Originality

I entered the world of blogging back in 2007, at first with some faithful companions, and then on my own. It was my senior year and I honest to god wanted to become a better writer, express my thoughts more clearly, and put myself out there. It was a rough start to say the least and, honestly, I don't know if it's even gotten that much better for me. I've watched the progress of my friends and, like everything else in my life, they've improved miles while I've gone inches. Or so I think, one thing I've learned over these past few years is that you cannot judge your own writing, at least not so much that it prevents you from doing the thing you're here to do; write. I've had so many difficulties with this idea; in fact I don't believe I've overcome it yet. To date I have never finished a short story or any sort of fiction at all; I've ranted, I've raved, I've peered into my soul at times on this blog, but I still have yet to actually do what I set out to do. I know that very, very few people actually read this blog, and I know that I thrive on those readers, but honestly I'm actually quite terrified of certain kinds of criticism. Sure I don't really give one wit about what others think of me, but when it comes to fiction and short story stuff, I'm terrified. Perhaps it isn't just them I am afraid of; perhaps I'm afraid of what it is I will think. My first and last attempt at any sort of story was Untitled and I came to a very interesting conclusion: I may read too much. I know it sound weird and off—authors need to keep in touch with their genre after all—but I've been thinking about it for the past couple months and I don't know if I have any of my own ideas.

Originality is, after all, an authors best friend, it's what gives him his power, his allure, his greatness, but it's also one of those things that is becoming harder and harder to come by. If you think of great fantasy, Tolkien comes up without a second thought, but really how many other authors are really being as original as they should be? I mean sure a few come to mind, but many of the fantasy authors I can think of have striking similarities to Tolkien, some, like Terry Brooks, blatantly rip him off. Of course many authors are different too, but I find that when I write, or even think of stories playing out in my head, that they are horribly similar to things I've read or seen in the past. Some are completely subconscious to the extent that I don't even realize it isn't even my idea in the first place, others take a mere five minutes of thought for me to realize "shit.. this isn't mine". The easiest example is, of course, Untitled because one of my good friends first pointed it out to me. You see there's this graphic novel called Air Gear that was floating around the net back freshmen maybe sophomore year (it's now available here in the U.S. in hard print), this graphic novel was the inspiration—without my knowing it—of Untitled. From wiki:

"Itsuki "Ikki" Minami, is a student and a delinquent. Also known as the "Unbeatable Babyface", Ikki is the leader of the youth gang by the name of "East Side Gunz". Upon his return home, after being humiliated by a Storm Rider team called the Skull Saders, Ikki discovers a secret hidden from him by his benefactors, the Noyamano sisters. The sisters belong to a group of Storm Riders who go by the team name of Sleeping Forest. In the anime, learning the sisters' secret angers him and he steals a pair of Air Trecks, abbreviated as "AT". (In the manga, the sisters give a pair of ATs to him and invite him to skate with them.) Ikki eventually settles his grudge with the Skull Saders, but in the process he receives more than the simple satisfaction of revenge. Determined to experience the sensation of "flight" for as long as he can, Ikki is quickly engaged in the mysterious, irresistible world of Air Treks."

Yeah, you might not be able to tell too much how similar my story was, but trust me, it was. Sure I had different names, a different setting, and a slightly different premise, but at the heart it was Air Gear written poorly. This may be part of the reason I stopped, subconsciously I knew I was kind of ripping off this story, but who knows. Recently I have had a million ideas running through my head, stories to tell, characters to create, but I am afraid of ripping things off again. This is partly why you have an editor I'm sure, partly why you keep in touch with what others are doing, but honestly, can I really say that I have any of my own ideas? I look over at my bookcase and there are so many stories there, so many characters, plots, and worlds, can I really write something on my own? There are book I read back in middle school that I don't even remember, probably books from my childhood that are gone, but memory never really disappears, we just loose access to it. Already I scoff at professional, excellent writers because I see similarities to others, who am I to even judge? I know that people get inspiration from others, every author interview says as much, but where can you draw the line? Some, like Lev Grossman, make it obvious enough that they're writing satire that it's okay to use such fundamental ideas, but others, like Brooks, seem to not know or not care that their story is the same give or take a character name. I wonder if maybe I just need to write without thinking and get it out of my system. Perhaps I'm over reacting and just need to get my foot in the door because I have not written anything to completion. Maybe writing something, finishing it, even if I don't show anyone, is the way to go, I mean if it is blatantly ripped off from somewhere who cares? Yet I feel as though everyone else out there can write amazing, original, creative works on their first try. So many of my heroes wrote their first book or story, got it published, and were on their way. They had a well of ideas that never seemed to end, and yet the first thing I try and seriously write is plagiarized trash. Now look at me, I read, and then write about books, that is all this blog has turned into. Sure it's interesting, but it is not what I wanted after two years of this. Even if it was, I see no improvement between April 2007 and now. My vocabulary may be somewhat more sophisticated, but not much, and certainly not as a result of me writing about fucking books. I mean I don't even do that "right", I ramble and I jump around, and in the end I just have a big puddle of mush that probably turns people off from the books more than interests them. What do I do? I know I have ideas, but how can I know they're mine?

Maybe that's the thing; maybe everything really is just a copy of a copy of a copy. Is there even such thing as true originality? Or are things only original because we have yet to have encountered them before? Tolkien could have knicked some of his ideas off someone before him, and that person from someone before. Back in the early 1900's Carl Jung—one of Freud's disciples—was examining patients in a mental hospital when he encountered a severely schizophrenic man gazing out the window in a peculiar way. When he asked the man what he saw the patient told him that if he squinted his eyes and looked at the sun, he could then see the "sun's penis", and that if you moved your head to and fro you could see the penis moving and this, he said, was the origin of the wind. Pretty fucking weird eh? Well, it wasn't the first time that had been said. It turned out that when Jung was studying mythology he came across a recently translated Greek text that said nearly the same thing: a tube hanging from the sun, when moving, caused the winds. Penis aside, there was no possible way for this schizophrenic man to have even heard of the text since it wasn't even translated until after he had been committed, from that encounter Jung developed his idea of the collective unconscious. As the name implies, Jung believed that every human being had access to this vast store of knowledge and could not be explained by personal unconscious from ones memories. Things like God, the spirit, truth, justice, these things aren't learned even over an entire person's lifetime, yet even a young child knows when something is just "wrong", he may not know what that thing is, why it feels that way, or be able to explain it, but he just knows it. Certainly we learn things, from our parents, society, and many other things, but there's something else going on. This is one of the topics that was addressed in The Witch in the Waiting Room by Robert Bobrow M.D., and one of the things that I feel we have yet to truly unlock. Even Plato believed in this with his Forms which "asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality". Essentially anyone can look at a chair, any chair, and know that it is a chair. I'm not a philosopher so I probably botched the metaphor a bit, but the idea is the same. Why is it that in fiction there is always a hero and always a villain? Even the oldest written human stories contain these ideas: in Homer's works and even in the ancient, ancient Epic of Gilgamesh contain these very same themes. Certainly there isn't The Lord of the Rings just floating up around, but the idea of it is there, Good over Evil, Light vs. Dark, Friendship and Loyalty, it's hard for me to believe that these things, which are all so prevalent in every culture, are just things we learn. They're too profound, they're too intense. Even just the idea of "friends" is too much for anyone to come up with on their own, and yet at the youngest of ages we group together, we are loyal to one another, we make these connections with other people that just cannot be explained. And then there's love. Countless songs, ballads, poems, and every other kind of expressive form have described this. Across generations, throughout the world, love is another one of those forces that every human just knows deep down.

Perhaps originality is merely taking these ideals and putting your own face on them, certainly we enjoy authors like Tolkien and Herbert not only for their ideas, but for their characterizations, their subtle twists and turns. It's a cliché by now, but it really isn't the destination that really counts, it's the journey to get there! That's kind of where I hit a rut, I'm so paranoid about ripping ideas off, that I can't appreciate my own unique ride. I do truly feel that reading is almost detrimental to my writing, but at the same time imitation is the highest form of flattery—unless you're a lawyer. I said back in the day that the only way to improve one's writing was to write, I think the same is true for fiction, your first few stories might be horribly familiar, but it might only be because you're most familiar with other peoples writing and haven't yet learned what your own style is. Write now I really do not know what my style is, at least not in a fictional sense. I know I ramble when I write, but that is because of my lack of proofreading or editing. It's horrible, but I have never proofread my stuff before, I generally write, and post (or turn in as the case may be). As such I've realized that proofreading is a skill, a skill that is hard, frustrating, and makes me want to shoot myself, but a skill none the less. As all skills go it's another one of those things that you just have to do over, and over, and over again before you can really do it decently. For someone such as myself it is also one of those skills that is absolutely essential, my grammar sucks, I ramble, my sentences are awkward, and I generally take forever to make a single point, so bear with me. This is one of those things that I am going to try and do from now on, on all of my posts. Except this one, it's 12:30, I'm tired, and I really don't want to look at this post ever again!

