skip to main |
skip to sidebar
While on my family-visiting tour of the midwest, I decided to take the Lake Express ferry between Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Muskegon, Michigan. A two and a half hour boat trip across the rather impressive-looking Lake Michigan in a car-carrying catamaran powered by four 3000hp engines.
Hey, look. It's Wisconsin:
And Michigan:
The first trip on the ferry was a little rough. The lake was very choppy, which made for more than a few very sick passengers. I had taken a precautionary Dramamine, so it was a little uncomfortable once or twice, but I got to keep my lunch. (P.S. The staff seemed unfazed and--from what I saw--very helpful to those who needed it.)
And in case of other kinds of emergencies:
I leaned over the side for this shot and got a face full of spray and chilly wind. :)
Speaking of chilly wind, here's the top of the boat while going full speed (about 34 knots or just shy of 40 mph):
I have to say that it beats sitting in Chicago traffic. Although, that's probably debatable for some.
My Twitter friend @invisiblecircus recently introduced me to a website called GoodReads, and I am all but addicted!
You can post status updates, what you're currently reading and what page you're on, and you can "add" friends, but my favorite part is browsing the books and rating them. I think of it as an amalgam of Facebook and Netflix for bookworms. (FaceWorms.net? Probably not as viable a name.)
I'm not as much about collecting friends on GoodReads as I'm using it as a catalogue for my extensive reading list, past and future. But I love seeing what other people are reading and rating, so I'm sure that will change. I'm "following" Neil Gaiman's posts on there as well, which is pretty cool. And there are other features I've not yet tried, such as a place to post your musings/poetry/stories/whatever, but since I already do that here, who knows. (OK, I don't post poetry.) You can also join groups, take quizzes, answer trivia, add events, vote on themes like "Best Books Ever." A big bonus for me was that GoodReads includes graphic novels in its database.
I'm really starting to sound like an ad now, so I'll enter one minor complaint. I had to sign up to really get a good look around. Also bear in mind that I've only been on for a few days--pretty far from qualifying as a power user. But if you consider yourself a power reader, I think it's worth checking out.
Ugh. I concluded with an entirely unintentional library pun. [::facepalm::] I'm leaving it there anyway. :)
OK, who let me play with the vial of colored liquid?
I saw this strip from Jeph Jacques' web comic Questionable Content just after I finished a novel that caused my IQ to recede ever so slightly.
Normally web comics don't appear at such apt times (although xkcd occasionally reads my mind--creeeeeepy). I'm not going to say which book I was reading, but the prose was often pretty close to that which Sven wrote in the QC strip. And my reaction was similar to that of Sven's assistant.
I am no stranger to the difficulty of creating something. Especially creating something that will be generally regarded as good (which is such a maddeningly arbitrary term anyway). I am impressed that somebody--anybody--has the cojones to put out anything they wrote, drew, painted, sculpted, filmed, specifically for the purpose of public scrutiny. It's an amazing leap of faith, so I am disinclined to negatively criticize a person's work openly.
[Aside: Maybe I should start a blog dubbed "The Reluctant Critic." Has that been done?]
The internet, specifically blogs, Twitter, and the like--clearly I am a user--give everyone a podium at which to stand and voice their opinions as anonymously as you like. So, often, I see people just let it out--say some really awful things to each other. And it's disheartening to witness. I can only imagine what the creators are feeling.
Not to say it's always like that, but the positive and/or constructively critical stuff can get utterly overwhelmed by the cruelty. My point is not to stop criticizing honestly, but there has to be better ways of expressing distaste than saying "You suck." (P.S. That's not a criticism, that's an attack.)
It's a cliche to talk about how destroying is infinitely easier than creating, but it's simply true. A second well-known expression apparently needs to be rewritten: If you can't say something nice, post it online.
It's a rare occasion that I go to the movies.
I like my home set-up, can talk at the screen, hit pause, not listen to strangers munch their popcorn, whatever. I pretty much save a theater trip for something that I really want to see big and loud. Star Trek, for example, is a perfect theater choice for me. But there are enough Star Trek reviews for all, and I'm only going to add to its praise, so what I'll write about instead was my theater experience.
The theater itself was pretty normal: ticket takers, popcorn makers, lines at the (women's) restroom. Early to the theater, we had the row to ourselves for a few minutes. Then our neighbors sat down. All was fine, until his first raucous, no holds barred, I just downed a Diet Coke with a beer chaser, BELCH. I wish I was exaggerating.
It wasn't the last of its kind, either. And the sarcastic comments flowed just as freely throughout the evening. I couldn't resist--I had to look over once. You understand, right? My eyes beheld not an unruly teenager (as, I admit, I was expecting) but a grown man on either side of 40. Kind of blew my mind.
In case you're wondering, he did bring a date. And she seemed to find him charming. See? There is someone out there for us all.
