Update on Bachelordom

Many of you keep asking me how I'm doing (probably concerned with my mopey posts from earlier this week). So I thought I'd let you all know.

I'm fine.

It helps that I haven't had a chance to breathe all week. I've been in the midst of interviewing candidates for a position at work, and that ended up taking far more of my time than I thought it would (as so often is the case). But interviews are done now, and I should (theoretically) have more time.

It also helps that I'm getting used to being alone. I don't like it anymore than I did, but I am more accustomed to it now. (The fact that I'm getting very close to leaving to head to Slovakia also helps in this regard). I've gotten a lot of housework done, and I've been staying busy and constructive. Movies have been watched, and far less writing has happened than I'd hoped. (That's not really due to sloth on my part--just other things that have taken my time. Yesterday, for example, I had a two hour discussion with my book designer about books I liked and ideas we had for different cool covers. This books is going to look awesome. Awe. Some. But when I do that for two hours, I don't have much in the way of time left to work on Tarnhelm, my latest project.)

The garden isn't dead yet. That's a good thing. And it actually is growing, which is even better. It's helped that it's rained so often--less chance of me killing things by forgetting to water. I've picked a lot of strawberries and frozen them. The house is still clean, and I'm not starving.

So all in all, things have been a success. Less bad than they could have been. Thanks again all for your concern and support. I wouldn't want to do this on a regular basis, but it's been good for my family--not to be apart, but to have Denisa and the kids get the extra time in Slovakia. They're all doing well. The kids are speaking way more Slovak than they usually do, so that's dandy. And Denisa's dental bill will come to around $1000 instead of $4000. Always a plus.

In any case, I've got to go teach a Masters class now, so I must be off. Happy Thursday, everyone!

Search by Image with Google, and 1982 Predictions for Technology

Every so often, the internet presents me with some sort of new technology that just makes me happy to live in a society capable of producing such a thing. Today's wonder? Google's search by image. You can drag any image into this little tool, and Google searches for information about the image. It's like Google Goggles (the ability to take a picture and search for information about it online) without the picture taking. I suppose it's just an easy step from that, but it still is cool enough that it makes me really excited. Here's a video--check it out:



And in other news, here's a link to a 1982 article by the New York Times that explored where technology would be by the end of the century. They got some of the specifics wrong, but as far as the broader implications of technology, they seemed to be pretty spot on to me. Makes me wonder where we'll be in another 20 years.

Vodnik Update--Offer Input!

It's been a while since I did an update on Vodnik for you all, and I thought I'd take a (quick) moment to let you know what's happening on that front. We're still in editing mode--my editor and I have been bouncing it back and forth. Hopefully a fairly finalized draft is close to being finished. There'll still be more edits ahead, but the extent of the edits is becoming smaller and smaller. (Or at least, it was the last I checked--for all I know, I've got a big heaping plate o' edits to tackle next round. Here's hoping I don't . . . )

At the same time, other parts of the book are moving forward. Discussions of how the book should look, what the cover might potentially be--fun stuff like that. Things I can't really talk about here, but I thought you'd like to know it was happening, nonetheless. And with that in mind, here's a chance for you to offer some feedback. Any of you readers out there have any books you can think of that really impressed you, from a design standpoint? (Cover layout, interior layout, etc.) It actually looks like I'll have a chance to give some suggestions on this point of the process--something which authors don't often get, and which I'm very excited about. (Yay for smaller presses who pay attention to new authors!)

Anyway--I'm trying to think of sample books that have stood out to me, but I thought I'd throw this open to the masses to see if any of you had ideas. Please share!

Just How Selfish am I?

I'll be honest. (Not that I'm usually dishonest on this blog, but I'll be EXTRA honest right now.) I've always considered myself a fairly selfish person. Not that I didn't give of my time and means to others when asked to or when I saw someone in need, but overall, I just had this nagging feeling all along that I wasn't nearly nice enough. That I was far too jealous of my time. Does that make sense? It wasn't that I wasn't giving, it was that I gave with the wrong sort of spirit. At least, that's how it felt to me. Even with my kids, I felt like I should always be doing more for them.

This whole "time alone" thing has made me reassess that guilt. Here's the thing. I'm not a particularly happy person living alone. I've realized that most of what I do, I do for my family, not for me. The times that I want to do something for me isn't because I'm particularly selfish or time-greedy. It's because I'm genuinely tired and want a bit of a break. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I've been really busy since I dropped Denisa and the kids off at the airport. Making trips down to Portland and back for work-related stuff. I've left the house at 7:30 in the morning and gotten home at 8 at night. And that's good, because during the times I've had to just be at home, it hasn't been very pleasant. I have to make a conscious decision to try and forget feeling lonely and do something else. That's probably why I've only watched two movies, but I've swept the kitchen, done the dishes, vacuumed the entire house, worked in the garden(!), cleaned my room, cleaned the kids rooms, mowed the lawn--see a pattern here? Anything to take my mind off of my family.

I suppose I'm just surprised that my family is as central to who I am as a person and what I do to have fun and enjoy myself. Yes, at times I can get frazzled and tired, and I really want some quiet time now and then. But going without family, cold turkey . . . not fun. Not fun at all. I guess I'm really not as independent as I always thought.

I'm not meaning to brag about what a non-selfish guy I am. It's just not every day that one of your self-perceptions gets so fundamentally challenged. I'm more in kind of a funk of a mood, and I'm trying to write to get myself out of it--and you, my faithful readers, are the victims of the funk. My apologies.

Sheesh. This has turned into a downer of a post, and it hasn't helped anything. Maybe I'll go clean the bathroom . . .

Crazy Busy

I know--it's Friday, and I really ought to have something mindblowingly interesting to tell you all, but I'm running on empty right now. Sorry. I've been doing work-related things for fifteen hours yesterday, twelve today, and I've got more lined up for the next four days.

Deep breaths.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Review: Super 8--How Can You Recapture a Moment in Time?

There's been a lot of buzz around Super 8. The movie directed by Lost creator JJ Abrams, supposed to be inspired by the works of 1980s vintage Spielberg, and produced by The Beard to boot. I've read several reviews of the movie--careful to avoid any real spoilers--and they've gone one of two ways: either people loved it, or they weren't crazy about it. The interesting thing is that the opinions usually hinged on one thing: how well they felt the movie recreated that 1980s Spielberg vibe. I'll get to that in a minute.

First off, my review. 3.5 stars. This movie got really close to perfect for me. Take the gang of kids from The Goonies (but make them more fully fleshed out as characters), add some family relationship drama ala ET, mix in a bit of monster on the loose mayhem by way of Cloverfield, a pinch of Close Encounters of the Third Kind mystery and zaniness, mix in a good helping of Stand By Me, and you end up with this movie. The kids do a fantastic acting job--they really sell the film. It's also helped out by a great Michael Giacchino score. (Seriously, I wonder if the man is a rising star in my book. I've loved a lot of his stuff: particularly the score for Up.) The effects in the movie are a lot of fun, and they do what they should--spice the film perfectly, without replacing the actual content. The movie has a lot of effects, but it's not about the effects. That's an important distinction. Anyway--I don't want to spoil this movie for you, so that's about all you're going to get out of me, content-wise.

But I've got some more thoughts on the subject of Abrams recapturing Spielberg. Some have criticized the movie for being too much like Spielberg. They say Abrams tries to imitate earlier films, but he falls short of the mark. This is a criticism that just doesn't hold water for me. People are always comparing movies to earlier films, and--especially when the films are associated with a lot of nostalgia--the newer films always fall short. Age has a way of making a movie impregnable, as if a film gets a badge of honor, just for being older. This is especially true with genre movies and good blockbusters. The blockbusters of today are never as good as the blockbusters of twenty years ago.