Year Two

So I started keeping a log of how many books I've read since November 2007, and I kinda like the idea of keeping a list. Naturally I have a Word doc, but I think my readers like to see what I read too. (Don't burst my bubble, I know none of you care :P). Back in March I said I was going to start writing some thoughts down on the books I read, so I have linked all the books I've read--since March anyway--to the post that I wrote about them. Just click on the title of the book and it'll take you to that post. So this is Year 2:

• Beyond the Shadows by Brent Weeks
• Mistress of the Empire by Raymond E. Feist
• First Meetings by Orson Scott Card
• Denial of Death by Ernest Becker
• The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout
• The Road to Dune by Frank Herbert, Brian Herbert, and Kevin J. Anderson
• Masterpieces Edited by Orson Scott Card
• Descartes' Error by Antonio Damasio
• Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
• Green Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
• Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
• Galactic North by Alastair Reynolds
  
• The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers
• The Mole People by Jennifer Toth
  
• Shadow of a Dark Queen by Raymond E. Feist
• Rise of a Merchant Prince by Raymond E. Feist
• Rage of a Demon King by Raymond E. Feist
• Shards of a Broken Crown by Raymond E. Feist
• The Science of Vampires by Katherine M. Ramsland
• Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days by Alastair Reynolds
• Foundation by Isaac Asimov
• Pygmy by Chuck Palahniuk
• Foundation and Empire by Isaac Asimov
• Cemetery Dance by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child
• Scar Night by Alan Campbell
• Second Foundation by Isaac Asimov
  
• Dracula by Bram Stoker
• Iron Angel by Alan Campbell
• The Edge of Reason by Melinda Snodgrass
• Tyrannosaur Canyon by Douglas Preston
• God of Clocks by Alan Campbell
• Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard
• Gut Feelings by Gurd Gigerenzer
• The Magicians by Lev Grossman
• The Prodigal Mage by Karen Miller
• Century Rain by Alastair Reynolds
• The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown
• Forty Studies that Changed Psychology by Roger R. Hock
  
• Infoquake by David Louis Edelman
  
• Multireal by David Louis Edelman
• The Martian Chronicles by Ray Bradbury
• The Case For Mars by Robert Zurbin
• Flight of the Nighthawks by Raymond E. Feist
• A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula Le Guin
• Into a Dark Realm by Raymond E. Feist
• Wrath of a Mad God by Raymond E. Fesit
  
• Witch in the Waiting Room by Robert Bobrow M.D.
  

Total (Nov. 19th, 2008 - Nov. 19th, 2009): 49

Grand Total (Nov. 19th, 2007 - Nov. 19th, 2009): 104

Note: Titles in bold I own, the others were borrowed or read at work.

As you can see, I haven't linked all the books I've read since March (I wrote that introduction back in April) and though I've tried to keep up with it, it's been hard! I'm slowly working my way through them though, I have created posts with outlines of what to talk about, its just finding the time and motivation to write those up. Hopefully sometime in December, probably during winter break, I'll write up another Ry Recommends, but for now if you wanna know more about a book not talked about comment and I'll make it a priority!

Reading Dilemma

It seems that I do my best thinking in the scant minutes before I a fall asleep; that in between place where you are neither awake nor asleep. Generally I find that I think of something amazing, but the next morning it's gone, but this past night I found that I actually remembered some of my thoughts. Actually it may just be that I've thought on this problem for a while now, either way, it comes down to whether or not it's worth the time to re-read books/series again or not.

There are a lot of pros and cons for each, but honestly I find myself stuck. I've read a lot of amazing books and series before, many of which are worth reading multiple times, but yet it comes down to being overwhelmed by the options. Working in a book store really opens your eyes to all thats out there, sure intellectually I always knew there were lots and lots of books, but seeing the thousands of titles that come out over the months really gets to you. So the choice is this, do I fall back and read what I know is good? Or do I take that risk, that leap of faith if you will, and try out these new books? It really is a risk in the sense that I could spend time reading and finishing a book only to realize that it was complete rubbish! That time spent on that book is gone forever after that, it's regret, sadness, and pure rage all at the same time, but yet to only read books I've read before would be stupid. It's what's killing the church, and what plagues every religion: stagnation. Indeed had I only read what I read before I would not be nearly as well read as I am now--this is why some people only read the bible they don't wanna risk reading good fiction--so its a balance. Sure. Easy to say, but I'm still stuck with the idea of if it's actually worth re-reading books I've fallen in love with before.

Since starting this blog, I haven't re-read any books, but in the past I have. I've read all the Harry Potter books twice except the last one, I've read Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master several times, as well as a few of the Anne Rice books, plus Tolkein, so it's not like I'm truly opposed to the idea, it's that I'm afraid of missing out on books I haven't read. This is really quite frustrating because with school and work I hardly have enough time to read in general, should I really be reading things again? But they're SO GOOD. *sigh* I've also put myself into a bit of a corner because before I used to only buy books when I needed a new one, so if I finished one and didn't have anything else I'd pick up one I'd read before, but now working at a bookstore I have a stack of freaking books to read on my shelf! Not to mention in my line of work I am practically bombared with suggestions and recommendations on what to read next! If only I was a vampire I would have so much more time, or hell if I didn't have to sleep, blast you body, you are so limiting! Okay, well, I feel that there are some series that are must reads, and as such, must re-reads. Generally speaking if the book is grand enough, you'll find new things with each time you read it, so there are benefits. But should I only re-read novels? Or should I re-read entire series? Well you can't just stop after reading The Fellowship of the Ring, so I'm going to say that I should go big or go home!

Now that that's cleared up, I think I'll make a list of some books/series I should re-read, because as much as I'd like to re-read every book I've ever enjoyed, there are just too many. So here's a list:

Science Fiction

• The Dune Series by Frank Herbert
• The "Enderverse" by Orson Scott Card -- This one is unique in regards to the fact that Card is still writing for this universe and since my memory isn't what it used to be (and of course the books are fucking amazing) I think it would be beneficial to go through these again.
  
• Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
• The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson

Fantasy

• The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
• The Riftwar Saga by Raymond E. Feist -- Again this is another unique one because, like Card, Feist is still writing this saga. As of this year there are 26 books out with 4 forthcoming. 30 books, that's more than half a year in what I'm averaging so far so reading them would probably be a year long event. Yet.. Feist is honestly my favorite fantasy author, and ALL of his books are so good. Now I haven't read 6 of those 26 since they're side books, but my logic is to wait until the entire series is done and done and then just sit down for a Feist marathon. We'll see though.
  
• The Tales of the Otori by Lian Hearn
• Kingkiller Chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss -- He just needs to finish this series, I'm already going to have to re-read the first book just to know wtf is going on with the second when it comes out.
  

Fiction

• The Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice -- Now I'm not sure if I'll read the entire series again because she went all religious and shitty the last couple books, but the first few for sure.
  
• Chuck Palahniuk, mainly Fight Club, Survivor, and Choke
• Dystopian favorites: 1984, Anthem, A Brave New World, and We
• Hotel New Hampshire by John Irving
  

For now I think that's good, I know I should put more of the classics up, Steinbeck and the like, but I feel like those are still too fresh in my mind, not to mention dry. I know I will eventually, but for the purposes of this blog I'll leave them out. I'd also like to say that if you need a good book in the three above genres you wouldn't be wrong to pick up one of the ones I mentioned. Speaking of which I think I'll write another Ry Recommends in the near future. Stay tuned!

Physical vs. Digital Books

I remember back in February I made a post about the e-book revolution that is going on and I mentioned something to the nature of "I like to own my books". Well recently Sony came out with two new additions to the e-reader family: The Pocket edition, and the Touch edition. Both relatively cheap, I mean if $199 and $299 respectively is ever cheap and I am again examining my preferences. Certainly the e-readers are still too expensive, for me anyway, have too much other crap going on--I really don't want internet on my book, sorry guys--and the e-ink has this horribly obnoxious function where when you turn a page it flashes the entire screen black. Sure it's not very long, but on every e-reader I've tried I notice it. Now I've hear "oh you get used to it", but come on I can turn a page in a real book and not suffer any sort of annoying flash. We are at the point technologically that this should not be an issue. Old computers did this, but we can now sit at a computer for hours and not have any eye strain nor any flashes. When, and if, this ever gets fixed I might be more inclined to buy one, but until then it's just another thing that turns me off.

