth watching.
Michael Clayton--Actually directed by Tony Gilroy, the same director as Duplicity. This is a much better film that Duplicity, though. Tighter, and with a much bigger "pow", if that makes sense. George Clooney is a lawyer who cleans up messes for other lawyers. Think of it as Erin Brockovich, with less playing on the heartstrings and more tension and intrigue. I really liked it--three and a half stars, and nominated for a slew of Oscars. Great flick.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Maple Syrup
Feeling under the weather today, but my poor health is your gain, because it means I'm home, and can post some pictures I've been meaning to get up the past few days. On Monday, we took the kids over to some friends to see them making maple syrup. Now, I don't think non-Mainers completely understand the passion some Mainers and New Englanders feel for maple syrup. (I include myself in that category.) To me, maple syrup is this cool tasting thing that you put on one of three things: pancakes, waffles or french toast. To some Mainers, maple syrup is the fifth food group. :-) They put it on everything from cereal to ice cream. They literally go through gallons of the stuff a year. I am not making this up. And, after now tasting maple syrup on ice cream, I can personally say that these Mainers are on to something--especially when you can make the maple syrup yourself, so it doesn't cost anything. If only the entire world could consume maple syrup like Mainers do, we'd probably be a much more advanced civilization, free from hunger and poverty and war. Mitt Romney should run on a 100% maple syrup platform next go round. He'd win for sure.
Anyway--for those of you who don't know where maple syrup comes from, here's a brief rundown. Maple trees make sap. This is not the sticky stuff you're used to seeing on pine trees--the stuff that makes it so your hands stick to everything for the next five years. No, maple sap looks pretty much like water. In fact it's 34 parts water for every 1 part maple syrup. You basically drill a hole a few inches into the tree, put in a little spigot, and drip drip drip comes the sap. You collect all this sap and then boil the heck out of it. For every 35 gallons of sap you boil, you get 1 gallon of syrup. Each tree can make a gallon or so with no harm to the tree. One quart per tap. And now, as promised, the pictures:
First, here's TRC having maple syrup straight from the bottle.
DKC and DC enjoy the action:
Maple sap on its way to becoming maple syrup:
And for fun, TRC in full detective mode. He likes to go around inspecting things, with his pet groundhog Phil and a magnifying glass:
Anyway--for those of you who don't know where maple syrup comes from, here's a brief rundown. Maple trees make sap. This is not the sticky stuff you're used to seeing on pine trees--the stuff that makes it so your hands stick to everything for the next five years. No, maple sap looks pretty much like water. In fact it's 34 parts water for every 1 part maple syrup. You basically drill a hole a few inches into the tree, put in a little spigot, and drip drip drip comes the sap. You collect all this sap and then boil the heck out of it. For every 35 gallons of sap you boil, you get 1 gallon of syrup. Each tree can make a gallon or so with no harm to the tree. One quart per tap. And now, as promised, the pictures:
First, here's TRC having maple syrup straight from the bottle.
DKC and DC enjoy the action:
Maple sap on its way to becoming maple syrup:
And for fun, TRC in full detective mode. He likes to go around inspecting things, with his pet groundhog Phil and a magnifying glass:
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Dear BYU
Why can't you play when it actually counts? Why? Why! WHY!!!!!
That is all I have the desire to post today.
That is all I have the desire to post today.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Insanely Busy
I haven't had a moment to breathe yet today, and so I'm not going to be able to post as much as I'd like. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have a second. For now, I have just three things to tell you:
It's DKC's birthday. Happy birthday to my best friend and love of my life. She's the finest person I know, and I know me a lot of fine people, so that's saying something. :-)
Please remember to fill out your NCAA tourney brackets. Tomorrow by noon, people!
My sister, GCC, is in a music video! Check out her blog post about it here and the video here.
It's DKC's birthday. Happy birthday to my best friend and love of my life. She's the finest person I know, and I know me a lot of fine people, so that's saying something. :-)
Please remember to fill out your NCAA tourney brackets. Tomorrow by noon, people!