Bogus.

Reviewers responding to a movie today that evokes movies from yesterday are comparing their experience today with their prolonged, twenty year relationship of yesterday. No movie can recapture the feeling I had when I saw Princess Bride or The Goonies for the first time. Not anymore. Why is that? Because I was a different person when I saw them. I hadn't seen a fraction of the movies I've seen today. I didn't have multiple degrees. I wasn't a father. And to complicate matters more, The Princess Bride has had time to ascend in my estimation over the years. Repeat viewings, shared experiences. Films like that get an air about them--a sort of mystique that can't be immediately replicated. The first time I watched Groundhog Day, I really liked it. But I didn't have the same relation to it that I have today--the movie and I have evolved over the years, and my opinion of it has changed with it. Comparing a first viewing of a film with an opinion I have of a movie I love is like evaluating a first impression of a person by comparing them to how close I feel to a family member. Does that make sense?

Will kids who watch Super 8 today feel in twenty years what I feel for some of the 80s movies? Darned tootin' they will. It's a great movie. It captures adolescence and pins it down on celluloid, just like earlier movies have done. Was Super 8 as good as The Goonies? I believe it was. But I also realize I can't really give an unbiased answer to that question.

And neither can any of the reviewers trying to put Super 8 down for its inability to duplicate that magic. Folks, the magic hasn't changed--we have.

End Anonymity: A Solution to Road Rage, the Internet and More

I was driving back from Portland yesterday, fresh from dropping off the fam at the bus stop, when I almost got in a car accident. I was on an unfamiliar stretch of road (curse you, GPS!), and totally missed seeing another car. He was in my blind spot and in a left turn only lane, and he decided to go straight instead of turning. I went to get over, and we about collided. It seemed rather close--let's just leave it at that. And while I was more than a bit irritated with him, I also realize that I might have read the road signs wrong--it's certainly possible that he wasn't in a left turn only lane. Could be my bad, so I felt bad about it, too.

In general, I like to think of myself as a competent driver. Of course, the problem with that is that I think almost everyone thinks of himself or herself as a competent driver. You don't get many people saying, "I am the worst driver you've ever seen."

We need to fix that.

We need a device that attaches to cars that shows the driver's record. Think of it--every time you cut someone off, a tally mark gets added to your public display. Every time you run a red light, or gun through an intersection, it all gets added up. The same for good driving. Let a guy merge into traffic? Tracked. Sure, the privacy nuts would have a field day with this, but think about it--when a really good driver makes an honest mistake, you'd be able to know it was an honest mistake. When an awful driver gets too high up there, then his car stops working.

You'd no longer be able to make broad, general claims like "I'm a competent driver." You'd be branded with a clearly understandable, non-debatable mark: "Speeds consistently, but other than that, a pretty darned good driver." Or maybe, "Rude and disgruntled law breaker on the verge of getting his car shut down remotely."

Because when you get right down to it, the roads are pretty much comparable to the internet. People are anonymous. There's little in the way of accountability--just some randomly placed police cars toodling around now and then. Make people accountable, and you'd do away with the road rage and rude driving. After all, when's the last time another pedestrian cut you off while walking? Unless you live in a big city (and are thus rendered anonymous), probably never. Or at least very rarely.

It was the same thing with Myspace. You could be fairly anonymous there, and so people posted who-knows-what. The place was lawless and more than a little greasy. Blech. Compare that to Facebook, where people use their real names and identities. Much less grease.

It makes me wonder what other bad situations anonymity contributes to. Thoughts?

Flying Solo: Wife-less and Childless for the Next 2.5 Weeks

I'm taking Denisa and the kids down to the bus today, where they'll depart on their 27 hour trip to Slovakia. Sending good thoughts their way over the next while would be much appreciated.

Sending good thoughts my way would also be appreciated.

I was thinking it over, and I don't think I've ever lived alone for longer than a few days. As in, ever-ever. I know there are people out there who live alone all the time, and I don't mean to be all mopey and whiny about it, but I think the transition from living as part of a household of 4 to living as a household of 1 is going to be strange and not very enjoyable. Still, I'm trying to look on the bright side:

• Plenty of time to write. I can hopefully get through a good chunk of new Tarnhelm material. I've about revised the whole thing up to where I last left off, and I'm still very happy with it. My agent's looking at some of the big tweaks to see if they're operating as hoped for. It'll be nice to have the time to just write write write.
• Once I clean something in the house, it'll stay clean--until I mess it up. My hope is to get things all in pretty good shape before I leave for Europe to meet back up with the fam.
• I can watch any movie I want. Whenever I want.
• I'll be wicked busy with the hiring search I'm running, so I wouldn't be at home much to be with my family, even if they were here.
• I can Skype with the fam for free--a big bonus.

I don't honestly know how these 2.5 weeks will go. Seems like the perfect setup for a novel, actually. Maybe I should write that. :-)

In any case, this post is just to say I'm more than a little apprehensive about the next bit. I'll be sure to keep you all updated on what's happening.

Quick Mini-Review: Breaker Morant

I don't have a whole lot of time today. Lots going on at work, and this is the first chance I've had all day to even breathe. Still, I didn't want to leave you all empty handed, so I thought I'd take a moment to promote a movie I'd never heard of, and I'm thinking you might not have heard of it, either. Breaker Morant tells the story of a military operation during the Boer War in South Africa, back in the early 1900s. A group of Australian soldiers (fighting for the British) are accused of unlawfully killing several Boers and a German missionary. The story unfolds as the trial progresses. So it's a mix of a war movie and a courtroom drama, with some history thrown in on the side.

What sets it apart from other movies is some fine acting performances. I don't know what it is about foreign movies--they're just different from American movies. It might be the worldview, or it might be the approach to film making, but they feel different, and I like seeing things from different angles. It's not often I get a chance to watch an Australian movie. The story itself (based on historical events) is fascinating. The Boer War was one of the first "dirty wars"--wars where people stopped fighting according to a code of honor and started fighting using any means necessary to win. Contrasting that with the wars of today is an interesting exercise--seeing how they viewed it then, and how strange and unnatural it seemed to the people at the time. The movie also brings up excellent themes of the relative importance of human lives and what does it mean to tell the truth.

In any case, I'm out of time for today, but I highly recommend this movie. 3.5 stars, and well worth your time. Anyone out there already seen it? Speak up!

Movie Review: The Green Hornet

Yes, I realize there's that "other" "Green _____" superhero movie coming out this weekend, and no, this isn't a review for that. But I did finally get around to watching The Green Hornet last night, and I thought this was as good a time as any to review it (especially since Green Lantern is getting pounded on by the press.)

One of the things I love about lowered expectations is that you can enjoy a movie you might not otherwise have liked. I really wanted to like Green Hornet. I wanted to see it in the theaters, but then it did so poorly with the critics, that I decided to save my money. It finally popped up on Netflix, and by the time it got to my house, I was ready to be disappointed, even with lowered expectations.

The thing is, the movie should be good. It's got Seth Rogen in it, and he's been funny in quite a few films. But it's also directed by Michel Gondry, who helmed the wonderful Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It has cool cars, masks, lots of guns and explosions--this should be totally up my alley.

But was it?