That was a bit of an aside, but back to what I was saying. I see these e-readers more and more and one of the big advertisements is that you can store XXX amount of books on the e-reader itself, and then store your other books right on your hard drive. Saves space, convenient, and takes the hassle out of moving books all around.. but I just don't like the idea. Technology is fallible and thus far I have over 300 books in my library, one lighting strike, one virus, one user error and all that would be gone.. Ouch.. I've heard that some places, Amazon?, let you redownload the book as many times as you'd like after you buy it, but I don't know how valid that is. It seems like a rather easy way to pirate books if that's the case, but I don't really know. But either way it's a scary thought. Whereas someone can break into my house, steal all sorts of stuff, but generally speaking they're not going to go for the books. The only thing I have to worry about when I'm not home is fire, water damage, and the occasional animal attack, and only fire will really kill off my collection. Sure you can back things up and copy things and save things, but really how secure are electronic things? For how much I love my books: Not enough. That's one reason I'd rather own a material copy. Another I think is perhaps how I grew up. Back when I was a kid we didn't have cell phones, computers, ipods, or much in the ways of electronics. Game Boys and walkmans were about all we had going on so, understandably, I never put much stock into electronics, but kids these days have cell phones, ipods, and complete internet access starting in elementary school or earlier at home! Maybe material objects aren't as important to younger generations as they are to me, I mean, I'm at the point where I think CDs are kinda a waste, I haven't bought one in years and years and years, so undoubtedly kids a mere 3 years younger might be okay with digital copies of things.

Two perfectly logical reasons right there, but those just don't seem to cut it either. I don't know why, but reading things on a computer screen just isn't satisfying, not to mention the pure raw sex appeal a loaded book case has. So honestly I don't know why I want books, they're expensive, they're heavy, they take up loads of space, but.. but.. I love them. I look over at my bookshelf and smile to myself thinking of all the adventures I've been on from the various spines, the color and the magic they add to my room, so I guess logically speaking it would be better not to own them. I'd save money, maybe--there's still the whole issue of just what you're paying for--save space, and it certainly is more environmentally friendly to not buy paper books, but.. I don't know.

I will say this though: I think e-readers do have a place in our society in the schools and in table top role playing. For schools, oh man, I wish upon every star that I could have a Kindle-DX loaded up with all my textbooks, and all my future textbooks! There would have to be some negotiation on price because while the content is obviously valuable, a large part of the cost of a text book comes from the actual publishing of the book, hard backs, full color, pictures, etc. etc. All books/textbooks start out in word (or some other program) and thus it's a few clicks of a button to put them up on the internet and seriously should not cost as much. What the value of someones book is, is much too hairy of a topic to cover. Some authors spend years and years perfecting their books, others spend a week writing it and then publishing it *cough Nora fucking Roberts cough*. Are those two books equal? Ehhhhh I don't even wanna touch that topic. The second thing was pointed out to me by my friend and coworker Diego, he's a classic gamer, not the type that uses consoles but the D&D table top gamer. Basically, if you've never looked into D&D or anything, you have to buy lots of heavy hardcover books filled with info about spells and stats and other intense things so putting something like that onto an e-reader would make sense. Instead of carting 20+ books over to play a game you can just have them all loaded onto your e-reader and even ctrl-f specifics. I'm sure there are other things that it would be useful for as a professional, the DMV-IV-TR, there's a book of building codes that's a beast, electrical codes that's also beastly, but for a casual non-traveling reader it doesn't fit.

*sigh* that was one of the most horribly rambling posts I've done in a while. But it kinda straightened things out in my mind, so thanks for bearing with me. If anyone owns an e-reader and wants to fill me in on some of the gaps in my knowledge feel free. Other uses and pros, cons, etc. Comments are appreciated!

The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

Oh Dan Brown what have you done? What oh what have you done? You were in the groove, Angels and Demons was new and unique, The Da Vinci Code then solidified your reputation, but you let the money and fame go to your head. I, by no means, disliked his new book The Lost Symbol, but it was horribly flawed, and honestly the worst of his books. Now if you're one of those people that has been living under a rock and don't know who Dan Brown is, well, get out of your rock and look around!

Dan Brown started out back in the '90s as a failed singer/songwriter. This in and of itself isn't too special, many, many people try and fail in the music world, what's important here is that he released a CD called "Angels and Demons" and used John Langdons ambigram:

John Langdon is, of course, the inspiration for the now world famous Robert Langdon in Browns books. After his stint in music, which he still dallies in now and then, he began writing Digital Fortress--which also happens to be my favorite of his books--followed by Deception Point (bleh), then Angels and Demons and then in 2003 The Da Vinci Code. From there it's history, with over 81 million copies sold, it's considered "one of the most popular books of all time". I am a firm believer that of the books Robert Langdon appears in--Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and The Lost Symbol--Angels is by far the best. This is all water under the bridge of course, but I figured I should mention it before talking about The Lost Symbol. A mere three years after the release of Da Vinci, it was turned into a blockbuster movie, one that was decent, I guess, but didn't do the book justice. After that, Angels and Demons got eaten up and released in May and was, thankfully, much better, still no match for the book, but not as sickening as the first. Tom Hanks does a fantastic job in both movies, the problem was the complexity of the books, which make it hard to transfer into a movie. The movies, I believe, are Dan Browns downfall.

Unfortunately, they were great hits in the theaters, made him lots and lots of money, and as such... blew his head up. When The Lost Symbol was announced earlier this year I was more than skeptical, but vowed to read it when it came out. Sure enough the day comes, I'm stuck doing a midnight release "party" at my work (only two people showed up) and I begin reading. The first thing that struck me was how amazingly short the chapters were! I thought that maybe he was just dipping into a few places, getting the setting set up and such, but then it quickly dawned on me that he was, in fact, completely serious about writing half page chapters! Two pages, a page, sure, some authors can pull it off, but NOTHING useful can be said in half a page! Why is this? I thought, Ohhh he's making it easy to turn into a screen play! Wow Mr. Brown, wow. Not even Michael Crichton or Stephen King, both of whom have a pretty good track record of getting their books raped into movies, wrote in a screenplay-esque style. Not only were his chapters short, but more often than not he ended them in a mini cliffhanger, which sometimes developed the plot, but mostly made it impossible to find a stopping place. This, of course, is brilliant. I can't tell you how many people have told me that they read his book within a day and late night, you get lots and lots and lots of people reading your book really, really, really fast and you've done something that most books lack: made it so people can talk about it. Most people when they read, it takes them a couple weeks or a month or two to finish a book, but by writing The Lost Symbol in such a way as to not let people stop without severe anxiety makes it almost like a movie. It's true too, that was one book I had a hell of a time putting down! The other thing missing from his book was previous characters or any sort of mention of Langdons previous adventures. What happened with the Grail? With the Vatican? The women?!

The next thing I noticed which made me kind of sad was the blatant product placement. Every other chapter featured the "amazing, advanced, super useful iPhone" or someone is whipping out their blackberry. This isn't too terrible when kept to a minimum, it is nice to know little details such as the brand of soda the character is drinking or the laptop he or she may be using, but to blatantly us iphone and blackberry over and over, was horribly distracting. After the first couple chapters you know the character is using an iphone or blackberry, so then why must Brown feel the need to tell us again the phone they're using and how amazing it is? It calls into question as to whether or not Brown got a little under the table money for his book, naturally there's no word of such a thing, but when the movie comes out I won't be too surprised if iphone sales go up. Then again with Brown putting both the iphone and the blackberry into his book perhaps he was trying to play fair and mention the competitor. We will never know, but it is one of the things that distracted me from the overall smoothness--as smooth as short, choppy chapters can be--of the plot. As for product placement in general, I'm not a believer in its usefulness, especially not in books. Already as a nation we're bombarded with hours upon hours of commercials, I don't see how seeing a product on a television show will up my interest that much. With all the advertising done already, I doubt things can enter my awareness that much more, and no, just because I see House drinking a coke I won't drop everything to find one. When it comes to games, well, in some cases I think it might be okay, if the product is common enough and it fits the setting it's not a big deal, but when I'm playing a game set in the year 2500 and I see the aliens reaching for a coke.. well.. that's just a dumb distraction. And books, well like I said, if it's just mentioned to give us a better overall picture in our head then whatever, but anything more than just a mere mention is too much. I fear that Brown may have opened pandoras box and set loose agonizing distractions and placements for your favorite books. Imagine, sitting down to read your favorite novel, and low and behold the main character pulls out a Kay Jewelers box, the girl swoons, and written in black and white is "every kiss begins with Kay." Or an the characters running from zombies stop, pull out a couple bucks and buy a coke saying "you can't survive without a refreshing coke!". Shoot me now.*

For those of you that read Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code you'll remember how blatant Brown was in his bashing of the church and religion in general. Sadly it seems he may have been spooked by all those protesters because this book seems to put major value in religion. I won't go into the details of just how this is done (Lagndon does put his snarky opinion out there), but by the end of the book I was questioning just how Brown had gone from strongly opposing the Church to almost respecting it and its ideals. Along the same lines is the "science" of Noetics which one of the main characters researches. In fact, I really don't know what to think of the whole thing! I looked up the book she referenced and found it to be a metaphysical philosophy book along in the same section as L. Ron Hubbard. I haven't bothered to do any research of my own to see where or how he got his ideas, whether he believes in them or not, or if there is indeed true science behind it, that's a different topic for a another time. In regards to The Lost Symbol, though, it played a roll far larger than I believe it should have, it was interesting, sure, but in the novel--which is set roughly in our time--it was a bit beyond the scope of what he was trying to say. And the Masons, oh dear god the Masons! I know this is something I should have some sort of opinion about, I do, but honestly after reading a bit about it, watching one or two discovery, history channel, or national geographic specials, I really don't care. At all. Sure they influenced our founding fathers, sure they have a symbol on our dollar bill, and are horribly powerful people, I think people just enjoy conspiracies. More to the point, I think that because the Masons are a secretive group that no one truly understands they automatically put a negative/evil opinion on them. They may have some secrets, but so does the FED, CIA, FBI, and practically any government agency in the world. Do I think they hold the key to our "rebirth" or death? Nope.

