"I am at a loss to conceive how a man should permit himself to write anything that would be truly disgraceful to a woman, or why a woman should be censured for writing anything that would be proper and becoming for a man."

30 September 2010

Snobby Pontificators and the Societal Zombie Plague

This article both inspires and infuriates me: Are Our Writers As Lousy As Our Bankers?

Within my fury comes the desire to counter and respond, because while I agree with the assessment of the current psuedo-intellectual trend in literature and art that ultimately is devolving 'high art,' it assumes the only art IS high art. Yet in order to define that which is 'high' from that which is (to use the phraseology of dear Uncle Stevie's mother) 'trash,' you place on a pedestal your own assumptions of what constitutes genius, and willfully dismiss anything that does not fit into your narrow-minded ideal of artistic mecca.
I do love the title 'Urban Intellectual Fodder' and agree with the style it describes, and the type of people who devour it. I also agree that art as a whole is on a downslide, a fact that can be attributed to a world with a disparate polarity between those who don't want to think and those who only think they want to think -- and trapped in a suffocating underworld, those who want to think AND feel and are being pressed down into near oblivion.
However, where I take issue is the assumption that one person's thought and emotion mean less, or have less long-reaching social impact, than someone else's. The Beatles were once little more than the 'NSync of their day. Bergman, while brilliant, is not perfection. Faulkner... well, let's just say I understand the appeal, but for me he's a pompous, over-wordy snob (this from someone whose favorite writing era is Victorianism). Yet he did write with passion, which counts for a lot.
This is where the analysis of 'real art' in this article's argument falls apart for me, because what strikes someone in the emotional chest, makes them gasp or scream, and/or makes them rethink the world, is different for everyone. Creating your own arbitrary standard of 'real art' only applies to you, and perhaps a group of others who have a similar aesthetic. Not that groups of people embracing their ideas about art, literature and culture should not be formed and encouraged, but doing so to the exclusion of all other forms of creative material adds to the detriment of art as much as Urban Intellectual Fodder.
Granted, I give the writer credit for admitting scruples and snobbery, but the intensity of feeling which accompanies such snobby opinions ultimately lends itself to turning away people who the 'true intellectuals' and 'appreciators of real art' deem as having lower cultural standards than themselves. While 'high' art and literature certainly has its place in society, and a much needed one, it is not necessarily the most valuable form of art. Some of what is now considered in some circles to be the best, most brilliant and affecting works of all time were either completely ignored in their time OR considered to the the 'pop' art of their period.
Now, if you want to make an argument that popular arts have taken a dive, I'm pretty much on that bandwagon. I also agree (to an extent) that high-brow forms of art have disintegrated, for the most part, into Urban Intellectual Fodder. I also agree there are many projects floating around out there which could, potentially, be incredible works but cannot get the funding or attention needed to come to fruition -- this can be blamed on the overarching attitude of 'whateverness' of our culture, and the concept that people want to be seen as supportive of the arts and art funding until it's a project which requires them to think or feel or express beyond their comfort zone -- or that of the drooling, teeming masses who only want more escapist 'reality' TV or to be instructed what to read by Oprah or plunk down $20 on popcorn and a remake that's a shadow of its source material, because none of those options require effort from us.
We're zombiefying ourselves with 'art' and the cultural height of said art is less relevant than the fact that we're training ourselves to not think or feel.

21 September 2010

Blog Sprint

This blog currently has no focus, which I only state to warn you that I have no idea what it may turn into. So what's the purpose of this entry? To write and keep writing.