I'm happy to say that it was, for the most part. I really liked the blend of action hero and comedy that it had going for it. The hero isn't afraid to look stupid, and that was fun. But at the same time, it also leads to the movie's biggest flaw: the hero doesn't really have anything heroic about him, but he thinks he does. Kato does *everything* cool in the movie. (He's really a great character. I want a Kato in my life.) The Green Hornet's superpower is being conceited and a jerk. It's really hard to root for a guy like that, and so you keep getting kicked out of the movie each time he does another jerky thing--especially when he does those jerky things to Kato. The balance there is off, and it affects the film.

That said, it was a fun way to spend a Thursday late evening, and I recommend it. Is it the best movie ever? No. But it's better than a lot of them, and good for some mindless relaxation, which I needed last night. Three stars.

As for the Green Lantern . . . maybe I'll do the same thing I did with the Green Hornet. Maybe by the time I get it on bluray, I'll be able to enjoy it.

First Grade: My Experience vs. My Son's

I remember First Grade. I remember being that age. It's not like I can remember every single thing that ever happened to me back then, but I've got snippets clear as day. I had a good friend named Benji--he gave me a digital watch that was metal, not plastic. I thought that was pretty darn cool, even if the face had a bit of a crack in it. I remember pretending I was Indiana Jones. I remember looking forward to recess--the jungle gym was awesome, and swinging was pretty darn cool, too. I remember looking forward to afternoon cartoons: Transformers and GI Joe were pretty much as awesome as you could get. (Although I personally preferred Transformers to GI Joe, since the Joes could get kinda preachy with that whole "And knowing is half the battle" thing. Still, I wasn't above a little Sesame Street or Mr. Rogers on the side. Now and then. If I got really lucky, I could catch a bit of the A-Team. Mr. T was as cool as you could get--everybody knew that. I remember looking in awe at the third and fourth graders. They were all so grown up. So mature. One day, I'd be them. Lords of the school. I remember lusting after an Atari. If I could just get one of those, my life would be complete. Playing with He-Man action figures. Life was good.

On one hand, that's forever ago. On the other, I remember being that age. Feeling like that. So I really feel like I can relate to TRC--to what he's going through and experiencing. I mean, substitute cartoon names and video game systems--update them for today--and he's got essentially the same experience. Life doesn't seem to have changed that much in the intervening years. Sure, the video games have better graphics, and he can stream cartoons instead of get them over the air, but as far as a real impact on his life goes, things seem more or less the same.

And yesterday was his last day of First Grade. To celebrate, he decided he wanted root beer floats. He's looking forward to summer vacation: a trip to Europe, four weeks in Slovakia, swim lessons, reading a ton, watching cartoons . . .

I'd like 2.5 months of time off, too.

Anyway--a big hearty congratulations goes out to TRC. He pulled through with all 1s on his report card (well, a 2 in art, but everyone needs a 2 somewhere, just to keep things interesting). He really enjoys school, he just finished a 412 page book yesterday, and he's living the life. Sometimes, when I feel like I'm too busy or have too much to worry about, I look at his life--how few cares he has, when you get right down to it. And then I realize that me working hard is totally worth it. I wish every kid could have a carefree childhood. Where your biggest worries are which Bakugan you're going to take to school today, and your biggest scheduling concern is not sleeping through a cool cartoon in the morning.

Sorry--I'll stop this post short before I complete lose myself in reminiscing. Carry on with your Thursday, everyone.

Post #1,000: A Look Back at 4.5 Years of Blogging

And here we are. Post #1,000. My first post was back on January 16, 2007. It was really short, and fairly stupid. Why did I get into blogging to begin with? At the time, I was in Brandon Sanderson's writing group, and he encouraged me to start blogging before I got a book published, so that once I had a book published, I'd know what the heck I was doing.

Always one to cave to peer pressure, I thought it seemed like a good idea. If you look back at the first few months of blog posts, you'll see me start to find my feet. The posts were still short, and most of them didn't have much to say when you got right down to it, but I was posting about my writing (Ichabod at the time), I started to throw in some movie reviews (The World of Henry Orient was the first one, it seems), I began opening up about events in my life (applying for library jobs). Bit by bit, the posts got longer--more involved and more specific. It really does take some time to figure out what blogging's all about. I'm certainly by no means one of The Big Bloggers, but I do feel like I have something to offer on a consistent basis. Here's a rundown of some of the highlight posts I've done over the years.

• How I Got an Agent/Book Deal--This series of posts (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) has attracted its fair share of viewers. Once my book actually gets published (March 2012!), one could project it will attract more.
• The Dialect of Jar-Jar Binks--An oldie but a goodie. It still draws people every day on my website, years after I posted it. Star Wars people hate their Jar-Jar. What else can I say?
• Board Games on the iPad--People keep coming back to this one. Because board games are awesome, and so is the iPad, of course. For those of you interested, Boardgamegeek now has a iOS/Android board game section, which makes it ever so much easier to stay up to date on the news in this vital area of my life. :-)
• A Look Back at Eloping--Lots of people flocked to this one when it was posted. Of course, it helped that Denisa reposted it on her Facebook page. Amazing what a few reposts will do for the visibility of a blog entry.
• What Happens Whey You Go Bankrupt--I have to assume this one was popular more for the people-who-thought-I-was-actually-going-bankrupt title, and not for the content itself. I'm not bankrupt, folks. Hate to disappoint you.
• Way of Kings Review--I posted this one before Brandon's Way of Kings officially was published, and for a long time, it was easily the most read blog post I'd done. That is until . . .
• The Book of Mormon Musical--Actually, my Mormon/Religion posts have been popular over time (Faith and Metaphor, Tithing, and Elizabeth Smart and the 110% Mentality are a few). But my South Park/Book of Mormon Musical posts have blown everything else out of the water. It helped that for a while it was one of the top results on Google for any combo of "believe" "lyrics" and "Book of Mormon." Nice to see such a good showing for a topic I felt strongly about.

In any case, I'd have to say that my blogging experiment has been a resounding success for me. I really enjoy blogging now, and I feel like I would miss it a lot if I had to give it up. As you look over those popular posts, there's a lot of variety. That's good. I don't really like blogging about just one thing. This is my blog, and I talk about whatever I feel like talking about.

So, there you have it. Post #1,000. After all is said and done, I really just want to thank everyone who reads my blog and comments. It helps to feel like I'm not talking to an empty room. :-) Thanks for a fun first four years. Here's hoping there's many more to come.

Oh Crud. It's Election Season Again. (My Thoughts on the Republican Primary Debate)

Well, last night was the first Republican primary debate. On a bright note, one thing I think we can all thank Obama for is the fact that we won't have to watch any Democrat primary debates. In my book, the fewer debates, the better. There's something just inherently greasy, watching a bunch of people use one type of strong rhetoric to get their party's nomination, and then switch rhetoric to get elected. Both sides do it, and I dislike it.

That said, I still watched the primary debate. Why? Because I'm still trying to get a wedding present from a president. (Long time blog followers will recall that Mitt Romney is a personal friend of the family, and that he gave Denisa and me a very nice punch bowl and platter for our wedding. Since no other presidential candidate yet has given me as nice a gift (well, any gift for that matter), I have a very personal connection to wanting Romney to win. That's right, America. My vote can be bought. You listening, Bachmann? Gingrich? The current bid is a punch bowl and platter. I'm open to a new sofa, or perhaps a nice love seat.)