I've mainly mentioned the negative aspects of Browns novel, but really it's not all bad. I thoroughly enjoyed it; the good, the bad, and the iphone. If one honest thing can be said about Dan Brown, it's this: he is a master of suspense. Sometimes he fumbles the delivery on a plot twist, but a page later you're sitting there amazed at the turn of events. Some of his twists are a bit predictable, but I don't care how many people out there say just how much they saw them coming, he would not be a bestselling author if he didn't surprise his readers. That's what mystery/thriller is! Props to Brown on his ability to throw spins and twists in there to make people shake their head, it's a difficult task, one which I doubt I will ever be able to do, and one that very few authors can do multiple times in a book. Not only that, but his overall style is enjoyable. I, at least, haven't read many authors who can accomplish what Brown does in a 24 hour time line, the emotion, the suspense, the action, some authors can't even manage those things in a setting that lasts a year! All and all, I honestly believe that if you can entertain your audience, make them squirm in anticipation, make them stay up late into the night just to find out what happens next, that you've written a good book. All those negatives aside, that's what every author should aim to do! Sure he may have distracted with the product placement, made the experience choppy with his short chapters, and almost completely reverse his view on religion, but overall he wrote a damn entertaining book! One that with its flaws, still manages to surprise and awe the reader!

Oh and if you're wondering if this is the last we hear from Langdon don't count on it! Just listen to this:

----"Do you have a lot of ideas for future books?
There is no shortage of secrets and adventures for Robert Langdon to take. I have ideas for about 12 books. I know I won't have time in my life to write them all. For a symbology professor, someone who understands iconography, ancient mysteries, there is no shortage of material for this character." ~ Entertainment Weekly 2003

I dunno how I feel about 12 books, but this is surely not the last!


**I've heard a god awful rumor that Amazon is considering putting ads into the ebooks they sell at some point in the near future! Not just little products authors put in, but visual ads IN the books as you're reading! You turn a page, and just like on the radio, an ad will come up for this product or that product before you can move on. Talk about horrible! I hope to god that that is only a rumor, but until confirmed or denied I'm gonna have to say the Kindle has dropped another spot on m list!

The Magicians by Lev Grossman

Oh there is so much to say about this book! Where do I even start?!

There are, however, some prerequisites needed for you to fully enjoy this book. The first is you have to have read The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis, if not in its entirety, then at the very least more than The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, and most assuredly NOT the movies. Second, you should be familiar with the Harry Potter franchise, in this case the movies or the books are fine. Third, you have to be an avid reader of fantasy, understand it's many cliches in and out, and be somewhat open minded about them. Fourth, I gotta say that you have to be at least over the age of 16 but I'd college experience is highly recommended.

Now before you get ahead of yourselves and go bitching to me about how I'm trying to censure you, read that first sentence again "...for you to fully enjoy this book". Hell, you could not know who CS Lewis or Harry Potter are, never read a fantasy book in your life , and be 12 and I'll bet you might still enjoy this book. You certainly won't catch a lot of the little things, but the writing is solid, and the story is well laid out.

Anyway, this book was unexpected for me. I have a list going of books that I see around my work that interest me and that eventually I need to read, usually I just pick the next book off that list and read that at work, but here I found myself drawn to it. Maybe it was the title--I'm a sucker for magicians anything--maybe it was the fact that one of our competitors broke the laydown date and got us to sell it three days early, or maybe it was the intense endorsement by Martin

"These days any novel about young sorcerers at wizard school inevitably invites comparison to Harry Potter. Lev Grossman meets the challenge head on ... and very successfully. The Magicians is to Harry Potter as a shot of Irish whiskey is to a glass of weak tea."

whatever the reason I read the jacket and dived in.

As I've said on more than one occasion I'm not a fan of book reports, I don't like spoilers, nor do am I very good at summarizing so I'm just gonna talk about what I felt about it. The old adage "Imitation is the highest form of flattery" is so extraordinarily accurate in this case that whoever came up with it must have known this book was coming out. What I mean is this: Grossman has essentially recreated Narnia, mated it with Hogwarts, and thrown in some Tolkien genes. He's said in several interviews that he was absolutely in love with Narnia as a child and wanted to recreate it as an adult with more adult themes, especially the idea of fantasy wearing away as you grow up. He did this with a masterful touch, his characters are nihilistic college kids who essentially have everything, brains, magic, love, etc. but want more. How real is that? We all grow up with these fantasies of changing the world, of how cool and amazing being an adult will be, the absolute kickass-ness of being in college, but what happens? We find out that it all actually kinda sucks. We end up going to college, but within a month the novelty wears off and we're once again in a class room learning about things that we don't care about. Being an adult? Yeah, no kid ever thinks of responsibility or if they do it's in a naive way. Paying bills, having relationships, school, work, social life, everything that goes along with being an adult seems neat, sure, but then it happens and it's just.. blah. We look around after 5 years, 10 years, 40 years, and what have we done with ourselves? Nothing. We work or go to school (both usually), we go home, we eat, we sleep, but there's no real magic to any of it. What happens to that feeling we all get in our stomach about the future? Those butterflies that say everything is going to be amazing tomorrow? They get blindsided by reality. They don't exist. We began to question why we're here, what we're doing with ourselves, whats the point of it all; fall into drugs, alcohol, sex, and depression. This is what being an adult is. It's not magical animals talking to you, fantastic voyages and adventures, it's not fair maidens or evil villains, life is just life. No more. No less. Lev Grossman takes this idea, this horrible realization and puts it in a world where some of those things actually exist. What happens? The characters STILL aren't happy, they're still depressed, they're still nihilistic, and essentially they're still unhappy. What Grossman accomplishes is perhaps one of the best social satires of our generation. The generation of tomorrow, the generation of selfishness, the generation of why.

He's right too. We read fantasy to escape the world, we read it to go some place where things are happy, full of adventure and meaning, but really, would we even be happy there? Is it even possible for us to be happy or even satisfied with anything? He takes Narnia, Hogwarts, and Middle Earth and shows us that, no, we won't ever be happy. Sure it sounds dark, it sounds awful, but it's realistic. It may be exaggerated, most things are after all, but he hit the nail on the head. Us 20 somethings are so dissatisfied with everything that we're losing sight of what really matters. The people we love, our friends, our family, husbands, wives, and kids. We spend so much time trying to be better, trying to find something more, escaping from our own worlds that we lose that which gives our lives the meaning they desperately need. The Magicians is quite the eye opener, at least it was for me. I'm exactly what he described with his book, I have the exact same mentality of these kids, and honestly.. it was both horrifying and hilarious all at the same time. Absurd even.

The best part about it, though, was the fact that unlike dusty old fiction books, The Magicians was stupendously entertaining. Even if you don't read for themes, for so called "deeper meanings", you'll have a hell of a time trying to put his down. The characters are fantastic, you love them, you hate them, and most importantly you connect with them. The world is familiar, both in the sense of the "real world" and that of a Narnia-esqe settings, and the plot is well thought out and well executed. Although some may feel that his almost blatant plagiarism is a turn off, I found that combined with his message it was done not out of malice, but out of love for those works he was so inspired by. Some may think he was just taking Narnia and adding to it for his own monetary gains, but I would have to disagree. Sure there are huge, HUGE similarities between Fillory and Narnia, things are fundamentally different. At times I was a little put off, sure, but looking back on it now after a few books and a month of pondering, I was put off by the realistic tones of the story. I picked up the book, looked at the fantasy label, and assumed it would be just another great happy-go-lucky piece of work, that was quickly shattered. He not only made fun of my mentality, as well he should have, but also that of every fantasy author out there, of every college student, of every person, he managed to criticize things we all have in common in such a way as to make us love and hate him. Some people just criticize, like myself, and people hate them.. but Lev Grossman does what every satirist dreams about, actually accomplishes his criticisms of live, love, and human nature, in a way that people LOVE. It's brilliant!