See, when you're a participant in NaNoWriMo, the internet bestowed this miraculous and devilish networking tool on us called Twitter. Through Twitter emerged writing encouragement from the good people in NaNoLand in the form of word sprints. Since NaNo is centered around word counts, sprints came along to help people crank out words (sometimes a specified goal, sometimes not) in a certain amount of time.
While this is an extremely useful tool during NaNo month, it's also good for writing in general. So many times writers sit in front of their screens or notebooks or typewriters (yes, some people still use them) staring, seemingly, into space. For those who aren't or don't know writers, this staring does not equate to, say, a dog gazing at the wall for no particular reason, or a bored teenager in physics class daydreaming of being anywhere but physics class (or school period). When a writer stares off into space it's typical that the writer is conversing with a voice -- or voices -- inside their head, attempting to cull inspiration from the depths of the mind and translate that inspiration into words. Anyone who's needed to come up with a speech or announcement in a very short amount of time under immense pressure has an inkling of what this feels like.
None of this is original in concept. As long as there have been writers there has been writer's block. What I love about word sprints is they give you a deadline -- without pressure. Your goal is to write as much as you can, but no one says it has to be brilliant or original with perfect spelling and grammar. That's what editing is for. The point is to write and write and write until your fingers ache, whatever enters your mind, and then stop.
Some people don't work well in those situations, but I think it's more beneficial than detrimental to any writer. As with the general idea of National Novel Writing Month, the point is not perfection or completion but creating something from nothing, and dedicating a specified time of your life to it in order to end up with something that would not exist without your dedication to the project. This type of creative push can be applicable for all types of creative endeavors. Any kind of artistic venture carries its own style of writer's block as part of the package. What kind of music could be created if people took occasional composing sprints? What might be painted or sketched in a canvas sprint? What might be captured on film during camera sprints (an idea which forms many 24 or 48 hour film festivals)? What theatre might be created during a Fast and Loose adventure? If you're a creative type, next time you see one of these pop up, stop thinking about all the ways it can't work for you, and just go for it. Creating, unlike some aspects of 'real life,' carries much less risk for trying. Other than a bit of time, you have nothing to lose.

See, twenty minutes of sprinting and I created a blog that I otherwise may never have gathered the thoughts to compose... and in the few minutes it's taken you to read it, I hope you understand the benefit in just trying. Despite what Yoda says, when it comes to creating, 'try' can be a powerful force on its own, leading to much more doing.

20 September 2010

Reasons to 'like' the Interwebs

I realize I've been very 'down with the internet' recently when it comes to books, reading and writing. So today I'd like to take a moment and address somethings I love about the internet when it comes to these categories. For as much as I might rant and rail about the perils of too much technology, there exist some pretty damn awesome sites and resources online that would otherwise never be available to us. (Also, I'm going to leave off The Twitter on this post. It has its own advantages and pitfalls that deserve their own recognition at a different time)
Here are just a few that I love. If you have others, please feel free to comment!

What it's for - Keeping an online catalog, or bookshelf, of books which can vary from books you have read or want to read to very specific, user-designed shelves for whatever you wish.
What else is cool - Goodreads now has authors involved with the site to follow and connect with, as well as other members across the world. There are various quizzes and polls to partake in and create. There are also book swaps and giveaways, and even meet-ups organized for some cities.
The downsides - Like any social networking site if you choose to be searchable by anyone, you can be found by anyone. However, you can lock your account down as well. Though in the reading/writing community I'm more apt to add someone who shares similar interests than on most sites. Some aspects of the site are difficult to navigate, but overall it is pretty intuitive.

What it's for - The mecca of online shopping. Amazon is responsible for fueling and destroying the publishing industry.
What is cool - The wishlist will always be my go-to place for tracking items I want. It's also very user-friendly in terms of navigation and typically has the most detailed descriptions and reviews of any other site.
The downsides - see above re: destruction of publishing industry. It also can be a little too overwhelming with all the information. And if that homepage tries to shove a Kindle down my throat one more time I may vomit.

Writer's Digest:
What it's for - The official site for the main writers' magazine in the US. Designed to help writers learn, explore, craft, network and get work.
What else is cool - Their email newsletters are incredibly helpful and cram a lot of great information and links into a digestible space. I have yet to be able to afford one of their webinars, but many of them look very helpful
The downsides - As a subscription-based magazine there is some 'members only' content unavailable to us poor folk. Also, it is a MASSIVE resource site and thus navigating and finding what you want can be a little difficult This is why I love the emails, because those break great sections down into smaller bits that are linked to for easier resource-finding.

National Novel Writing Month:
What it's for - As the title states... writing a novel in the span of only one month. November, every year, to be exact. The site focuses on uniting participants in this crazy undertaking to assist them in writing and connect them so they can help each other.
What else is cool - Municipal liaisons for many major cities/areas who organize meet-ups and write-ups during the month. Word sprints on Twitter. Encouraging pep talks by the staff AND famous (often participating) authors. Areas on the site specifically designed to help break writer's block and/or give a little distraction when it hits. The terrifying concept of writing a novel in 30 days and the exhilaration of finishing it.
The downsides - The site isn't always reliable and can crash at peak times (i.e. at the very beginning and very end of the month). The terrifying concept of writing a novel in 30 days.