What did I think about it this time? I thought that some of these candidates are extremely scary. I found Herman Cain particularly repugnant. CNN summed up one of his statements thusly:

Cain repeated that he would be uncomfortable with a Muslim in his Cabinet unless he was sure it wasn't one "trying to kill us,"

That's right, America. You need to figure out what type of Muslim you're dealing with before you just put 'em in your Cabinet. Brings to mind Glinda the Good Witch saying in a pipy voice, "Are you a good Muslim, or a bad Muslim?"

Nauseating. He should be ashamed of himself. That was the low point of the evening for me. Using hate mongering to drum up support is a terrible practice.

In the end, they all seemed like a bunch of crabs, trying to claw their way out of a pot (while saying "Obama is a loser" as much as possible). As much as I think Ron Paul is out there on some issues, I have to admit I admire him for stating his opinion frankly and with no apologies. I wish every candidate would be so forthright. It's refreshing.

I also have to criticize CNN for the way it ran the debate. John King was kind of a jerk the whole time. He kept wanting to cut in to everyone's remarks. Then again, with so many candidates on stage trying to clamor for attention, it was like watching a cat herder at work.

Anyway--got something to say about the debate? Want my take on a particular issue? Fire away.

A Mormon Explanation of the "I Believe" Book of Mormon Musical Number from the Tonys

So I watched the Tony Awards last night, where The Book of Mormon Musical cleaned up. It won eight awards, including best musical. (It also included what's likely the only time Joseph Smith has been thanked from a mainstream awards show.) (For my review of the original cast recording, take a gander at this post.)

The musical number they chose to perform was I Believe, which is the stirring ballad the Mormon missionary sings to inspire himself to recommit to the religion and fulfill his duties. And of course--since it's from the creators of South Park--they decided to pick some of the more "out there" Mormon beliefs for the missionary to sing about. Now, on the nice side of things, they at least didn't choose anything that Mormons don't actually believe. So that's something. On the other hand, by taking some of those beliefs out of context, I recognize that a lot of my friends out there who watched the show (all three of them, most likely) are wondering if I'm not more than a little crazy right now.

To address this, I've decided to give a Mormon commentary on the various lyrics in the song. Because hey--what's the point in having a fairly public blog where I (from time to time) discuss my religion if I let something like this just slide on by? So if you're interested in the Tonys or Mormonism at all, read on. If not . . . catch ya tomorrow.

The Lyrics to "I Believe" (my comments in red)

Ever since I was a child
I tried to be the best
So what happened?

My family and friends
All said I was blessed
So what happened?

It was supposed to be all so exciting
To be teaching of Christ across the sea
But I allowed my faith to be shaken
Oh, what's the matter with me? This is actually a pretty common feeling for a Mormon missionary to have. I know I had it often on my mission. You're halfway around the world, surrounded by strangers, forcing yourself out of your comfort zone on a daily basis. You don't need to be dealing with warlords in Uganda to still be very uncomfortable and unsure of yourself. People mock your religion on a daily basis, to your face. I think it's natural to revisit your beliefs from time to time to check that you really do believe all this stuff. It would be a lot easier if you didn't, after all. Just go home and go back to normal life.

I've always longed to help the needy
To do the things I never dared
This was the time for me to step up
So then why was I so scared? Again, pretty spot on so far. While some Mormon missionaries go on missions mainly because they feel pressured by Mormon families or Mormon society, the bulk of them go because they sincerely believe they will be helping other people.

A warlord who shoots people in the face
What's so scary about that? Um . . . no comment?

I must trust that my Lord is mightier
And always has my back Okay
Now I must be completely devout
I can't have even one shred of doubt Hmm . . . not really seeing eye to eye on this one, personally. That said, I knew missionaries who felt this way--who felt that you either believed something 100%, or you didn't believe it at all. In my personal opinion, if you haven't thought about your beliefs seriously--including the possibility that they're wrong--then those beliefs can't be very strong. Doubt is a part of faith. If you knew something 100%, then there would be no need of faith. Actually, that's something I liked from an earlier part in The Book of Mormon Musical--Joseph Smith points out that God let the golden plates get taken away without letting Joseph to show them to all sorts of people and prove that he was telling the truth. But then he adds something along the lines of, "But I guess that's sort of what you were going for." Exactly. I believe God doesn't actively prove his existence, because a big part of the reason we're here on this earth is to learn how to have faith. But now I'm ranging kind of far afield--back to those lyrics.

I believe that the Lord God created the universe Nothing to comment on here, right?
I believe that He sent His only Son to die for my sins Still good.
And I believe that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America And . . . here's the first big "huh?" moment for most people, most likely. But this is essentially what all Mormons believe. We believe The Book of Mormon (the book, not the musical) was written by a group of people who left Jerusalem around 600 BC and were led to the Americas (where exactly--North/South/whatever--is a point up for debate.). Joseph Smith translated this record (written on golden plates), and that translation is what we now have as The Book of Mormon. This is a big part of the religion. The Book of Mormon doesn't supplant the Bible. It's another record of God's dealings with his children. As a missionary, I told people about this story all of the time. It isn't something we hide at all--we make a point of openly addressing it. If people are going to join the church, they'll join it because they believe this account is true. Frankly, if you're also ready to believe in the need for a Savior and the existence of a divine being--if you believe Moses led the Children of Israel to the promised land, if you really believe in the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark and all the rest of it, then believing this doesn't seem like that big of a step to me. But it sounds really odd when you take it out of context.

I am a Mormon
And a Mormon just believes This is probably the line that bugged me the most from the song. (And overall, I actually like the song quite a bit.) It makes us sound like Mormons believe anything they're told. Mormons are encouraged to question--to pray about things on their own. To gain a personal testimony about the truth of Mormon doctrine. Blind faith is a no-no.

You cannot just believe partway
You have to believe in it all
My problem was doubting the Lord's will
Instead of standing tall You know, I don't have much of a beef with this part. Because with Mormonism at least, it would be difficult to just believe pieces of it. I mean, when your religion started with a fourteen year old boy talking to God and Christ in a glade in upstate New York--and then that boy went and translated gold plates--then it's hard to ignore that and focus on the more trendy pieces, like the importance of families. Because either we're a bunch of delusional lemmings, or it's true. Not much of a middle ground there.

I can't allow myself to have any doubt
It's time to set my worries free
Time to show the world what Elder Price is about
And share the power inside of me

I believe that God has a plan for all of us Definite core Mormon belief
I believe that plan involves me getting my own planet And . . . another one that probably throws a lot of people for a loop. Essentially, Mormons believe that, as children of God, we can all "grow up" to one day become like God. Again, I don't personally think this is that big of a leap. For me, it's a logical extension of that whole "child of God" thing. Children grow up to be like their parents.
And I believe that the current President of the Church, Thomas Monson, speaks directly to God Yup. We believe this. It's one of the core foundations of the religion. We believe that for a couple thousand years, God had a certain pattern developed: he spoke to people (called prophets), and gave those people a message. Those prophets then gave that message to God's children. There was an apostasy, where for a space of time there was no prophet on the earth. This went on a long time. People still received inspiration and personal revelation from God, but as far as an organized, led-by-a-prophet church of God, we believe there wasn't one. That organization needed to be restored, and that happened in the 19th Century in the form of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church). Believing in a prophet today shouldn't be that big of a stretch, if you believe there were prophets a long time ago (Moses, Noah, Isaiah, etc.)
I am a Mormon
And dangit, a Mormon just believes

I know that I must go and do
The things my God commands
I realize now why He sent me here

If you ask the Lord in faith
He will always answer you
Just believe in Him and have no fear

I believe that Satan has ahold of you Okay.
I believe that the Lord God has sent me here Sure.
And I believe that in 1978 God changed His mind about black people This isn't entirely fair. Did members of the church make racist remarks about non-whites prior to 1978? You betcha. Really not nice remarks. Statements that make me personally very uncomfortable. But at the same time, I recognize that these people were just people. They had problems just like your or me. They had character flaws. They grew up in a time where the beliefs on race were much different than they are today, and I don't think it's entirely fair to judge them by today's standards. Am I trying to defend them? No. I'm not. They said what they said, and I'm overjoyed that Mormonism has moved on from that. That said, I firmly do *not* believe God "changed His mind about black people." Rather, I think we as flawed individuals were finally ready to figure out just how wrong we were. What's interesting is that if you go back to the foundation of the church, Joseph Smith was actually very accepting of races--things went in a different direction upon his martyrdom. Maybe that doesn't make sense to you. It makes sense to me. (But then again, I'm a Mormon, and you're not. So maybe that explains that.) Anyway--I just mean to point out we don't believe God goes around changing His mind on a regular basis.