I'll say this though, it's not for those that are looking for the same old fantasy. It's not for those who like tame stories, or those looking for certain things, it's for those that are almost fed up with the Fantasy cliches, fed up with people, fed up with life. It'll bring you around, lemme tell ya, but like all things it has to be taken with a grain of salt, and an open mind.

On the Science Fiction / Fantasy Series

In my last post I spoke briefly about too much story, but what does that mean exactly? Well I've been thinking about this for a while now and I've decided that generally speaking for an author to fully accomplish a sci-fi or fantasy story, it needs to be part of a series. What kind of series you say? Well that depends largely on the authors story, but I think as a very general--there are plenty of exceptions--rule it is safe to say a trilogy works best of all.

The Trilogy

The idea of a trilogy has been around ages and ages in the fantasy world, but it didn't really hit home until Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings is perhaps one of the best series in all of fiction, which includes the silly "Literature" category with Steinbeck, Hawthorn, and other such "Literature" authors. The reason a trilogy works far better in a science fiction or fantasy series is because the author must create an entire world with its very own unique histories, languages, kingdoms, and other such fascinating things. In a "literature" book the hardest part of writing is practically done for you! All you have to do is say "it was 1945, Germany had just fallen! Jake, the onetime Nazi hot shot, is on the run." BAM! That's the entire setting you need to talk about. Sure, you'll talk about the scenery, maybe a sunset here, a dog there, but really everyone knows what earth is like, everyone knows what happened in WWII, everyone knows Germany is in Europe and Europe is across the ocean from the United States. What exactly is there for you to create? A plot, sure, but that's all you're going to be doing; developing characters, developing a plot, and throwing a twist now and then. Sure there are some amazing novels out there that are like this, but my point is that it's easier than creating a whole world of different races, histories, and evil. This is one of the reasons classic literature, like Steinbeck, cannot be compared to any sort of science fiction or fantasy book. Not that they're both hard to write, which they are in their own ways, but the differences make it impossible to even look at the pros and cons of each style. No one will disagree if you say Tolkien was a fantastic author, but it's when you try and compare Tolkien and Steinbeck that you run into problems. This creation of a setting is what makes a trilogy the best for science fiction and fantasy.

Hubbards problem was he tried too hard to fit absolutely everything into one book. Some people can do it, Elantris by Brandon Sanderson is an excellent self contained novel, but others are just too ambitions. The first book in a trilogy sets the tone, it gives the reader a chance to stick his toes into the water, get acquainted with just where they are. The author generally introduces the setting by giving a history of the world/universe, introduces the main characters and their own personal histories within the major world history, and introduces the plot. It doesn't seem like much, but it's a lot more than you realize. Personally I love knowing the ins and outs of this fantasy world; its government, economics, wars, races, languages, and all that other stuff that is generally taken for granted in literature. In order to do this you cannot write it like a history book, people don't like to read textbooks, the best way is to do this in bits and pieces. I've found that a prologue does the job quite well, you're introduced to the land and its history, and then to the main character. From there the author will usually jump through time and into the present (for that character) and as the character goes on his journey/quest/voyage we learn more about the world as we go along. Sadly this makes for a perfect cliché because the easiest way to give the maximum amount of information through the characters journey is to have the character from a small town. Yeah, this has lead to the farm boy, fisherman, hobbit, or generally "innocent" character finding his way through the big, scary, complex world through interaction. It's really not a bad way to go in my opinion, but it certainly gets old after a while.

After the author has done all his introductions and sent his character on his quest it is time for the sequel. The sequel or middle book in a trilogy is generally, at least in my opinion, the driest of the three because it's all plot/character development.
LotR: The Two Towers,
Shadows Edge, The Ring, and
Redemption Ark
are but a few examples of sequel books that don't live up to the trilogies as a whole. The reason for this stems from the fact that as the middle book they have a lot to live up to and yet have less interesting things to talk about. From my experiences the middle child of a trilogy is mainly there to bulk up the plot, enhance the character and world histories, and lead up to a stunning conclusion. Because of this they never get the chance to really shine! By this point in writing an author generally knows it's going to be a trilogy and so immediately they're jumping to the conclusion in their heads, but are stopped by the fact they have a lot of plot and build up to do. Don't get me wrong, there are some absolutely amazing sequel books out there--Green Mars, and pretty much all of Raymond E. Feists trilogies are solid the whole way through--but a lot of times the author just gets ahead of themselves and doesn't put as much effort into the second book as they do in the first or third.

As for the third, well, that's where the magic happens.. usually. By this point in the series you're in love with the characters, the world, and the plot, you're just begging the author to finish up and tie up all those loose ends to form a fantastic ending. Well 9 times out of 10 they deliver. My theory is this; all the good books out there aren't written for the fans, for the author's wife, for anyone, all the very best works are written for the author. This usually means that the last book is a work of pure genius! As much as we the reader feel attached to the story and want it to go on, the author is a million times more into it and that translates right into the book. Where they were hesitant in the first, clearing up details in the second, they are letting loose with their creative talent in the final chapter of their trilogy. Just look at some of them out there, Return of the King (obviously), Absolution Gap, and Beyond the Shadows are all fantastic! Unfortunately, because the author is a lot of times writing for his or herself, the fans can be let down by this third novel. In as much as they want us to be happy, they want to be happy, and generally--especially with high profile undertakings--the conclusions sought by the fans, are not what the author delivers. Sure they'll deliver an epic, a masterpiece; a piece of art, but sometimes the execution isn't all that it should be. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows is, even though it's not a trilogy, a more than perfect example. In fact, I would wager to say that the ending to that book almost ruined the entire series for me. This is partly due to hype, popularity, and poor writing style. It's a sad fact that really shitty books tend to be best sellers, and let's face it J.K. Rowling is not the best author out there, so even though she created a cult phenomenon, she didn't have the experience to finish it off properly and the whole series suffered for it. This happens a lot with novice authors, but hey you have to get out there sometime, you gotta write that book, and you gotta just suck up the bad reviews because there's always a critic out there. In any case, the third and final book in a trilogy is where the real fireworks are; by this point the author has established enough of a setting that they can throw the reader on twists and turns and betrayals, which usually leads to epic books!

This is why, in my humble opinion, a trilogy is by far the best formula for a science fiction or fantasy story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Side Note

Even as I wrote that last sentence I knew I wasn't done with this post. Indeed, I have to mention that although I do really think the trilogy is the best means to achieve a fantasies creative end, there are other ways. First of all it is possible, like I mentioned, to write a fully self contained fantasy novel, hey, you can write a damn good one even, but it takes a lot of skill some authors don't have. Along the same lines you can write a stunning duology, which also takes a great deal of skill, but allows for more room to play. Karen Miller's Kingmaker Kingbreaker duology is the best example I can come up with off the top of my head. I was a little worried at first, this was her first step into the non-licensed fantasy world (she's written a couple books in the Star Wars Universe) and as such I wasn't sure if she could pull it off. Oh how she did! It has just the right amount of world, religion, and character building for the reader to completely become immersed in and on top of that she has a damn good plot. Sadly the duology isn't a very popular media for authors, I think because they get so into it that they end up with a trilogy, but when it's done well I think it can rival that of a trilogy in some aspects. Those generally tend to be if you're writing a less complex world/story than that of LotR, smaller map, fewer characters/races, smaller timescale as a whole, which can be refreshing. As much as a love the appendices of LotR, sometimes it's nice to relax in a less complex world. Of course you can always go bigger with a quartet or even a quintet, but then you're moving into the realm of an epic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Epics

So your story is too deep for a novel, duology, or a trilogy huh? Well then my friend, you're writing an epic! We've all seen them, we all love them, the epic series are those that flow through multiple volumes over multiple time frames. Think Frank Herbert, Raymond E. Feist, Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, and George R.R. Martin, these are the big wigs. These are the ones that will blow your mind over and over and over again, that will keep people talking for years, these are the ones that go down in the history books! Naturally there is a higher degree of error here, Terry Goodkind lost it toward the end by injecting his story with Ayn Rands philosophy, Robert Jordan died, and Martin, well Martin just won't release the next book in the series. But hey, all that aside, and these are some of the best books out there. The interesting thing I find with these is that although the worlds are that much more detailed than trilogies and the other forms, they aren't as detailed as one would expect, usually these epics are super plot heavy or, on the contrary, follow several different plots all in the same universe. The Enderverse is an amazing combination of both, Orson Scott Card delivers an amazingly detailed complex plot over several books, and then flawlessly jumps thousands of years and yet still keeps the magic. Herbert did the same with the Dune series, writing a fantastic plot before jumping thousands of years and pulling out a new plot tied to the old. *sigh* Dune is just the definition of epic--not the silly gamer definition either--but the old school Odyssey epic!