As a side note, I've participated in NaNoWriMo three years, and 'won' two of those years ('winning' means you wrote 50,000+ words in 30 days. It does not mean you have a finished, publishable work, but it does mean you cranked out the equivalent of a novel in only one month). Whether I participate this year or use the month to perform serious edits on the two books I've previously scribed I have not yet decided, but my advice to anyone contemplating participation is this: whatever excuse or reason you think you have to NOT participate is not viable. NOTHING, save the inability to type, is an excuse to not try. You are the only blocker to not trying and only you can tell yourself to get over whatever obstacles you think exist and just do it. Whatever happens, whether you 'win' or not, you will have written something that otherwise may never have been written. You have nothing to lose, at all (except perhaps some sleep and a social life, both of which are overrated), and everything to gain.

19 September 2010

Eventually, you do plan to have books in your bookstore, right?

Am I the only one becoming increasingly disheartened at the lack of book selection in bookstores?
Sure, my standards are a little high seeing as how I grew up in bookstores. No hyperbole in this instance -- I literally grew up spending a significant portion of my formative years in my local college bookstore, used bookstores, new bookstores, libraries, book fairs, etc. Not to mention my family's living and dining rooms are basically libraries with cushy seating, a dining table and a TV. Moving into my own places did not diminish the need to surround myself with books, either.
So it is with much dismay that the past year or so each time I walk into a bookstore, especially a big box chain, I find fewer books and more 'stuff.' Stuff ranges from e-readers to larger cafe space to expanded DVD and/or magazine sections and, even moreso, pointless tacky gift sections. I mean, I like a good one of these, but not to buy... and certainly not to buy in a bookstore.
Case in point: I entered a local big-box store on a whim during lunch the other day. It occurred to me that a new novel by Cornelia Funke came out this week, so I eagerly meandered to the children's section to find it. Alas, while there were copies of the Inkheart trilogy, and one copy of The Thief Lord, no new book could be discovered. Upon returning to a computer I investigated further, only to find Reckless out of stock at 3/4 of this bookstore's locations in the greater Los Angeles area.
This woman is one of the top current children's authors. Her books have been put onto film (where many good books go to die). She lives in California. Yet in one of the largest metropolitan cities in the country, her book is not stocked on its first week of release in 75% of stores. Granted, a search at another major retailer shows the book as in stock, but when you're talking about billion-dollar stores that can't even be bothered to stock a new release from a popular author because they have to sell more Kindlenookreaders... it makes me want to scream and cry and throw up a little all at once, and it's not entirely the fault of the retailer -- it's our fault.
Now, my own personal issues with electronic readers aside, my major complaint here is that in an industry that is already struggling not just because of advanced technology, but because of a country that is increasingly interested in getting everything instantaneously and not having to put thought into any activity or be culpable for any action, we decide to remedy this problem by feeding the masses what they think they want. We push upon them this magic box which condenses a real, physical experience into a flat tome that delivers the same words to our eyes, but not the same experience.
Yes, I admit it, as a paragon of anti-snobbery, I have just proclaimed myself a book snob. Why? Because for me, putting a book into a tiny computer does not make it more accessible. It makes it less valuable. We already put so little emphasis on the power of reading and excitement of what the right words can do to people, and now we are taking the only lasting, physical evidence of a book's power and transferring it to a tablet of plastic and metal in which the book only exists when you call upon it. Books don't work like that. They exist whether you're around or not. They whisper when you aren't there (and often when you are, if you're keen enough to listen). Their physical presence in your hands demands you attention and you must perform a physical act to stop reading, close the book and put it away -- not just tap a screen. It requires thought and energy both to read and cease reading.
All this brings me back to the simple point that without physical books in bookstores we are disengaging ourselves from the activity of experiencing a book and engaging in the passivity of just reading words scrolling across a screen. In doing that we diminish the power of the books and the publishing industry suffers... but so do our minds because reading should be a sense-memory activity like exercise. The more we plug ourselves into electronic boxes of any kind, the more our bodies and minds pay the price.
So get out there, visit your local bookstore, whether it be chain or independent, new or used... or hey, even go to a library. Ignore the shiny electronics and accessories being offered, walk past all the knick knacks, resist the urge to plop down in the cafe with your laptop or iPad or netbook and check facebook for the 200th time today, and spend some quality time communing with the books. Pick them up, feel them, flip through the pages, smell them, enjoy the sensation of caressing the leaves and the cover. Then, when you're ready (and this may take a few visits to acclimate yourself to the idea), take one home with you and read it. The book will thank you for it, and so will your mind.

14 September 2010

Holy Vampires, Jarvis!

Herein begineth my assessment of the Priest trailer...

The opening shots look like Equilibrium meets Blade Runner... with clergy.