Again, this is something that fits right in line with that whole "prophets" thing. We believe in continuing revelation. God still speaks to His children and offers them guidance, tailor-made for today--not long ago. (For more about prophets, read a talk by Ezra Taft Benson (a Mormon prophet) focused on the subject: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6751 To me, this makes perfect sense. If God once spoke to His children, why in the world would he stop? If having prophets used to be important, why would they be unimportant now? Did humanity need guidance only in pre-internet, pre-global economy, pre-industrial revolution, pre-everything-in-the-past-2,000-years days?

You can be a Mormon
A Mormon who just believes

And now I can feel the excitement
This is the moment I was born to do
And I feel so incredible
To be sharing my faith with you

The scriptures say that if you ask in faith
If you ask God Himself, you'll know
But you must ask Him without any doubt
And let your spirit grow Fine

I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob And another loopy things Mormons believe. Well, all I can say to this one is that we believe God has a body of flesh and bone. He looks like us. (Remember that whole thing about being a "child of God"?) So . . . if he has a body, he's gotta live somewhere. Why is the place he lives called Kolob? Why is a chair called a chair? Language is used to let us refer to things that aren't physically present. But remember, I majored in linguistics--and you don't want to get a linguist started talking in signifiers and signified. In any case--this one sounds loopy at first, but with some explanation, I (personally) don't think it's that out there.
I believe that Jesus has His own planet as well Um . . . I guess? Not that I've heard a specific name given to it? But I suppose if we believe we can all become like God, and we believe that Jesus has already done that, then I guess it makes sense Christ has his "own planet." But again, we believe Christ is resurrected. He's got a body. He has to be living somewhere. Is that so nuts?
And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri Yup. We believe this, too. Is it a core part of our belief? Like, do we all get together at the beginning of church meetings and recite, "We believe the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri"? Nope. Then again, the Garden of Eden had to be somewhere. It wasn't on Mars, right? :-)

If you believe, the Lord will reveal it
And you'll know it's all true, you'll just feel it

You'll be a Mormon
And, by gosh, a Mormon just believes And that's all I've got for you.

So there you have it, folks. A step by step commentary on the lyrics, written by an actual sane Mormon. (Well, mostly sane, at least.) As I take a look at these various beliefs, I feel the need to add two more bits of commentary. First off, some of these beliefs are far from core. What I mean by that is that my religion has central beliefs that receive a lot of focus and attention--in church, in the scriptures, from the prophets. And then it's got some "farther out there" beliefs that don't get much play. For the most part, these farther out there beliefs are pieced together by obscure statements by prophets. Some Mormons like to obsess about these nitty gritty details, debating them endlessly in a never-ending quest to find "the whole truth." In my opinion, this isn't that much different from people who are still trying to understand Lost or The X-Files. (The truth is out there.) As far as I'm concerned, paying attention to the core teachings (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, etc.) is much more important and worthy of attention.

Second (and last) observation: the elements of church doctrine that seem so crazy to others trace their roots to elements that are often shared by most other religions. The main difference between Mormonism and most other religions is that we can point to specific dates and places where revelations happened. Where God appeared to man on earth. It's a matter of being so darned recent that makes people feel like they can wave us off as loony. This is nothing new. Prophets have never really been trendy, from Moses to Noah to whoever. It's easier to believe in something that happened a long time ago--you can pass it off as metaphor and go on your merry way. (For more on my thoughts on that, check out this post.)

In any case, I'm pretty much written out for now. I suppose I can open this up for questions and comment. All I ask is that we keep things civil. Deal?

Being Cool: Grade School and Popularity

I've written about being cool before (specifically how it relates to being a geek), but I've had some further thoughts on the matter as TRC goes farther into elementary school. It's just surprising to me at times what arbitrary things people (and particularly kids) decide make a person "cool" or not. Case in point: at one time or another in grade school, I remember the following things as being taboo:

• Crossing your legs too closely
• Wearing a button down shirt
• Wearing a button down shirt that has a little loop on the back of it (what are those *for*, anyway?)
• Playing an instrument
• Playing an instrument well
• Playing an instrument poorly
• Being in drama
• Being too smart
• Being too stupid
• Being foreign
• Not being foreign
• Being too fat
• Being too thin
• Wearing cheap clothes
• Wearing home made clothes
• Wearing expensive clothes
• Not understanding obscure slang
• Not recognizing pop songs/movies/tv references
• Playing video games
• Not playing video games

I could go on, but you get the point. Basically, you could make fun of someone for anything. Pick a reason, and run with it--it would work, every time. And so you start to really worry about the choices you're making and their implications.

TRC came up to me yesterday to ask me about our last name. "Is it true our last name has a bad word in it?" I stared at him for a moment, caught off guard, then brushed the question aside lightly, telling him that some people might make fun of the name, but that people will make fun of anything. He accepted that as an answer, but as I've thought about it some more, I think I need to sit down with him and prepare him a bit more for what's to come. (Heck--I continued to have people make jokes about my last name all the way into my 20s.)

TRC is a really self-confident kid. He's athletic, outgoing and bright. I was . . . bright. I never was athletic, and until high school, I certainly wasn't outgoing. I think/hope TRC will be able to maneuver through the murky waters of grade school, but there's really no telling what will set off other kids. He's already been called the f-word at school, and came home to politely ask what the word meant.

When it comes down to it, you just have to decide not to care what other people think. No--that's not right. It's more "not to care what some people think." You can't go through your life completely ignoring everyone--at least, I don't think you should. Pick your friends, and be friends with them. Ignore people you hardly know. What does it matter what they say?

Of course, I realize it's one thing to say that now as a thirty-something. It was impossible for me to believe it when I was still in grade school. How absurd is it that what an almost complete stranger says about you in lunch can make you feel awful for the rest of the day? That some comments that you hear when you're ten can still be with you twenty years later. (And no, I'm not having a meltdown here. I don't have a secret "List of People I Must Get Revenge On" hiding in a drawer somewhere. I'm just drawing on personal experiences to try and understand what TRC is going to face.)

I know that looking at all these children now, and seeing how some of them clearly think so much of themselves (and how some of them clearly think so little) makes me sad each time. I just want to shake some of them and try to get them to see that it doesn't matter. They don't need to care!