Perhaps my favorite form of epic is that of an established universe with many branches. Think of it this way, you have a trilogy that makes up the trunk of a tree--we're talking redwood trunk here--that establishes this stunning universe with hundreds of thousands of story possibilities, and then the author ads some creative water and BAM! You have on your hands a tree so full of stories, characters, love, and grief that it almost brings a tear to your eye. This is my favorite style of fantasy/science fiction because you fall in love with the main trilogy, the main universe, the main characters, but instead of dragging on the plot *cough GOODKIND cough*, they end their trilogy and branch off in their newly formed realm. Isaac Asimov did this, though I've only read the Foundation trilogy, to an extent Tolkien did this with his follow up books The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales and other such works*, but the two authors that have done this the best are Raymond E. Feist and Alastair Reynolds.

Feist is an interesting case, his series is based off that of a single duology, though first published as one novel, and then proceeds to follow the main characters and the main characters children, and then their children. All the while keeping a few of what I like to call uber-characters throughout the entire time span. Pug, Tomas, and Marcos the Black all make appearances in the books even though they're set decades in the future. This may sound silly, but it's explained perfectly, don't trust me go read it! But the best part is how Feist incorporates the stories of his first books and turns them into legends in the later books. Battles you read in the first books all morph into something more as the years go by, mere mortal characters become god-like kings, and villains turn into the stories used to scare kids at night. I can't even give do justice to Feist, all I can say for sure is that you need to read it! Fantasy

Reynolds, on the other hand, is more of the tree-like epic writer I mentioned earlier. His Revelation Space Trilogy is by far one of the most amazing things I have ever read and it only gets better! Included in that one, because it falls under the same time-line ish, is Chasm City a standalone novel that introduced me to this style of writing; basically what Reynolds did was create this fantastic universe (and I do mean universe literally), write a jaw dropping trilogy in that universe, and then proceed to write other stories, novels, and novellas within that universe. All the while Reynolds is developing and changing and enhancing this universe to the point that if he wanted to, he could only write books set there for the rest of his life and never run out of stories. I really didn't even realize the scope of this until I picked up Galactic North which is a collection of eight short stories and novellas, all independent and utterly amazing within their own right. Shortly after that I picked up Diamond Dogs Turquoise Rain, two novellas that completely blew my mind! And since then I've read four or five of his short stories within sci-fi anthologies! The possibilities are endless for this series and like Feist, some of the things you witnessed in the original trilogy turn up again in fan pleasing ways!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know I set out to kind of outline my favorite style of sci-fi/fantasy, but it turns out I can't narrow it down. I adore Herbert, Feist, and Reynolds for their epic masterpieces, but at the same time Tolkien will always have a special place in my heart with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and even smaller than that I've read countless novels and short stories that will always be remembered as fantastic. It really all comes down to the story in the end. Some are just meant to be many books, others are meant to be a 20 page short story, but all of them—with a few exceptions of course—are amazing. It's true, just looking at my bookcase I obviously prefer longer story arcs than shorter ones, but I think part of the reason is because I've been lucky enough to read only the best of the best! I know people that have read a longer story arc, hated it, and will never pick up anything more than a trilogy, but I also know people that refuse to read anything other than the super long stories. Each style has its own pros and cons, its ups and downs, it's good and bad, but hey, that's what makes sci-fi/fantasy such a dynamic genre! Nowhere else can you find such a wide range of reading options as in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, indeed nowhere else will you find all in one place more worlds, universes, and characters than a trip into the sci-fi/fantasy section. I love literature, I love mystery/thriller, and I'm enjoying non-fiction more and more, but nothing will be as close to my heart as science fiction and fantasy are.

Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard

Wow, I don't even know where to begin on this one. First let me say that I think Scientology is a load of crap, the same goes with Hubbard, but in any event, his book isn't terrible. It was entertaining, though a bit dry here and there, but overall worth the two bucks I paid for it used. I going to go ahead and avoid saying anything about Scientology and Hubbards non-science fiction life. There is more than enough to talk about with his whopping 1050 page book, so let's get to it.


First and foremost I believe that you have to be very pompous and pretentious in order to write a book that is over a thousand pages. There is just too much story for one book. Period. No matter how good you are at writing, no matter how good you think you may be at storytelling, you cannot write a satisfactory story that is over a thousand pages. You just can't. There is just too much story and by not splitting it up into a sequel or trilogy, you lose valuable plot and world building options. This is exactly what happened with Battlefield Earth. Hubbard is a decent author, he had an interesting concept, fairly well developed characters, and a plot that was readable, but he had too much! Because he thought he was such a great author and could fit all of his story into one volume he actually lost some of the most interesting parts. It might be that Hubbard just didn't have the skill to develop his universe as much as I imagined with the details he gave me, but I think had he sucked it up and split Battlefield Earth into three parts, hell even two, the whole thing would have been way better.

While I was reading I found his ideas, his history, and his overall setting fascinating, but, unfortunately, he didn't develop any of them nearly as well as he should have. His setting is that of Earth in the year 3000 who has been dominated by a vicious beings called Psychols. Who are these creatures? Why are they so horrible? What is their culture? Sadly Hubbard merely touches on these questions about 800 pages in. 800 pages before we know even a bit of these creatures. Sure it fit the plot, he probably couldn't have explained much about them earlier in the book, but the fact remains that he should have told us more! He introduces some 17 different universes, with hundreds of thousands of different races, all ruled over by these Psycholos. And of course he barely tells us about maybe 12 of those races, really he just mentions their name and what universe they're from. Unfortunately he doesn't really go into any real detail about anything! The entire book is just kinda brushing the histories of all these characters, a couple sentences here about the Russians, a few sentences there about the Scots, but never really much. Okay so the earth was practically wiped out a thousand years past, so perhaps the humans don't have much of a history, but if you're going make your setting as huge as 17 universes, you need to talk about them. The worst part of all this is that he was capable of telling such a compelling story, of including his audience in on what only he is privy to, but he didn't.

As I was reading a bit of my bias did bog down some of my enjoyment, mainly how hypocritical he is. A major plot that takes place in his book is that of money, corruption, and greed, yet when he died in 1986 he was worth 200 million dollars. Sure that may not be a huge sum today, what with Bill Gates and all the other tech, oil, and business giants out there, but 200 million back in 1986 is ridiculous! Really who am I to talk, I'm a hypocrite in many ways, as we all are whether we like it or not, but if you're going to create a "religion" based on money and then preach about how awful and horrible money is in your books, well, that's just too far for me!

The other feeling I got while reading Battlefield Earth was that of disbelief. I know, I know, sci-fi/fantasy stuff is suppose to be not real and what not. I know this intrinsically since these are my two favorite genres, but I do expect some realistic elements to be in a book. For example Hubbard made a big deal about how primitive and uneducated the humans were, but yet somehow they manage to learn all the nuclear technology that is left over from their past, electronics, chemistry, physics, ultra high level math, not to mention an alien language, alien math, and alien physics and chemistry. They then use all this information they masted in the space of months to annihilate an alien culture that has been ruling multiple universes for billions of years, where as millions if not billions of other, far more technologically advanced species, tried and failed to do just that. Oh yeah, and apparently they learned all there is to know about math, teleportation, and physics just watching one of the Psycholos do a series of equations for one device. As much as I love the surreal, this got annoying fast. I love strong, clever characters, but there comes a point where they stop being someone you can relate to and become super human plus seem to have the best luck in the world. I cant even count the number of times I've shaken my head at the improbable nature of some characters luck. "Jonnie bent down and at that moment the net flew right over his head" yeah, okay, no the world does not operate like that, at least not multiple times. Sure bad things happened to the characters, but supremely, unbelievable good things also happened that just scream THIS ISN'T REAL! Meh, none of it's real, but still, if you're going to go out on a limb and make up creatures at least have the decency to keep humans, and human nature the same unless you have the prowess to explain why they're so much better than we currently are. In Alastair Reynolds series he has a several human subgroups, all of which have their own unique advantages and disadvantages, not only that, but he tells us how and why his beings came to be that way. No such explanation from Hubbard. To be perfectly honest I don't think it would have been so bad had the book not been so long, I mean I can handle amazing luck and abilities for about 400-500 pages before it just gets old. I think the timescale also plays a big role, Hubbards book is all in maybe 4 years? If that. Not day by day either, skipping weeks, months, and season quite easily, so it was just like today this happened then a couple months later this happens, and then this, and on and on with the dumb luck and abilities.

Oh well, like I said earlier, if nothing else Battlefield Earth was well written, with a neat plot, and decent characters. Overall it was enjoyable, but I know for a fact had he split it up it could have been 10 times as successful as it was. As for recommending this, ehh, sci-fi nerds might get a kick out of it, but unless it's your genre of choice I'd steer clear. If you're looking to hit that 1000 page mark just to say you did, I would go with The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, or another literary classic. You'll get more out of it, you'll enjoy it more, and you won't have to deal with annoying characters.