First lines: I come before you because I need my authority reinstated. This was a vampire attack.

So we learn:
a) Paul Bettany is a fallen priest. I have ideas on how this happened, though likely the real reason is not so sexy and sordid as I would like to imagine...
b) 'Priest' in this world = sanctified vampire slayer
c) Vampires = evil

All of these facts pique my interest, so I don't need much more convincing to see this movie, but there's two minutes of preview left.

Cue said vampire attack featuring a Sookeh-less Stephen Moyer trying to protect his family, though his screaming daughter seems to indicated he is made of fail in this situation.

Cue VO by Christopher Plummer (now becoming interchangeable with Max von Sidow, which I don't think is bad for either of them) as the head bishop/pope/guru stating how all the people are so safe and trusting that the clergy do all they can to protect them from the horrible vampires (thus confirming the 'priest as sanctified slayer' status).
Horrible Vampires, btw, that seems to resemble elongated cousins of Gollum. Far more evil and therefore likely more enjoyable than mopey vampires, but not nearly as hot.

Pope Plummer threatens excommunication and exile of (massively ripped... semi-tanned... nubile........ I'm back) Priest Bettany if he decides to take slaying matters into his own throwing-star crosses. Thus, Emo Preist and his face-splaying cross-tattoo climb on his futuristic Harley and like a cowboy on the Batbike he's off into the unknown to dust some vamps.
Apparently joined by the requisite Hot Asian Babe, Hot Young Blonde and Really F-in Hot Borderline-Nutjob Rogue, they travel into the heart of Gollumvampland in search of revenge and sexy time.

See above re: vampires not being hot in this film. It is more than made up for by Emo Priest and BN Rogue (and for those who enjoy Asian chicks and Cam Gigandet, they're in it too). The costumer seems to have reached into the illustrations of The Dark Tower and pulled out Roland's clothes for Karl Urban to get his psycho-sexual-rogue on in... and yes, I am one of those people with a 'hot priest' fetish. You've got some random costume exciter in your fantasies as well, so don't judge. Thus, Bettany in priest garb, even with the giant facial henna cross makes any of the cheesetastic, groan-inducing potential of this flick obsolete. I mean, I actually enjoyed Legion so I think this will suit my need for another ass-kicking, ripped-Bettany ride just fine.

13 September 2010

A Beautiful Dark Mind Tower?

They're really doing it. They're really making a film/tv adaptation of The Dark Tower series.

I'm not even sure I can form coherent thoughts regarding this development, but I shall try.
I want to jump for joy and flail about in fangirlish glee over the fact that after years of quasi-development someone finally got their mitts on the rights to the Dark Tower series and is tackling it in a logical way: films AND television.
My opinion has always been that the series would be an awesome spectacle on the big screen, but would have to be a larger undertaking than even The Lord of the Rings... which might be impossible. I've since held that the way to 'do it right' would be to divide the series into a few short-run series 'seasons' on HBO, Showtime, Starz... one of the pay cable channels where they can be as violent and sexy and profane as King wrote and also have the budget to pull off all the fantastic elements. It looks like we're trying to strike a balance between the two, and I wish Universal success and hope it does not bankrupt them.

Here's what I AM excited about:
Including Roland's backstory via what's touched on in The Wizard and The Glass and expanded on in the comic series.
Covering, hopefully, the entirety of the series in a format that allows the inclusion of all the good stuff (of which there is much).
Something on such an epic scale that provides me with years of something to obsess over an geek out about (much like The Lord of the Rings trilogy).
Roland Deschain 'in person' as an actual physical being. 'Nuff said.

Here's what's potentially terrifying:
Poor casting choices. Howard's very hit and miss with this. Something it's great, sometimes there's someone awesome on tap and they get turned down in favor of someone not nearly as right for the role. In this situation, for this series, I will go all kinds of fangirl apeshit if the right people are not found for Roland (young and old), Eddie, Susannah, Jake, Flagg, or Callahan. And Uncle Stevie better be Uncle Stevie.
Forcing CGI where other alternatives would be better placed. This is a general fear I have of late, but especially when it comes to epic fantasy/horror/adventure... of which this is all three.
Ron Howard. I'm sorry, but the man is an emotional dead weight when it comes to filmmaking. He's got good ideas and executes technically cool films... sometimes... but they can be be the dullest, most unemotional movies ever. If that happens to this series, there are going to be a ton of pissed off King fans gunning for him and Universal. I mean, we're not talking about The Dark Half or Desperation here... or even 'Salem's Lot. This is the magnum-frigging-opus of King's career -- his LotR, his Narnia, his Golden Compass series as only King could envision.