But I'm officially a Grown Up now. I've lost my street cred, even if I still remember so clearly what it was like to be at that age. To go through that. My experiences are out of date, and therefore invalid. I think that's one of the reasons why I write Young Adult fiction. It's a way for me to try and connect to that inner me. To try and help other kids deal with the problems they're going through. No, I didn't get abused as a child or have any of the other horrid things happen to me that happen to some kids these days. But I lived through high school. I lived through middle school (much worse). And you don't have to be abused or stuffed into a locker to still be traumatized by some of that. It's one of the reasons John Hughes movies speak to me. I think he was doing the same thing. Making movies for the normal kids--all the kids who felt insecure and unsure (and frankly, almost *all* kids feel that way, no matter what they might say).

But that's for the faceless masses. When my own son and daughter will be going through it . . . who knows how I can help them?

Peter Sellers, Welfare, and Religion (and a Dash of the Space Program)

How's that for a trifecta of a blog post topic? You'd think it would be another one of my (soon to be patented) Out There rambles, where I draw on all sorts of different ideas and end up with a jumbled mess. You'd be wrong.

In this case, all three of those topics come together in a single movie: Heavens Above! Take your classic movie the old familiar "preacher with a heart of gold saves _______" trope. Make Peter Sellers the preacher, but then twist it. Raise his positive outlook to a borderline delusional level, turn the people of the town into more "real world, milk it for all its worth" sort of folks (instead of your typical "misunderstood, downtrodden souls" sort) and step back and watch the craziness ensue.

In this film, Sellers uses the power of the church to try and change the outlook of an entire city. He lets the poor stay in his house. He starts giving away meals for free. He believes 100% that his efforts will start a wave of renewed faith and happiness. People are just waiting for someone to set a good example. I don't want to spoil it for you, but the results are far from typical.

Denisa and I watched the movie, and we kept waiting for it to come to a conclusion that would enlighten us--we wanted some guidance on how to balance the need for charity and watching out for your fellow man with the inherent desire of some parties to try and get something for nothing. Where should the line be drawn? Because (as this movie admirably illustrates) if you never draw that line, chaos can ensue.

It's a tricky topic, and this movie does a great job of exploring the mess it can cause. (It, unfortunately, doesn't offer any real concrete answers to the subject--in fact it ends up being fairly anti-religious, I'd have to say--but maybe I'm expecting a tad much from a Peter Sellers movie.)

In any case, I recommend the movie. Not necessarily because it's great (although it's not bad), but because it uses absurdity to explore a topic that at times takes up a big chunk of my thought processes.

Any comments?

Bryce's iPad 2 Review

Faithful readers remember my initial thoughts on the iPad 2 when Apple announced it a while ago. In short, I wasn't blown away by the specs, and I decided not to upgrade this round.

Well . . . times change. What can I say? Since Denisa's going to be taking the kids to Europe solo (on the way there), she wanted some hefty backup for the plane rides. Specifically, she had her eyes on my trusty iPad. My Precious. The thing that never leaves my side these days. And after some internal debate, I said I couldn't give up my iPad--unless I had a newer model to fall back on. Long story short, I bought an iPad 2 and bequeathed my old iPad to Denisa. (Which makes me start to wonder if these "bad teeth" of hers aren't really just a way of her getting what she wants: a trip to Slovakia and an iPad. Hmmm . . . )

The good news for you is that I've upgraded, and I can tell you whether it's worth it or not. Ready? Here we go.

• The cameras. This was the biggest point against the iPad 2 from the reviews I'd read. It was one of my big hangups in upgrading. The cameras weren't supposed to be very good. Now that I've used them, I'll say this. If you're in poor lighting conditions, the cameras are pretty bad. If you can up the light, the cameras are completely fine. I haven't printed pics taken with my iPad, but I've posted them to Facebook (along with video), and it works like a charm. Yes, I feel like a bit of an idiot, using something so big to take a picture or film something, but at the same time, it's kind of bizarre to have that much screen to frame the shot. It really feels like doing something other than taking a picture. The cameras are great for posting things online, and I love not having to get cables out to transfer pics from my camera to my iPad. If you want a camera--and don't need a super deluxe camera--then don't listen to the naysayers on the iPad 2. It works fine.
• The speed. I didn't think I'd notice that big of a bump. Yes, it's supposed to be faster--but it's *faster* and more reliable to boot. A lot of programs that took a while to load on my old iPad now breeze through things with nary a bump. (I'm looking at you, Friendly.) The games work better, Pages is great, browsing is faster--I notice it all the time, even now--after having used the new iPad for a few weeks--I still see speed increases. It feels faster, and that's a very good thing.
• The feel. The case is pretty darn cool. The iPad itself is significantly lighter. Now that I'm freed from the bulkier Apple case, the whole thing is much smaller. It easily fits places the old iPad had to squeeze into before (pockets in my laptop case, for example). Again, the overall effect feels like a significant upgrade.
• The battery. Honestly, I'd say it feels like the battery isn't quite as much of a trooper as the first iPad. It still lasts a long time, but seems to dip faster. That could be just because the battery life of the first one was such a surprise, however. No complaints about the battery--it just *feels* a bit shorter.

Summation. If you don't have an iPad, you really ought to get one. Just so we can be Gamecenter Friends (seriously--add me. My name is M34NDR. I want to see how many games you have, and if I have more achievements than you. It's all about proving my virtual worth.) If you DO have an iPad 2, I'd have to say upgrading is probably not worth it, with one exception. Are all the improvements worth another $500 of your money? Even if you sell your old iPad, it'll still probably set you back $200-$300, easy. And I don't think it's worth that.

On the other hand, if you have someone in your family clamoring for an iPad, then there's certainly no reason to wait for the iPad 3. AND--if you can count your iPad purchase as a business expense, then it's a no brainer. Totally worth it. (I'm looking at you, Joshua.)

In any case--those are my thoughts. Any questions? Need any clarification? Ask away.

Newsweek, The Washington Post, and Mormons

Newsweek is worth picking up this week just for the great photoshop of Mitt Romney on the Book of Mormon Musical poster that graces its cover. But the article inside is pretty read-worthy in and of itself. According to Newsweek, Mormons rock, and we're all having a "Mormon moment" right now. This, of course, is in addition to the moment we had during the Salt Lake Olympics, the moment we had last time Romney ran for presidency, the moment we had when HBO decided to do its Big Love series, and many other moments that have popped up over the years. For better or worse, though, it seems that there are getting to be more and more Mormon moments.

(Michael Otterson, Head of Public Affairs for the church, just posted an op/ed letter in defense of Mormons running for office in the US--it's a letter I highly recommend reading.)

What's really interesting to me is how social media seems to have brought Mormons out of hiding in many cases. Maybe that's just because I follow Mormonism more closely than other "lesser known" religions. People are discussing their faith online more, and sticking up for what they believe in. Thankfully, I haven't seen too much of the "we're right and you're all wrong" variety, which I worried might happen if/when Mormons flooded the internets. Perhaps some of this has to do with the self-selecting process of who actually blogs or goes on line frequently. You've got a group of younger generation of Mormons blogging and writing about their beliefs. Then again, I might just be getting a warped view of the internet landscape, since I tend to be limited to see only stuff that pops up in areas that I frequent. Is someone else out there seeing something else?

The church is really trying hard to establish itself as being more normal. Less fringe. There's the mormon.org ad campaign going on right now, where members are encouraged to create profiles of who they are and what they believe, in an attempt to show some of the diversity of backgrounds and personalities of the membership. (In case you're wondering, yes, I've made a profile, but for some reason it has yet to be approved. Maybe it's the beard. There's diversity, and then there's *diversity*.)