Tyrannosaur Canyon by Douglass Preston

Every reader out there has their "guilty pleasures", the books that they read just for fun, for me those are mystery/thrillers. For sure I read sci-fi/fantasy far, far more, but that's because I enjoy it more, it occupies more of my mind, but with mysteries I can just kinda kick back with a nice easy read and let go. They aren't particularly difficult and a lot of the time the twists are rather predictable, but it's fun! Back in my junior year my physics teacher--who also happens to be my across the street neighbor--introduced me to a great pair of authors: Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. They both are distinguished solo authors, but they teamed up to write an absolutely fantastic series of mystery/thrillers. They also have a couple of novels that aren't part of the series that are amazing as well. I've read all but Riptide and after reading their latest Cemetery Dance I just had to get another one. It had also been a little while since I picked up a mystery and I needed a little break from the usual stuff. Unfortunately Page One, the local used book store here, was out of Riptide so I decided to get Tyrannosaur Canyon which is one of Preston's solo novels.

I don't know what it is about these guys, but even this solo novel had me hooked from page one! Generally I try and stay away from books set here in New Mexico, or even the Southwest, because I don't particularly like the culture that is overloaded in books about it. Not everyone here is a cowboy or an Indian, nor do we all love turquoise and silver jewelry. And no, I don't own any Indian pottery or rugs. So I was a bit hesitant to read it, but it turned out okay. For one the novel was set in Abiquiu, New Mexico, which is a small uber rural town up north. The characters were the usual innocent who witnesses a murder, the ex-con who's being used by a rich mastermind, and an ex CIA agent trying to redeem himself. One thing I think I should mention is that both Preston and Child are very into academia, in other words, they know their shit. One worked at the New York Natural History Museum, the other various other scientific places, so even though the story is fiction, a lot of the science is real. Which really helps when you have authors like Dan Brown out there fucking up their facts. This also helps with the fact that the majority of mystery books out there are kinda cookie cutter, different character names, different places, but overall the same plot. Although Tyrannosaur Canyon is similar to those others, it is also unique in its presentation.

The story follows the innocent cowboy who catches the ex-con killing a lone prospector in a remote canyon, the cowboy manages to revive the prospector long enough for him to hand over a notebook full of numbers and asks for that to be given to his daughter. Seeing as cowboys are very morally sound, he calls the police, but refuses to hand over the notebook and instead goes off on his own to try and figure out what happened. This leads him to the ex-CIA agent who, like most mystery supporting characters, is trying to hide from his past, this time by becoming a monk in a secluded dessert monastery. And so the hunt is on to unravel just what this notebook is for, why it's important enough to kill for, and all at the same time run from the ex-con who is trying to kill them. During the course of the book a side story emerges about the rich mastermind in which we are given more clues as to just what is going on. Since it is a mystery I won't bother with any more plot stuff, but instead I'm going to say that anyone in need of a good mystery that will throw you on it's masterful twists and turns, should pick up Tyrannosaur Canyon.

That's the other thing, unlike a lot of other mysteries, the actual mystery remains so until the very last minute, and even then your jaw will drop with the authors ingenuity. It had me staying up later than usual wanting to find out just what happened and thankfully it wasn't a let down at all! I don't know why, but I've found that when reading Preston and Child, and now just Preston, I always want to do the various careers featured in the book. After reading their first two books I was convinced I wanted to work in a museum, and then I wanted to work for the FBI, then the NYPD, then a journalist, the list goes on and on, but it always amazes me how they can make a rather dry, boring job seem really interesting. The same goes for this book, after reading it I really wanted to major in GEOLOGY and work for a lab analyzing rocks.. seriously. Geology is neat and all, but it is not a subject I particularly enjoyed in high school, nor in the various classes it's come up. For him to actually make me want to get a PhD in Geology is really something. I might just be easily swayed, but thankfully it doesn't last long, especially given the fact I look into the various fields and realize it's not that great. Major, major props to both Preston and Child though, because it takes a very good author to portray a boring-ish job in such a way to make the reader want to do that. It's one of the reasons I've read all of their books and now that I know Preston can write on his own, probably all his books. Next up I'll probably pick up a Child book and see how it stacks up. It was fascinating to see Preston's own style; it's easy to see where his own stuff comes through in their co-author books, but I must say, by himself he is not as good as with Child. I'm going to guess it's the same with the other one and that their own styles mate in such a way to make a fantastic book! If you don't do anything more than just go look at their books my mission has been accomplished. I yearn to introduce people to authors I like and hope that they will like them too, because really reading is magical and everyone should do it!

On Keeping a Journal

I began my summer school at cnm not knowing what was ahead of me. Would my teachers be nice? Would they be worth the time, the effort, the money? Or would it be just another semester of uninspired professors and equally uninspired students. English 102 is one of those core classes that everyone must take. This often leads to a certain amount of blah, a lack luster class full of busy work on things you already know or things you don't really want to know. Even still it is also one of those classes that needs to be taken by everyone, like math, English is one of those subject you build up on, and until you have the basics down, you're nothing more than mediocre. Indeed, even after taking the class you are more than likely going to still be mediocre, but the things you learn in such a class are valuable. A review of grammar, spelling, and most importantly a higher level or writing. Higher expectations. A higher degree of analysis. Deeper, more complex stories and plots. Unfortunately this is something you need to be guided on. You need a good teacher in order to get the most out of a class, especially one like English. My 101 professor, for example, was pretty bored with the whole thing. He was being forced to teach the intro class because there weren't more than a few high level poetry classes available to teach. And it showed. I went through that class with a minimal amount of effort, I don't even remember the essays I wrote, much less the stories from them. Essentially the teacher didn't want to be there any more than the students.

This summer however I was put into a situation where the professor cared a lot about his class and his subject. He had a PhD in English, was a journalist for the majority of his career, and genuinely cared about his students. In other words, I actually had to put effort into the class. The very first day he did something unexpected, one of our major assignments was to keep a journal throughout the summer. In order to make sure that we were keeping it we would have to turn it in every time we did a rough draft of an essay in class. This surprised me because I hadn't ever encountered a professor that gave us an assignment not just for busy work, but for our own, 100%, improvement. I started this blog because I believe the more you write, the better you become at writing. It's been iffy, but I do feel like I've improved somewhat. I can express myself better than when I started, I think anyway, I can put my thoughts down onto paper--so to speak--with more ease, and if nothing else my brain isn't as cluttered as before. This ideal was his as well, but instead of a blog, it was a journal. There was no page requirement, no topics given, it was completely up to us to put whatever we wanted down. Now I've had my fair share of experiences with journals, none of them have lasted, so I was somewhat skeptical of the whole thing. This is because I have always had in my mind that a journal was a daily log of what you did, I'm sorry, but that is horribly boring to me. My life is nothing special, I don't do anything fascinating enough day-to-day to put down, nor am I introspective enough to be able to analyze my day-to-day existence in any sort of self improvement way. So I thought about it, and thought about it, and finally shrugged, I would write what I would write. I wasn't going to put the date, I wasn't going to put what I did, I was just going to write. It essentially became another blog, but with no standards. Even though I knew he was going to read it, I didn't feel the need to make it as polished and complete or even as coherent as my blog is. In fact, it was rather strange, but the reason I didn't keep up with my journals previously is because I find the idea of reading my own stuff boring, I need an audience, I am and always will be an attention whore. What is this blog? It is of no importance, I have few readers, but those that do read drive me to keep writing. It may be a sad reason to write, but it's true, I'm an attention whore. I need people to read my writing even if they don't agree, I need them to validate me and make it so I'm "worth" something, even when I know I am not. That is exactly what happened with this school journal. I wrote and wrote and wrote, not because I had any real interest in it, not because I believe I will ever go back and read it, but because deep down I knew that this professor was going to read it.

The sentences spilled out, the paragraphs formed, the entries added up, and the pages flew by and you know what? I enjoy it. I think that it has even become something of a habit, albeit a rather random one. I don't write in it every day, I never planned to, but about once a week I'll sit down with it and just write. I don't feel restrained by the idea that someone is going to read it, because really even if they do they can't really comment, even if they do it's just a note here or there, whereas here every word and entry is criticized and analyzed by people. I think its a good thing for someone's writing to be torn apart, it helps improve it, and gives the author an idea of what they need to do to become better. But I have found that with a journal I can write merely to write. I've said here in the past that I write only to write and I don't care what people think, and that's true, to an extent. With a journal I've found that I can put anything down, no matter how absurd, incomplete, or random. It's rather refreshing to be honest. An essay is written to be torn apart by your professor, just as this blog is written to express my opinion and let others respond, but a journal is just for me. It's a place I can write about the stupidest or most profound things, and it has actually inspired some of these blog entries. It's like a rough draft for here, and if it doesn't make the cut, what the hell I still got it on paper; I still got the experience from the very act of writing. It doesn't all have to make it here, indeed, a lot of it is just getting my thoughts straight about my ideas, and I think it may actually help my writing not be so jumpy. I tend to figure things out as I write and that makes it difficult to follow from a readers point of view, but with my journal, if I have an idea or thought about something I can write it, expand it, change it all I want and then when I come here to actually express my thoughts they're more thought out.