I truly am excited at the prospect of this project; I'm just worried about the execution. So if anyone out there has the power and needs any kind of consultant on how to make this series emotionally engaging, well cast, and not made of suck, I'm here.

(Sidenote: I saw the trailer for Priest -- comments to come -- can we please work Paul Bettany and Karl Urban into this Dark Tower mix?)

12 September 2010

"Kiss me or kill me. Which will it be, Damon? We both know you're only capable of one."

At the risk of exposing myself as a helpless vampire junkie, I'd like to take a moment to explain why I'm hooked on The Vampire Diaries.
To preface: I have not read the books, and honestly from reading the breakdowns on the back of each novel, I'm not terribly tempted. There's something about this series that, for me, requires seeing people enact the ridiculous premise... and it's worth it. Yes, it's cheesy, though it has improved over time (not as quickly or to the level that some would have you believe. I make no allusions that it's a great show, or even a solid show. It's a good show most of the time, and holds more eye candy than a Halloween trick-or-treating pumpkin holds mini jawbreakers). Yes, it's obvious most of these actors couldn't pass for college students IRL much less high schoolers. Yes, the show is often great one moment and terrible the next -- and home to some spectacular overacting. However, all of this is surpassed by the following: it's sexy, it's actually scary sometimes, it's paced extremely well, it's sexy, it's funny, the cast is obviously enjoying themselves, it's sexy, vampires are actually villains who kill people and even the good guys -- vampire or human or other -- are all flawed... and did I mention it's sexy? Yes, I am partial to the naughty Salvatore brother (aka Damon, aka Boone from LOST) and he's by far the driving sexual force in the show, but really there's someone for all tastes (or was until they started killing off the Asians, but hopefully they'll repopulate).
For all The Vampire Diaries' silliness and wacky antics, why do I return week after week? I wish I could claim my love for vampire-related media causes an inherent drive to continue viewing, despite knowing there are far better ways to indulge in vampire 'culture.' I mean, that's what obsessions are for, right? *sigh* No, my obsession with this show ties into something far more primal. It's Damon.
From about the midway point of last season, after I'd already accepted that my addiction to this show would not be abating anytime soon, I pondered what kept me coming back. Every time I contemplated this, I got the same answer: Damon is the new Spike. There, I said it. I've been saying it for several months now, just not so publicly. Damon's character is selfish, manipulative, calculating, unpredictable, violent, unstable, insanely good looking... and yet capable of deep emotions -- deeper in most cases than those of who he's chosen to associate with -- sound familiar? He's the bad boy, but he's the bad boy you want to have screw you, then screw you over, and if he ends up killing you, oh well -- at least you had a go with him a few times. He's deliciously evil in every sense of the phrase. I want Damon to develop a bit more of a conscience, but not much, because if he becomes too self-aware and involved emotionally in the torment he wreaks on other people he'll turn into an emo-vamp (like Edward Cullen or Angel or Louis) and there's no fun in that. The fun is in the unabashed, unapologetic nature of a vampire who is just as likely to kill you as kiss you -- unless he really loves you. Following the analogy this might seem to equate Elena/Katherine to Drusilla, but sorry ladies, you're just not that interesting. Though an argument could be made for Elena equating to Buffy. She's got her hunk of remorseful love Stefan (Angel), and the badass who starts out gunning for her and end up falling for her in Damon (again, sound familiar?).
With such a comparison one might be tempted to yawn themselves away from what may be seen as a retread of better vampire shows. I'm not here to argue that The Vampire Diaries ranks at or above a show like Buffy, and I never will. The fact remains, however, that it's been a long time coming (especially with the Anne Rice-inspired Twilight insanity) since we've had a vampire character capable of being good when it suits him but at his core is not a good man -- and yet the audience still loves him. I didn't even vote in the Entertainment Weekly poll for best 'sexy beast' (and in a poll that included David Tennant's Doctor I would not have voted for anyone BUT him) yet Damon topped everyone. Everyone. He surpassed Hugh Jackman, Taylor Lautner AND RPatz. So it ain't just me loving on the evil hotness, or expressing a modicum of shame at admitting to preferring (at least fictionally) the bad boy to the good one, but momma needs her Spike fix, and Damon as Spike 2.0 feeds that addiction very well.