My sister, GCC, is in a music video! Check out her blog post about it here and the video here.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Review: Dear Zachary, by Kurt Kuenne (and a Minor Update)
I love love love it when I have the chance to watch an incredible movie. One of the best aspects of it is that incredible movies are like snow days: you never know when one of them is going to happen to you. One of the reasons I watch movie after movie is in a never ending quest to have those experiences--to see films that totally blow me away. Recent ones include The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Redbelt. Last night I had the chance to add another to the list: Dear Zachary. I knew practically nothing about the film going into it--just that it was a documentary about one of the film maker's best friends, who had been murdered. And frankly, I don't think anyone watching the film for the first time should know much more than that. I think it would take away from the experience. Still, I think I'd be doing a disservice to you readers if I didn't warn you to pack some tissues (if you tend to cry. I don't, and survived the movie tissue free, but I could see some tissue-prone people having serious issues if they were found tissueless during the film). And while I don't think the film is rated, know that there's some potentially offensive words in it. Well--definitely offensive words. But still, the movie was so well done--with pretty common equipment, too. It looks like something anyone could have filmed. None of the typical Hollywood gloss, because it's not a typical Hollywood film. Kurt Kuenne, the director, also produced it, edited it and even composed the music. He did a fantastic job. This is a great film. Watch it.
And as for the minor update, for those of you playing at home, the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award has progressed to the quarterfinals. This year they accepted 10,000 entries, whittled that down to 2,000 based on the pitch, and then whittled that down to 500 based on the excerpt. The good news? I made the 2,000 cut, so maybe my pitch on Ichabod has improved. The bad? Didn't make the 500 cut, so I'm done. It's okay, really--I didn't have much hopes for Ichabod in that contest, although a Publisher's Weekly review of the whole book would have been interesting. Such is life.
And why haven't any of you signed up for my blog tourney challenge? :-)
And as for the minor update, for those of you playing at home, the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award has progressed to the quarterfinals. This year they accepted 10,000 entries, whittled that down to 2,000 based on the pitch, and then whittled that down to 500 based on the excerpt. The good news? I made the 2,000 cut, so maybe my pitch on Ichabod has improved. The bad? Didn't make the 500 cut, so I'm done. It's okay, really--I didn't have much hopes for Ichabod in that contest, although a Publisher's Weekly review of the whole book would have been interesting. Such is life.
And why haven't any of you signed up for my blog tourney challenge? :-)
Monday, March 16, 2009
March Madness: The Revenge
It's that time of year again. Spring is in the air, the snow is melting, and across the nation, printers are churning out tourney brackets like crazy. Want to play with your fellow Bryce's Rambling's Blog Readers? Join the group I just created:
http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/group?groupID=55613
Group: Bryce's Ramblings
Password: ozzy
Of course, I realize that the vast majority of my blog readers don't care a whit for March Madness. Oh well. Last year, I even offered a free copy of one of my books to the winner. I had a grand total of two people compete in the pool--including me! So this year, if you win, I shall instead do something more public. I'll devote an entire blog post to you, telling the world just how truly wonderful you are. If that isn't incentive enough, I don't know what is.
Oh--and if you're one of the regular participants in my family bracket (you know who you are!) and haven't heard the details on that one yet, post a comment, and I'll make sure you get the heads up.
Let the madness begin!
http://games.espn.go.com/tcmen/group?groupID=55613
Group: Bryce's Ramblings
Password: ozzy
Of course, I realize that the vast majority of my blog readers don't care a whit for March Madness. Oh well. Last year, I even offered a free copy of one of my books to the winner. I had a grand total of two people compete in the pool--including me! So this year, if you win, I shall instead do something more public. I'll devote an entire blog post to you, telling the world just how truly wonderful you are. If that isn't incentive enough, I don't know what is.
Oh--and if you're one of the regular participants in my family bracket (you know who you are!) and haven't heard the details on that one yet, post a comment, and I'll make sure you get the heads up.
Let the madness begin!
Book Review: Yiddish Policemen's Union
The Yiddish Policemen's Union by Michael ChabonMy review
rating: 4 of 5 stars
I enjoyed this book, although it was (frankly) a much longer read than I would have liked. What if the state of Israel had never been formed, and the Jews ended up in Alaska, instead? There's your basic premise--add to that a murder mystery, a healthy dose of literary style and some fantasy elements, and you've got the book. The world is excellently drawn and presented, and the mystery aspect of the plot was well-handled. I think if I were more into literary fantasy, I would have given the book five stars. As it is, it's probably just a case of "not completely right for me." Recommended for others, though--obviously.
View all my reviews.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Collection Development
Sitting here at the reference desk right now working on collection development, which is library-ese for "deciding what books the library should have." This is actually more complex than you might think at first. It's not like you can just stroll out to the latest Amazon "top selling" list and buy them all. For example, right now I've been weeding the PRs for condition, which is library-ese for "going through the British literature section to see which books are in such crummy shape that I don't think they should be library books anymore." What does "crummy shape" mean? Well, pick your poison:
The cover is falling off
The cover is shredded
It's molding (mold is awful in a library--it spreads)
It's wormy (mmm . . . book worms. They also spread.)
It's so brittle you can't turn the pages without them crumbling
Pages are falling out
It's marked up extensively with pen or highlighter
Or all of the above
So once I've ID'ed the books that Must Go, then I have to look and see how much use they've been getting. How many times have they been checked out, and when? If they've never been checked out, easy schmeasy--away they go. If they've been checked out a lot, then I have to see if I have enough money to buy new ones--if those books are still in print. If they're not in print, then I have to decide what current book in print is the best equivalent to fill that hole in the collection. To do that, I have to evaluate some of the suggested "best books" on that subject. Right now I'm looking at Christopher Marlowe and John Donne.
If none of this sounds interesting to you, be glad you're not a librarian. I actually enjoy it quite a bit. Enough that I'm now going to stop blogging and get back to work. :-) Have a nice Friday!
The cover is falling off
The cover is shredded
It's molding (mold is awful in a library--it spreads)
It's wormy (mmm . . . book worms. They also spread.)
It's so brittle you can't turn the pages without them crumbling
Pages are falling out
It's marked up extensively with pen or highlighter
Or all of the above
So once I've ID'ed the books that Must Go, then I have to look and see how much use they've been getting. How many times have they been checked out, and when? If they've never been checked out, easy schmeasy--away they go. If they've been checked out a lot, then I have to see if I have enough money to buy new ones--if those books are still in print. If they're not in print, then I have to decide what current book in print is the best equivalent to fill that hole in the collection. To do that, I have to evaluate some of the suggested "best books" on that subject. Right now I'm looking at Christopher Marlowe and John Donne.
If none of this sounds interesting to you, be glad you're not a librarian. I actually enjoy it quite a bit. Enough that I'm now going to stop blogging and get back to work. :-) Have a nice Friday!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Peanuts are Cool
Just came across this really cool post about the comic Peanuts on Metafilter. Because Snoopy's cool. TRC could watch Snoopy all day--he looks forward to every Charlie Brown holiday special as they pop up, always wanting to check out what crazy things Snoopy will be doing next.
In other news, I've now lost 5 pounds. This diet thing's actually working. Go figure. Only 31 more to go. (Well, maybe less than that. I purposefully set my goal lower than I really wanted, just so that I'd have a better chance at getting where I want to be, which is 21 pounds. But I have to stop reminding myself that that's where I want to be, and focus on the 31 pounds, instead. Make sense?)
In other news, I've now lost 5 pounds. This diet thing's actually working. Go figure. Only 31 more to go. (Well, maybe less than that. I purposefully set my goal lower than I really wanted, just so that I'd have a better chance at getting where I want to be, which is 21 pounds. But I have to stop reminding myself that that's where I want to be, and focus on the 31 pounds, instead. Make sense?)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Why I Didn't Post Today
You try sitting through four hours of a training seminar on the future of cataloging, and then see if you're in any condition or mood to write much of anything by then. Sorry, folks. You'll have to do without me today. My brain hurts.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Adapting Your Book to Screenplay
For those of you interested, I'm now working on a screenplay version of Ichabod. Not because I'm getting paid to or anything (I wish), but more because the option's there, so why not explore it? I write everything on spec anyway, so this really makes no difference. Plus, it's showing me a thing or two about my writing. For one, it brings dialogue to the forefront, something I feel like I could use some focus on, anyway. But I think what's really going to be challenging is trying to decide what to cut. There's no way I can transfer all of Ichabod into a two hour movie. (And that's if I even get two hours.) In screenplay-dom, that's 120 pages. I don't know if you've seen a screenplay, but 120 screenplay pages don't add up to a whole lot, when you're used to writing books. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. For now, I'm just trying to get the essence of each scene, then I'll work on hacking and slashing my way to where it needs to be. Wish me luck.
Monday, March 9, 2009
How to Fix Daylight Savings Time
I hate having to try to adjust my sleeping habits.
I hate getting up when it's dark.
I hate being sleepy all day because of it.
I hate having to reset the clocks.
I hate feeling every day like I've lost an hour somewhere and don't know where to find it.
That said . . .
I'm a big fan of Daylight Savings Time in the fall, when I get extra sleep and always feel like I've got an extra hour in my pocket, ready to do whatever I want.
Which means . . .
We need to stop springing ahead. We need to fall back AND spring back. How do we do this? Simple. In the fall, we fall back an hour. In the spring, we spring back twenty three hours, essentially gifting us all with an extra day of weekend, which would more than compensate for the ensuing crazy sleep schedule. Of course, this means that one of the days of the year is going to have to go. I nominate May 31st, because May's got way too many days, anyway. It's a greedy month, when you get right down to it.