As you can probably tell this isn't one of those that came from my journal, but hell writing by hand is also really, really hard. I find that with my sloppy handwriting two pages is maybe a page typed up. It's a slow, tedious process, but it's actually enjoyable. I also have the selfish idea in my head that, like some great authors, in the distant future my journal may even be published. It's silly, I know that, but I also feel that this blog may even be published! We'll see what happens! Besides you never know, something like this may actually be popular, I don't know why, but people are strange creatures.

Failure

I began this summer as a bright eyed optimist, having so many plans, so many goals, so much to do! Alas procrastination kicked in, followed by degradation brought on by my failures both physically and emotionally. Why is it that it is so easy for us to make these goals, have these plans, and aspirations if we know without a shadow of a doubt that we'll only fail? Why are we so enthralled by the idea of becoming better, but never actually following through? Is it just the idea of making something of yourself that gives your ego that extra boost to get you through whatever slump you're in? Or is it simply our nature to want to be better, promise ourselves to be better, and by doing so enable ourselves to put it off with idiotic excuses? "I want to get in shape, but school and work has just taken too much; it's too hot; I don't feel good." "I want to be a better student, but my teacher is an idiot and doesn't know what they're talking about; I have better things to do than stupid homework; oh I'll just do it tomorrow."

The worst part about the whole thing is how easy it is for us to say one thing and do nothing. In everything. Whether it is life, love, or anything in between. Not only that, but then it hits you and you actually realize that you're wasting your life. You're not doing what you want to do; you're avoiding situations that might actually make you a better person. That hurts. Waking up every day knowing that you're just another worker bee with hollow goals and moronic dreams. Is it possible to be too ambitious, but without the talent to make anything of those ambitions? For me this idea has struck home, hard, over the past few weeks. Although I'm doing well in my English class, I am once again confronted by my pure lack of math abilities. Perhaps I just have a mental block when it comes to math; psychologically it's proven that if you believe something long enough it becomes your reality, but do I want to put it off as easily as that? Am I really so controlled by my unconscious that I am mentally and physically at a standstill? I go off on how life isn't fair and how I hate this or that, but what am I really doing with my life? Nothing. At least that's how it feels to me. I have all these dreams, I have all these needs of being amazing, of doing something important, to be recognized, but yet I refuse to put any effort into my own life. How is it that someone can be so ambitious yet so unmotivated? It just doesn't work. The whole situations leads to failure and disappointment, common themes in my life, and yet, even with this knowledge I still do nothing. I don't pursue my dreams, I don't work at my classes, I don't try and better myself mentally much less physically, and top of that I'm a bitter wreck. I criticize people better than me, I'm surrounded by them. All of my friends are talented, smart, and actually making something of themselves. This should motivate me, this should make me strive to better myself, but I'm so bitter and jealous I find myself thinking it's not worth it. Why should I pursue this or that when my friends can all do it far better than I can? But this isn't a healthy way of thinking, I know that, I realize it, but how do I stop it?

I say old euphemism "acceptance is the first step to recovery" more often than not in an ironic almost sarcastic sort of way, but is it true? It may be relative, works for some people, but not for everyone perhaps. I find that knowing I'm a failure and even accepting it doesn't do jack for me. In fact, more often than not it just depresses me and forces me to seek comfort in another or in one of my books. I then forget my failures for hours, days, maybe a week, but sooner or later it hits me again and I'm just as depressed and bitter as I ever. Am I just masochistic? Do I need to cause myself heartache and pain in order to live? Maybe I'm just punishing myself for not doing what I hope to do. For not being the person I know I could be. I don't commit to the philosophical ideal of determinism. I do not believe that we're set for life the minute we're born, that some so called "God" has a plan for each and every one of us, I believe that if you work for it you can do anything you want. It is somewhat naive here in America where the rich can do whatever they want regardless of talent, skill, or work. But I really do believe that you can be whoever you want to be if you put your mind to it. So what do I want to be? I don't even know. I'm currently aiming for medical school for Psychiatry, but who am I kidding? Just like my idiotic ideas of being an astrophysicist that I stuck to throughout high school, I don't believe I have the talent to become the kind of psychiatrist I want to be. Perhaps I need to learn to settle on being mediocre, but in a country that spouts free will and stories of rags to riches how can anyone honestly be happy just being? I want to be something, I want to be someone.

Even still I know that I am not. I will never live up to the goals I have set for myself. I will never be a Martin Luther King Jr., a John F. Kennedy, a Ghandi, or even looking at it the other way a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any other hero or villain throughout history. Why am I so obsessed with being a one in a million, why do I have to be special in anyway? Why can't I just accept and be happy with who I am? I have my talents, sort of, I read a lot and have an amazing comprehension, I mean there are millions of people in the world that don't even know how to read. That should be something I can be proud of, yet I can't. It's not good enough. I'm not good enough. The saying "The grass is always greener on the other side" is so god damn true, and it's awful. I can juggle, I can navigate a computer and other such technology some people aren't comfortable with, I have great friends, an absolutely amazing girlfriend, but yet I want more. I want to be acknowledged for something. All of my "talents" are nothing more than slightly above average, all of my friends can rape me at juggling, I know several people that are better readers than I am, my writing is ghastly compared to my friends, and every other thing I might pride myself on I know someone who does it that much better than me. Even if I were to be better than my friends at something, anything, there is going to be someone out there who's even better at it than I am. Whether it is due to talent or unimaginable devotion it doesn't matter, they're out there. Sure I can become a psychiatrist, but I'll never be a Freud. I can become a physicist, but never an Einstein. A politician even, but never a JFK. Hell even my half assed attempts at being a radical are failures when it comes right down to it, I mean really, picketing for prairie dogs? No wonder no one gave a shit. All of my passions, chess, writing, juggling, reading, psychology, all of them are going to be utter disappointments because of my inability to settle for what I have. It's not fair. It just isn't! Why are some people gifted with the ability to be amazing authors or world class chess players? Why are some people just naturally better than others at things, but I'm not naturally good at ANYTHING. You would think that with almost 7 billion people on this earth that I would have a chance to be decent at something. I would be able to handle decent at something, to have a talent for something. But there isn't one thing in this world that I'm even remotely talented at. I have to work at everything, I have to work at my job to make the a living when people are born into shitloads of money; I have to work at school when plenty of people just coast through without a care and still pull all A's; I have to work at everything I do and even still I come up short of the average. I'm subpar on everything: math, English, writing, chess, athletics, even my god damn people skills suck. I alienate my friends, push away my family, and fight with my girlfriend all for ridiculous reasons. Just because I suck at life doesn't mean I should take it out on everyone else who'd actually succeeding, but I'm jealous. It's not fair, none of it.

So I sit here and instead of trying to do something with myself, anything at all, I complain. Just like I complain about everything else. Granted my complaints about religion, politics, and utter stupidity I think are actually justified, this is just plain and simple venting. I apologize to those that might actually read this, though they are few. I make myself out to be a strong willed, morally sound person in my posts, and if I let you down then I did. It's no big deal; I disappoint everyone I care about and most of all myself. Still I know I won't do anything, I won't actually pursue my random interests, but what does it matter? Once I become decent at whatever it is I get into in the future, I'll just find someone out there that's far superior than I am. Until I become something I don't know how to cope with myself. Maybe that's the reason I read so much, I'm living vicariously through the characters, and somewhat through the author. While I read the world disappears and I'm actually someone, I'm actually doing something with my life. I strongly believe that if I hadn't met Kimberley I would be a complete and utter recluse at this point. I more than likely would have dropped out, spent all my money on books, food, and other such material things, but luckily I found her. And amazingly she loves me as I love her! She's the most important thing in my life and I can't imagine a world without her at this point. When I read I may lose myself, but she's always the lighthouse guiding me home when I'm lost in the fog of my mind. She pulls me out of my slumps, makes me believe in myself, and I do believe that someday, with her help, I will become something. I no doubt will have to settle, because even statistically those one of a kind people are the rarest of rare: products of their time, their environment, their genes, and their genius. Slowly I'm trying to be a better person, I haven't missed one class this summer, I plan on doing the same this coming fall, and hopefully even with my poor math skills I will pull my ass outta this funk and pass, not only that understand. For now, thank you for bearing with me. I have no reason to post this, I should probably put it in my journal where only she and I can read, but I am an attention whore, and although I have no doubt some people will be mean about it. Whatever. I can handle a lot of criticism; I do actually, from everyone for everything, and myself. And honestly no matter what anyone thinks or says it's not as bad as my own inner voice.