In any case, if you haven't read those two articles, I encourage you to do so. The Newsweek one because I think it gives a fairly balanced view of Mormonism today, the Post op/ed because I think it's an excellent defense of religion as it relates to politics.

Other than that, I don't have a whole lot of time to discuss the two articles today. But if you have any points that pop up as you read and want to post them for some discussion, I should be able to come back in a while and add any thoughts I might have.

Dark YA, the Wall Street Journal, and Censorship

Saturday, the Wall Street Journal made some waves in the YA lit world by publishing an op/ed piece focused on how dark YA literature is becoming. Twitter erupted, with many quick to criticize the author of the piece, Meghan Cox Gurdon. Some excellent discussions of the topic can be found here, here, and here. But you're not here to see what others had to say about the subject--you're here to read my take on it (I assume).

So here goes.

First off, I agree with the basic premise of the op/ed--the idea that YA is trending darker and darker. I don't think it's a debatable point. You read things today in YA that you would not *ever* have dreamed of reading before. Explicit sex scenes of every flavor, violence, self-mutilation--you name it. I think a lot of people who don't follow the YA scene would be very surprised to know what's out there these days, and for that, I think Gurdon's article does a good job of bringing it to light.

As an op/ed piece, it certainly was effective. It's gotten people talking about the subject, and it's no doubt gotten her a lot of eyeballs. (Which would be cooler if they were literal eyeballs, considering the subject matter.) Of course, she did so by resorting to a gross overreaction and oversimplification of the genre--one which I think was unnecessary and may even prove to be harmful. Leading with this quote is perhaps the most misleading item of the article:

 Hundreds of lurid and dramatic covers stood on the racks before her, and there was, she felt, "nothing, not a thing, that I could imagine giving my daughter. It was all vampires and suicide and self-mutilation, this dark, dark stuff." She left the store empty-handed.

So there are hundreds of books available, but one mother felt like she couldn't find a single non-disturbing book. This was at a Barnes & Noble, mind you, so we can't assume she was at Gothic & Gruesome, Inc. No--this was one mother's experience and dismay with the current state of affairs of YA fiction. Gurdon goes on to name specifics and get nitty gritty about what exactly she means by "dark YA." And her examples prove her point. I don't think the internet would have exploded if she'd just been a tad less overarching. Starting with the quote from the mom seems to say that what Gurdon's point out applies to all YA these days.

And that just ain't true.

The thing is, Gurdon knows this. She's a regular children's/YA book reviewer for the Journal. In the sidebar to the article, she (or someone at the Journal) makes some recommendations for YA books that span the last 70 years).  I just read her review for Mockingjay, and it seemed to me to be fair and a pretty good evaluation of the novel. What I mean to say is that Gurdon has more to her name than just this article. She knows the YA scene, and she knows she's simplifying it. It doesn't help her case at all that she doesn't take any space in her article to discuss how not EVERY YA book being published these days is full of gratuitous sex and violence.

In the end, YA fiction is just like adult fiction. There's something for everyone. Like I said, I agree with Gurdon that YA is trending darker and darker. I wouldn't recommend some books to all readers. Then again, my time working in a public library proved to me that some people will be offended by anything. Literally. Do I think it's the responsibility of authors and editors to not offend people? No. It's the responsibility of people to know what they're getting into, and to decide for themselves what to read or watch.

Last night, Denisa and I were watching a delightful French romantic comedy (I Do, which I give a very strong 3 stars to and heartily recommend, with the caveat that there's an extremely foul mouthed parrot and a scene of comic S&M--that doesn't show anything.) In any case, we started talking about censorship and art. When I was at BYU, an exhibit by Rodin came to the art museum. It included his The Kiss sculpture. BYU didn't allow it to be exhibited, which was fairly ridiculous in my opinion. If they didn't want to show some of his best work, they shouldn't have paid for the work to come to the university in the first place.

This is just to say that you clearly can't please everyone. Such is life. I don't fault Gurdon with writing a piece on what I see as an important topic to discuss in YA literature. I do fault her for portraying it as a one-sided, black and white issue. It's more complex than that. Simplifying it no doubt got her more readers, but it does a disservice to the genre, and she should know better.

That said, I also believe people should do a bit more research before they seek to mob someone online. Gurdon isn't as clueless as some of the comments wanted her to be.

Which makes what she wrote worse, of course, not better.

Why the iPad is a (Mostly) Awesome Reading Experience

I have now read an entire book on my iPad. I'd started Mark Twain's Life on the Mississippi and gotten a fair way into it, but I ended up getting distracted by other books and not coming back to it. (Great book from what I'd read, though--the fault in me not finishing that one is all mine.) But my library has this beauty of an offering: we have an account with Overdrive that lets patrons download audiobooks and ebooks from home. You get to keep them for a week or two, and then the file stops working. Better yet, there's an Overdrive app, so I can get the books really easily on my iPad. First up: The Fellowship of the Ring.

I have a confession to make: I typically only buy books by authors I know these days. I know many librarians who are absolute book-aholics, buying tons of them. I wish I could. But when I work in a library and have access to all those books every day, I just don't feel the need to personally possess them. It's a lot like how I've stopped buying DVDs now that I have Netflix. Yes, I still buy certain films, but for the most part, I don't. Why buy something when I can stream it instantly, or when I can have it in my home in two days anytime I want? But I buy books by authors I know because . . . well, I know them. I like to support friends.

Anyway. This is just to say that using my iPad as an ereading device wasn't going to happen if I had to shell out $15 for digital copies of books. But using it to get library books from home? That makes it a whole lot more reasonable in my miserly mind. Now that I've read a book on it, here are my observations:

• ebooks don't really feel that much different than physical books. It's a tad harder to feel like you're making progress in the book (no physical feel of one side getting thicker while the other gets thinner), but other than that, I was reading, plain and simple. For me, when I'm really reading, the book disappears in my hand, and I'm totally into the story, somehow seeing and interacting with characters in a way that's hard to explain. (It's this sensation that served as the basis for an entire novel of mine: Ichabod.) As long as the medium doesn't get in the way of that sensation, then what does it matter what medium it is?
• An backlit screen is awesome for reading in bed when you're married. I mean, epic awesome. For the past ten years, whenever I've really wanted to stay up reading, I have to go to another room eventually. Even reading lights are pretty light, after all. With my iPad, I just turn off my light and keep reading. That was pretty cool. I know some people have complained that an illuminated screen is distracting or something--I didn't notice that at all.
• It took me a lot longer to finish the book than it would have if I was just reading the book. This is perhaps the biggest problem I have with my iPad as a reading device right now--and it's one I might be able to get over with practice. The thing is, each time I went to read, I had all these other distractions to get through first. My iPad can do so much, that I'd pick it up and do all sorts of other things before I finally got around to reading. Check email (work and mine), check Twitter, check Facebook, make some moves on Words with Friends, check the news, check the weather, check sports scores, check Twitter again, think about watching some Netflix, remind myself I want to read, check Facebook one more time--you get the point. With a physical book, picking that thing up is making a commitment. You're going to do one thing and one thing only: read. Doing something else requires putting it down. Not so with my iPad. I can go from reading to Twitter and back with just a few touches. I hope I can get over this. I love reading. I'd rather have read a book than check Twitter fifty times. And yet the distractions are so small and so omni-present that it's hard for me to resist them. This is perhaps one reason why dedicated ereaders like the Kindle might be better suited to ebooks. The fewer distractions, the better. Or maybe I just need to get better at will power. I will say that once I start reading, the distractions tended to slip away. It was just actually starting that was difficult.
• I love how I never lost my spot. Ever. I would start the book up again, and I was right back where I'd left off--no need for bookmarks. That might seem like a silly perk, but it felt pretty nice to me.
• I think reading an epic fantasy on my iPad would be great--mainly because it can be as long as it wants, and I don't have to lug the whole thing around. I mean, Way of Kings is a hefty book. It's sometimes hard to wield it in a comfortable fashion. With my iPad, I could have the entire Wheel of Time in my hands and there's no difference. That's a small thing, but noticeable.
• I have no remarks about reading outside vs. inside. I rarely read outside. End of story.
• If prices for ebooks drop enough, I could easily see me changing my mind about my reluctance to buy an ebook. I get apps on my iPad for $5 all the time (well--often). It's a small price for a lot of fun. Buying an ebook, I wouldn't have to worry about finding space for it--my bookshelves wouldn't have to be periodically cleaned off, there's no dusting involved . . . So the jury's still out on that. But $15 for an electronic copy seems awfully steep, even as an author who'd love you to buy his book for that much. I tend to think what will eventually happen is that ebooks will start at a high price point and then drop over time. Maybe that's the way it already is--I haven't really looked to see. Then again, I also see all sorts of opportunities for the platform: enhanced ebooks. Brandon Sanderson writes chapter commentaries for each of his books. It would be cool to buy an ebook of his books that comes complete with the commentaries hyperlinked to each chapter. With my own book Vodnik, it would be really cool if I could have an edition that included pictures of all the various places in the book--that sort of thing. Sort of like DVDs have all the extra features. I could see that being worth a higher price for the ebook. Time will tell what happens . . . 