So faithful blog readers, now's the chance--write to your congresspeople and tell them to stop the insanity! I'm sure if we bug them all enough, they can do something to fix this.
I hate getting up when it's dark.
I hate being sleepy all day because of it.
I hate having to reset the clocks.
I hate feeling every day like I've lost an hour somewhere and don't know where to find it.
That said . . .
I'm a big fan of Daylight Savings Time in the fall, when I get extra sleep and always feel like I've got an extra hour in my pocket, ready to do whatever I want.
Which means . . .
We need to stop springing ahead. We need to fall back AND spring back. How do we do this? Simple. In the fall, we fall back an hour. In the spring, we spring back twenty three hours, essentially gifting us all with an extra day of weekend, which would more than compensate for the ensuing crazy sleep schedule. Of course, this means that one of the days of the year is going to have to go. I nominate May 31st, because May's got way too many days, anyway. It's a greedy month, when you get right down to it.
So faithful blog readers, now's the chance--write to your congresspeople and tell them to stop the insanity! I'm sure if we bug them all enough, they can do something to fix this.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Dentists Can Be Our Friends
You know you've missed it: my regular updates to you all on my family's dental problems. So back by popular demand, I hereby present you: my trip to the dentist.
No cavities, and I don't need to go back for 6 months.
The End.
No cavities, and I don't need to go back for 6 months.
The End.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A Question to You
Say you had a friend who was a film maker. Say this friend read one of your books and wanted to work on getting it to the screen. You've shopped this book around a bit before, but it's a really strange book, and it's pretty hard to sum up in a query. So it's been sitting on your shelf, gathering dust for a year or so. So your friend has two proposals:
1. Work on a screenplay of the book and see if a big name studio will bite.
2. Make an independent movie and see what happens.
Do you go for either, or do you keep querying? If you go for one, which do you go for? Never thought I'd find myself in this situation before, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. My initial thoughts are GO GO GO! But maybe there are some of you out there who have other ideas.
Do share.
1. Work on a screenplay of the book and see if a big name studio will bite.
2. Make an independent movie and see what happens.
Do you go for either, or do you keep querying? If you go for one, which do you go for? Never thought I'd find myself in this situation before, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. My initial thoughts are GO GO GO! But maybe there are some of you out there who have other ideas.
Do share.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A Challenge
So I found this awesome game online the other day: Globetrotter XL. If you know your geography, you can do really well. I'm no geography pro myself, but I think I'm doing okay. Basically, the game board is a map of the entire world. Each round, you get a number of cities. You have to click on the map the location where you think the city is. You get points based on how close you are. Each round, you get a predetermined number of cities, and you have a predetermined score you have to reach to proceed to the next round. The best I've done so far is 14,604--got to the ninth round. Supposedly there are only ten total. Go try it out, and report back on your best score. Are you awesomer than I am? :-)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Words of Wisdom
Funny thing happened yesterday, but to get the joke, you need a bit of Mormon background. It's worth the build up, though--trust me. Explanations will be given as footnotes. So anyway, DKC and I are having Family Home Evening with TRC.* For the lesson, I was talking to TRC about the Word of Wisdom**, going over the various things that we don't do as Mormons. No alcohol, no drugs, no smoking, no coffee, and no black or green tea***. TRC was agreeing all along--he's learned this in Primary.****
Right after I get to the no black or green tea part, TRC interrupts. "There's one other thing we can't ever eat," he says.
I think for a moment, trying to come up with what I've forgotten. He doesn't wait too long before explaining, though. He stares at me very solemnly and intones, "We never ever eat yellow snow."
What can I say? We've taught our son well.
:-)
*Family Home Evening: Mormons are encouraged to have a time reserved for family every Monday night. Typically there's some singing, a short lesson on a spiritual subject, game playing, and a tasty dessert, though some families do it different ways.
**Word of Wisdom: Mormon doctrine that outlines what we should/shouldn't put into our bodies.
***Herbal tea is fine.
****Primary: Part of the weekly Sunday church service for kids 4-12. Lasts about an hour and a half. Mormon meetings typically go 3 hours total each Sunday.
Right after I get to the no black or green tea part, TRC interrupts. "There's one other thing we can't ever eat," he says.
I think for a moment, trying to come up with what I've forgotten. He doesn't wait too long before explaining, though. He stares at me very solemnly and intones, "We never ever eat yellow snow."
What can I say? We've taught our son well.
:-)
*Family Home Evening: Mormons are encouraged to have a time reserved for family every Monday night. Typically there's some singing, a short lesson on a spiritual subject, game playing, and a tasty dessert, though some families do it different ways.
**Word of Wisdom: Mormon doctrine that outlines what we should/shouldn't put into our bodies.
***Herbal tea is fine.
****Primary: Part of the weekly Sunday church service for kids 4-12. Lasts about an hour and a half. Mormon meetings typically go 3 hours total each Sunday.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Snow Day: Electric Boogaloo
Here I am again, another Monday, another day at home. This is the third four day week I've had in a row. Who says living in a snowy climate is a bad thing? :-)
I've got two tidbits for you today. The first is this handy dandy website I've found for keeping track of your health. FitDay. Basically it's a free online repository for your health specs. What you've eaten, what you weigh, how fat your waist is (or thin, I suppose, if you're not me). You enter in all the info, it keeps track of it for you. I've been following it for about five days now, and I've lost 2 pounds already. (Of course, that was the two pounds that came on because of all the no-bake chocolate cookies I was eating the week before, but still--it's progress!) I think what I like most about it is that it makes me stop and think about what I'm eating before I eat it. A candy bar suddenly doesn't seem so attractive when I know what it'll do to my online calorie count. Of course, maybe this just works because I'm such a goal person, and obsessive compulsive about filling things out properly. So it's the OCD diet. I should copyright it and write a book. Putting your quirks to work for you.
The other thing I wanted to post about was an absolutely incredible movie I watched over the weekend: Redbelt. It's a David Mamet movie (the guy who did Heist and The Spanish Prisoner, and wrote things like Ronin, Glengarry Glen Ross and The Untouchables), if that means anything to you. And it's a perfect Bryce movie. What I mean by that is that while I can see why other people wouldn't find it as stunning as I did, if you're me, then this movie is absolutely perfect. The basic story is that a struggling martial arts instructor is forced to choose between his honor and his livelihood. Take some Rocky, add The Best of the Best, throw in a dash of The Sting, a pinch of Bloodsport, and then mix thoroughly. Because it was Mamet, I was never sure what direction it would go, or how it would end. I love finding a new movie that suddenly leaps into my "Best Movies I've Ever Seen" list. This one did for me. Right up my ally. I'd give it five stars if I could. As a disclaimer for you R-rated movie phobes out there, this one is that, rated for violence and language. Sex is pretty much a non-issue in the film.
In other news, the wife and I have been on a 30 Rock binge lately. Started watching the show Saturday night on Netflix streaming, and we've already seen nine episodes. Love it love it love it. Hilarious, and it's actually still on the air! Go figure. Thanks, America!
I've got two tidbits for you today. The first is this handy dandy website I've found for keeping track of your health. FitDay. Basically it's a free online repository for your health specs. What you've eaten, what you weigh, how fat your waist is (or thin, I suppose, if you're not me). You enter in all the info, it keeps track of it for you. I've been following it for about five days now, and I've lost 2 pounds already. (Of course, that was the two pounds that came on because of all the no-bake chocolate cookies I was eating the week before, but still--it's progress!) I think what I like most about it is that it makes me stop and think about what I'm eating before I eat it. A candy bar suddenly doesn't seem so attractive when I know what it'll do to my online calorie count. Of course, maybe this just works because I'm such a goal person, and obsessive compulsive about filling things out properly. So it's the OCD diet. I should copyright it and write a book. Putting your quirks to work for you.
The other thing I wanted to post about was an absolutely incredible movie I watched over the weekend: Redbelt. It's a David Mamet movie (the guy who did Heist and The Spanish Prisoner, and wrote things like Ronin, Glengarry Glen Ross and The Untouchables), if that means anything to you. And it's a perfect Bryce movie. What I mean by that is that while I can see why other people wouldn't find it as stunning as I did, if you're me, then this movie is absolutely perfect. The basic story is that a struggling martial arts instructor is forced to choose between his honor and his livelihood. Take some Rocky, add The Best of the Best, throw in a dash of The Sting, a pinch of Bloodsport, and then mix thoroughly. Because it was Mamet, I was never sure what direction it would go, or how it would end. I love finding a new movie that suddenly leaps into my "Best Movies I've Ever Seen" list. This one did for me. Right up my ally. I'd give it five stars if I could. As a disclaimer for you R-rated movie phobes out there, this one is that, rated for violence and language. Sex is pretty much a non-issue in the film.
In other news, the wife and I have been on a 30 Rock binge lately. Started watching the show Saturday night on Netflix streaming, and we've already seen nine episodes. Love it love it love it. Hilarious, and it's actually still on the air! Go figure. Thanks, America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