On Twitter, when asked what else Dollhouse fans could do to support the show (a question posited by @WhedonTrivia) I suggested that fans of Dollhouse get imprinted with the minds of TV executives and infiltrate FOX in order to give the show a second season. And this is how something like that would most likely go down:
Imagine a network executive team full of rabid Joss Whedon fans. First, Dollhouse would be saved. The fans would cheer. Then, within a season or two, would come a sudden yet inevitable change: the station would be re-branded The JW, and all scripted shows would be written, directed, and/or produced by Joss Whedon. All other time slots would be reruns of Firefly, Buffy, and Angel, and any current (and canceled?) shows starring Whedonverse actors. Movies of the week would all, naturally, be from Joss' resume.
Would his fans then be satisfied? Never! Soon, a faction of extremists would locate dissenters and imprint them with an insatiable need for complex storytelling and character development, ideally in an ensemble cast format with at least one strong female lead. Statues would be erected in Joss' Robot Chicken likeness. The Whedon Dollar would go into circulation: In Joss We Trust. Many would do the Dance of Joy. Daily speech would get all... evolvey.
Joss help us all.
I love Susan Boyle in this video on Britain's Got Talent. At the same time, I find it rather disturbing.
I'll just go right to the million dollar question: Why are we not universally bothered by good-looking people who have no discernible talents, yet so shocked when someone who's not a typical beauty demonstrates a great gift?
As if her outer appearance has anything to do with her vocal chords. Or her mind. Or her as a person.
This, of course, is something we all know--or it's at least a concept we've heard of somewhere in our childhoods--but the first few minutes of that video is a shameful display of judging someone by personal appearance where appearance is not supposed to be the point. (The teenager rolling her eyes? I've seen Simon Cowell do that before, too.) I mean, it is a talent show, not a beauty contest, right? So while I found it infinitely satisfying when Susan kicked ass on-stage, received a standing ovation, and three "yes" votes from the judges, I was also saddened by the lack of real remorse for our openly biased attitude when it comes to outer beauty. Or perceived lack of it.
I get the cynicism that must come with being a talent judge. But that cynicism is infectious, and it's an attitude that requires little effort, so is easy to adopt. At the same time, once adopted, it's difficult to shake.
The judges showed some humility by (sort of) admitting they were wrong to form their opinions before she sang. The woman judge said it was a "wake-up call," and seemed genuinely ashamed of herself, but I doubt that their collective attitude has really changed beyond Susan Boyle. And until theirs does, I'm afraid we will not do much to change ours either.
I used to be so good about updating this blog, but in the last couple of months I've been uncharacteristically quiet. Part of the reason is that I'm on Twitter more and more--see left--and the rest of the reason toggles between life in the Land of the Unplugged and the fact that I have actual writing projects offline.
This last bit is a big deal for me, as it was the entire impetus for starting this blog in the first place. I wanted to be in the habit of writing, and of thinking about everyday things in a storytelling light. I had hoped that this exercise would inspire me to create fictional narratives, and it did.
I have hopes that at least one of my ideas will culminate in something tangible, like a webcomic or (dare I dream?) something printed on paper and displayed on retail bookshelves. For now, I am very excited to have these things as they are--story fragments scribbled in a nearly full notebook, random sketches, and a mind ready to create.
I finally have a second list of imaginary band names. An ongoing project, I collect phrases I see in magazines or on TV or in movies, or hear in otherwise ordinary conversations. Additions are always welcome, and if your band is already named one of these, post your site in the comments.
1. The Op-Amps
2. Wiki the Weta
3. Tijuana Cats
4. The Eco Yuppies
5. Rainbow Bunting
6. Babies in the Closet
7. Flinging Grapes
8. The Dental Plan
9. Nonconformist Absurdity
10. C-Drive & the Partitions
The primary function of new technology is to make something (presumably) easier, better, faster, or some combination of these.
For example, not everyone has to be physically in the office to have a productive workday. You can make a phone call or send an email from anywhere on the planet that is within range of a cellular tower (if you have the right equipment). With a computer and an internet connection, maybe even a VPN, many could do their entire job in their pjs.
There is a downside to amazing technology. You grow dependent upon it. Spell check has made me a little dumber when left on my own with nothing but a pen and paper. Sometimes I prefer sending an email to calling someone, but that mostly comes down to time. Which, point of fact, is another thing that technology is supposed to do: save us time.
With all the communication technology available, why are so many people still packed in rush hour, hurrying to get to an office we supposedly don't need to occupy? That's probably another post, but the point I'm trying to get to has to do with this social experiment.
So how do we use all the time we're supposedly saving? Well, apparently we're not using it to unplug, relax, feed our souls, smell roses, or listen to beautiful music in a subway.
There are a thousand ways to analyze the results of this experiment. The one I'm going to mention here is that it appears to me that most people are ingrained with the motto "there is a time and a place." A premier musician playing cherished pieces is for Carnegie Hall and the like, not a busy metro. It's likely that many of those who passed him by would have been seated, appropriately full of awe and admiration, at one of his concerts.
I don't think it's necessarily that our society has ceased to love music or enjoy beautiful things, but we are addicted to our plans. If it's not on the itinerary, it's in the way of something that is. So I guess it's that unplanned, spontaneous beauty is second to a scheduled appointment.
It's also likely that if our premier musician had revealed himself, he would have had a bigger audience since most mere mortals can't resist a celebrity sighting. Incognito, he's a bum with a violin.