So there you have it. All my observations for now. Will I read another ebook? Sure thing. I'm already in the middle of The Two Towers. How about you? Have you used an ereader? Which one, and what did you think? If you haven't, why haven't you? Do share.

Sudafed Up

On my way home from the conference, I got a head cold. Having a head cold while flying is not the most wonderful experience in the world. My right ear has been plugged up since Tuesday, and it feels like someone's trying to drill into my skull. To make matters worse, the head cold has blossomed into a full-fledged Sick. Coughing, runny nose, aching skin--the works. In an effort to combat the Sick, I'm taking some pseudoephedrine, that nasal decongestant you have to give your drivers license to the pharmacist to get, since people use it to make meth. Whatever. All I know is that it has the following side effects (taken from Wikipedia:

Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with pseudoephedrine therapy include: CNS stimulation, insomnia, nervousness, excitability, dizziness and anxiety. Infrequent ADRs include: tachycardia and/or palpitations. Rarely, pseudoephedrine therapy may be associated with mydriasis (blurred vision), hallucinations, arrhythmias, hypertension, seizures and ischemic colitis; as well as severe skin reactions known as recurrent pseudo-scarlatina, systemic contact dermatitis, and nonpigmenting fixed drug eruption. Pseudoephedrine, particularly in high doses, may also cause episodes of paranoid psychosis. It has also been reported that pseudoephedrine, amongst other sympathomimetic agents, may be associated with the occurrence of stroke.

This is all just a long way of saying, "I don't think I should be blogging right now." I might write something I don't mean to say. So have a great day, all--I'm going to go back to my paranoid psychosis.

PS--The crappy thing is that I don't think the drug's working. Decongest, nose! Decongest!

Adventures in CONduit

I’m successfully back in Maine at last, a bit sick, but otherwise no worse for wear. (Poor Denisa got sick right before she had to pick me up from the airport, and I think she’s worse off than I am.) I’m also very pleased to say that I had a wonderful time at the conference. I've been to some of these before, but this is probably the best experience I've had at one yet. I think a large part of that has to do with the fact that I didn't feel like I was under any pressure. I wasn't trying to Impress Important People, with my publishing hopes on the line. Instead, I was just trying to meet new people and make new contacts and friends. In that, I was successful. (And looking back on it, if I’d been less concerned with Getting the Big Break in past cons than I was with Meeting People, I think all my other cons would have been more enjoyable—and more productive. It also helped that I was on several panels. Allow me to break down the panels I was on and the people I met:

• First up was “What a Kid Wants in a Story.” My fellow panelists were Dene Low (author), Julie Wright (Whitney Award Winning Author®) and Jessica Day George (author). There were probably around 10-15 people in the audience, and I think it went quite well. What does a kid want? I said it was a pretty easy question—kids want the same things anyone wants: a good story. Ideally, a story where the main character is someone near their age (preferably a bit older) and is able to have a significant adventure, where he/she solves the main problems on their own—without adults butting in. Kids *don’t* want a story that has a Theme or a Moral.
• I also had a reading on Saturday, and that . . . didn’t really go that well. Two people were in the audience: Isaac Stewart (my current writing group member, and the maker of maps for Brandon Sanderson and more--looks like his web page is still under construction. Come on, Isaac!) and my brother, Ben. That said, the place they had readings going at the conference was extremely difficult to find and very out of the way—so it wasn’t likely that I’d get much foot traffic. Also, my reading time was different than the one in the written program. Anyway—I read the first chapter of Vodnik, and I felt quite good about it. Nice to have a bit of practice with a reading without any hint of pressure.
• Other events on Saturday included going to lunch with a bunch of friends, attending the book launch and Nebula Award celebration for Eric James Stone (short story writer extraordinaire, and a former writing group member of mine), playing Pandemic with Dan Wells (author), Larry Correia (author) and his daughter, and then learning the basics of The Legend of the Five Rings, a role-playing game I played in front of a (small) audience that night. Rob Wells (author) had gotten sick, and they needed a replacement. It was DMed by Bob Defendi (author), and the other players were Dan, Larry, Howard Taylor (web comic author of Schlock Mercenary), Steve Diamond and Nick Dianatkhah (the runners of elitistbookreviews), and Dan Willis (author). My character was a womanizing samurai who never missed a chance to hit on women. Dan was an assassin (and his faithful servant Convenient—I mean, Chen). Howard was a pyromaniac wizard, Nick was a one-armed, one-legged samurai, Larry was a berserker, Dan Willis was a horse expert, and Steve was a sniveling coward of a back-stabbing loser. So . . . pretty much everyone was typecast. :-)  Fun times.

Sunday was a tad quieter—not as many attended, likely due to church. (Go figure—it’s Utah.) I was on three more panels:

• What Makes a Successful Writing Group and What to Avoid—with Bob, Ann Chamberlain (author) and me. For 10 in the morning (the first panel of the day), I thought it was quite well attended—something like 10 or 12 in the audience. I’ve been in writing groups for years, so this felt like a panel that I had a lot to offer on.
• Potters of the Caribbean—an overview of the year in sci-fi/fantasy film, with Larry, Steve, Blake Casselman (screenplay writer) and me. Talk about a fun panel. We all got to sit there and discuss what films we liked, which ones we hated, and what we thought the future would hold. About 10 in the audience.
• Urban Fantasy—with Bob, Lesli Muir Lytle (author), Karen Hoover (author), Carole Nelson Douglas (author and guest of honor at the conference) and me. Urban Fantasy is a hard genre to define, and this panel wandered far afield, covering everything from contemporary fantasy to magic realism to Don Quixote to following trends. I’m not sure how much the audience (of around 15 to 20) learned about Urban Fantasy, but it seemed like they enjoyed themselves, so that’s good.

And that was that. A great weekend overall. Many interesting people, lots of new friends, and some board gaming to boot--what more could you ask for?