08 September 2010

Conflicting Joneses

I miss the days when searching 'Terry Jones' on Google first brought up the brilliant, hilarious Python historian, not some authentic wacko that gives anyone who reads a bible or owns a gun a bad name.
Now, I'm not going to get on a political or religious pedestal here, because I do that so rarely in general (at least out loud), but I will get on an English major high horse about book burning in general.
As a lover and great respecter of literature, I do what most intelligent, self-respecting (and self-deprecating) people do with the things they love: I get very animated when I come across a piece of the cross-section of whatever that infuriates me. So I occasionally make jokes about wanting to wipe every copy of certain books off the face of the planet, burning included. However, I do this with the hope that those who share in that love understand I'm making an exaggeration and that while there are scenes of sweet revenge in Jane Bites Back against the Bronte sisters that I say I would love to perpetuate myself, I would never actually engage in the burning of books OR their authors.
That being said, there's a massive difference between ranting amongst colleagues and friends and making a public display of being a first-class douchebag who actually believes that certain books, ANY books, should be burned as an affirmation of their inherent damaging effects on society.
For my geek self, whenever I hear of mind-blocked nut jobs and their sheep engaging in activities like that of Mr. 'Pastor' Ass-hat Jones, the voice of Sean Connery enters my head, stating with perfect clarity in regards to fascist attitudes and actions: It tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.
The problem with this Jones' argument is that sometimes the goose-stepping morons have read the books they intend to burn, but have done so without thought to context or symbolism... especially when it comes to religious texts. Yes, the argument could be made that indoctrinated literature at its root spurs people to act violently against those who do not believe as they do, but that's a very narrow-minded view of religious texts AND as stated previously, I'm not getting into a socio-religious discussion here... primarily because those tend to reek so heavily of snobbery, which I generally abhor. The point is: when some people read they still don't comprehend, for a number of reasons. Yet their stupidity and intolerance will always be supported by another person who lacks the ability to either draw their own conclusions, or has arrived at the same misguided conclusions as their fellow ranter. Get enough of these people together and suddenly there's a mob of goose-stepping morons burning books... or gun-toting Bible-thumpers... or some other radical hoard of brainwashed fanatics clinging to the idea that their narrow-minded, bigoted view of the world is how everyone should see it -- or burn.

05 September 2010

Phonely... I'm so phonely

Well, it is September, thus the horridness of August should be behind me. And it (sort of) is, excepting the fact that my phone decided it does not care to work for me and so quit life. For someone who once shunned the idea of iPods and audiobooks and still cringes at the Kindle, my dependency on handheld technology for theatre and life is scary. I feel as if a part of myself has been torn from my side and I no longer remember how to converse with people outside of texts, keypad emails and social networking. I mean, speak to someone face to face? Type out a long email? Pshaw!
In less than three weeks I became a Droid Junkie and have now lost my source for a fix. It's rather terrifying how hooked I became on that adorable little scrap of plastic, metal and wires. It's almost more horrific how slow life moves without the constant stimulation... not to mention how many people are emailing me expecting me to answer questions to which I would have an answer by now if I had the ability to actually call and talk to another being. This is quickly becoming an exercise in patience for more than just myself... which I suppose is actually a good thing. The eerie speed at which I became plugged into that device and used it to rely on, well, everything extends to people I communicate with as well, and that my friends makes us all little tech junkies.
My proposal for the remainder of this Labor Day weekend: trust that you will acquire all information you need at the time you need it. The universe shall provide answers when necessary (and likely not before). And if you find yourself getting aggravated or frustrated with the lack of speed and efficiency with which ANYTHING is being accomplished or communicated, think back on the old days before cell phones, email, 3G networks, streaming Netflix, instant downloads, and all the technological advances of the last 10-15 years we now take for granted. Contemplate the days when people had to pick up a landline phone to call someone, and if no one was home, or the line was busy, they simply had to wait and call back later. Imagine a world where if you wanted to get together with friends you had to plan trips weeks, if not months, in advance and had to communicate all details via handwritten letters.
If this does not give you temporary pause and (hopefully) cause you to slow down a little and appreciate what advantages we now have at our fingertips, or worse you cannot fathom these things, maybe it's time for your iDrone or Crackberry or laptop and you to take a vacation from each other for a couple days. Go outside, take a walk, or maybe even read a book. A real one. With pages and print that are physically present and not just converted ones and zeros made to look like a book with text.
While I realize the contradiction in proclaiming this over a blog that I will selfishly promote across the interwebs, once this entry is pimped I am going to sort laundry, pick up clothes, possibly wash some dishes and yes, go read a book.

More Like This: