I have two words for you:
Imelda Staunton
Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge in the movie adaptation of this book really makes this book, which is overly long and really not the best Harry Potter book in my opinion. However, Imelda Staunton goes a long way to redeeming it.
I believe she is the best portrayed of the ill-fated Defence of the Dark Arts teachers we've had in the movie versions so far, although in the upcoming Half-Blood Prince she may be well-challenged by Alan Rickman when Professor Snape takes the position. I do think Alan Rickman makes a fantastic Snapey ... oooh Professor Snape. Sorry, Dumbledore.
Staunton is admirable, but if you want a really good Staunton movie, go watch the movie adaptation of Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals where she plays Mother. It's a much funnier, quirkier movie and the book is excellent too.
The first problem with the Order of the Phoenix is the book is really far too long, and even Rowling has admitted she could have trimmed it.
Also, the story isn't nearly as riveting.
OK, I liked some of the ideas. The whole take-off of bureacracy with Umbridge's silly self-constraining decrees (and the question whether this would mean she could actually stop people playing Exploding Snap in class because of her own decree), and the sadistic Umbridge quill was pretty good. And the side plotline of abuse of authority through prefects seemed to work too - even if it was a little overplayed.
Cho was wet and annoying, thank goodness Harry seemed to grasp this. And Neville grew up in this one - somthing good to see.
By the end of the book it was more like a trek than anything else - and the problem with the movie was it felt more like a sequence of sketches, rather than a really good, strong, well-developed storyline.
All in all - not a fave Harry Potter of mine and despite being the longest of the lot, one of the more forgettables, to me.
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Out of the Harry Potter movies, I think this is one of the better ones so far. I really rather liked the Philosopher's Stone as a good intro, but Goblet of Fire is probably second on my list. It's a good mixture of light and dark, and while it does cut out heaps from the book, it keeps in the right bits. In my opinion.
When we've got up to Goblet of Fire, Rowling started lashing out. No more Miss Nice Gal - or Miss Pretty Succinct Story Gal. She went the full hog. So the books had to be cut - a lot - for screen or end up with an epic like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind just for one book.
Goblet of Fire is quite a fun book and it has some nice mixtures of dark and light. Of course there is the predictability - we know that Harry's name is going to come out of the Goblet despite the fact that he is restricted from enterinig the competition, so why bother stringing out the process?
The whole idea of the S.P.E.W. (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) was pretty amusing, though possibly a bit overdone. It was a good cultural satire of certain do-gooders who can turn others off, and who may believe they are doing good but are imposing their values on those they wish to help - a sort of "forcing them to be helped by my standards". It was probably wise to leave this secondary theme out of the movie but it was still a good plotline in the book.
As for Cho ... I cannot see what Harry sees in her! Harry shows terrible taste, fortunately he redeems himself later in the series by losing his infatuation. She's a giggly, egocentric, overemotional pain-in-the-butt.
The challenges in the Goblet of Fire are pretty good, satisfyingly dangerous and make for good reading. It's fairly obvious that Harry has been put in the challenge for evil reasons and You-Know-Who is behind the whole thing and Harry will triumph so three more books can be written. However, that doesn't diminish (as it never does in such books/movies) that it's really a great ride just finding out how he accomplishes each feat.
In this book, J.K. Rowling does start killing off characters. In this book it's a fairly minor character, but again, she's not playing Miss Nice Gal any more. In my opinion, the way it ended was "appropriate" and so was the choice of character ... not gratuitous ... and not cheesy. A better ending.
When we've got up to Goblet of Fire, Rowling started lashing out. No more Miss Nice Gal - or Miss Pretty Succinct Story Gal. She went the full hog. So the books had to be cut - a lot - for screen or end up with an epic like Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind just for one book.
Goblet of Fire is quite a fun book and it has some nice mixtures of dark and light. Of course there is the predictability - we know that Harry's name is going to come out of the Goblet despite the fact that he is restricted from enterinig the competition, so why bother stringing out the process?
The whole idea of the S.P.E.W. (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) was pretty amusing, though possibly a bit overdone. It was a good cultural satire of certain do-gooders who can turn others off, and who may believe they are doing good but are imposing their values on those they wish to help - a sort of "forcing them to be helped by my standards". It was probably wise to leave this secondary theme out of the movie but it was still a good plotline in the book.
As for Cho ... I cannot see what Harry sees in her! Harry shows terrible taste, fortunately he redeems himself later in the series by losing his infatuation. She's a giggly, egocentric, overemotional pain-in-the-butt.
The challenges in the Goblet of Fire are pretty good, satisfyingly dangerous and make for good reading. It's fairly obvious that Harry has been put in the challenge for evil reasons and You-Know-Who is behind the whole thing and Harry will triumph so three more books can be written. However, that doesn't diminish (as it never does in such books/movies) that it's really a great ride just finding out how he accomplishes each feat.
In this book, J.K. Rowling does start killing off characters. In this book it's a fairly minor character, but again, she's not playing Miss Nice Gal any more. In my opinion, the way it ended was "appropriate" and so was the choice of character ... not gratuitous ... and not cheesy. A better ending.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Harry Potter books started lighter and kept getting darker. Darker in a kind of grim way, not in a black, delicious, wicked, delight way.
This one rather reminded me of grey skies and I guess that had something to do with the grey skies in the ending scenes of the movie.
Or maybe it was the Dementors draining the happiness out of me?
Yes, this one's the one when lots of new characters and ideas are introduced - one's Dementors which suck happiness out of you. Another few characters are Professor Lupin, the kind werewolf teacher, Sirius Black (the prisoner of Azkaban) and Peter Pettigrew.
I didn't really dislike this book, I just didn't really fall in love with it. While it was darker it wasn't so much fun and it wasn't fantastic with everyone being upset with each other - Hagrid wasn't so happy and people weren't so happy with his class, Hermione was more grouchy, the skies were darker. And there wasn't intrigue or depth to go along with the darkness.
A couple of things to note about the Potter books so far:
Professor Snape: OK, now that I've read the whole series I can say I know Professor Snape isn't the bad guy. But I figured this out from the first book, although the finer details were yet to be revealed. However it gets increasingly annoying to have every single thing revolve around how Harry and Ron and Hermione have to have arguments and suspicions over Snapey. Snape is cool! The more they whinge about Snape and try to blame him for anything and everything, the more I want to crack a broomstick over their heads and award a thousand points to Slytherin!
The Time-Turner: The Time-Turner concept was not bad but the way it was executed in both film and book (which were both differently done, markedly so) was crude. All the obvious and repeated pointers to "How could Hermione have done that, she hasn't done that class yet?" or "She was standing there and now she's standing here" over and over again were so blatant in the book.
And i the movie - when Harry went on about having seen his father save him - the moment it was out of his mouth, before I knew about the time-turner (I saw movie before read book) I said to myself "that was YOU not your Dad". I don't know how all this stuff is so obvious, or maybe I have just read a whole lot of similar books and too many borrow on the same plot devices.
However, I do not see myself as a huge fantasy fiction reader. I read some, I read it if it looks interesting or some if it's recommended, but I am by no means a buff.
So if I could figure that one out - who knows who else did?
This one rather reminded me of grey skies and I guess that had something to do with the grey skies in the ending scenes of the movie.
Or maybe it was the Dementors draining the happiness out of me?
Yes, this one's the one when lots of new characters and ideas are introduced - one's Dementors which suck happiness out of you. Another few characters are Professor Lupin, the kind werewolf teacher, Sirius Black (the prisoner of Azkaban) and Peter Pettigrew.
I didn't really dislike this book, I just didn't really fall in love with it. While it was darker it wasn't so much fun and it wasn't fantastic with everyone being upset with each other - Hagrid wasn't so happy and people weren't so happy with his class, Hermione was more grouchy, the skies were darker. And there wasn't intrigue or depth to go along with the darkness.
A couple of things to note about the Potter books so far:
Professor Snape: OK, now that I've read the whole series I can say I know Professor Snape isn't the bad guy. But I figured this out from the first book, although the finer details were yet to be revealed. However it gets increasingly annoying to have every single thing revolve around how Harry and Ron and Hermione have to have arguments and suspicions over Snapey. Snape is cool! The more they whinge about Snape and try to blame him for anything and everything, the more I want to crack a broomstick over their heads and award a thousand points to Slytherin!
The Time-Turner: The Time-Turner concept was not bad but the way it was executed in both film and book (which were both differently done, markedly so) was crude. All the obvious and repeated pointers to "How could Hermione have done that, she hasn't done that class yet?" or "She was standing there and now she's standing here" over and over again were so blatant in the book.
And i the movie - when Harry went on about having seen his father save him - the moment it was out of his mouth, before I knew about the time-turner (I saw movie before read book) I said to myself "that was YOU not your Dad". I don't know how all this stuff is so obvious, or maybe I have just read a whole lot of similar books and too many borrow on the same plot devices.
However, I do not see myself as a huge fantasy fiction reader. I read some, I read it if it looks interesting or some if it's recommended, but I am by no means a buff.
So if I could figure that one out - who knows who else did?
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Unfortunately, this book is a lot like The Philosopher's Stone except not that much better. In fact it's the same plot structure - Harry against the enemy at school, and a certain teacher who's the foil, a certian teacher who hates him, others he can trust, plus friends and enemies among students ... but it loses the shine of the freshness of the Philosopher's Stone.
The "anagram of Tom Riddle" device is not really very clever.
This book does introduce Ginny Weasley who turns out to be a better character later on in the series. Right now, she's not very interesting. Wait for her to grow up and gain a personality. Oh and it introduces Dobby, who, along with other house elves, become more interesting later on.
I read this one and watched the movie thinking "A bit more of the same, unfortunately it's getting a little tired now. And what's up with the Defence of the Dark Arts position?"
Some bright spots:
I actually thought some of the best bits worth commenting on were in the movie.
The whole Gilderoy Lockhart character - the vain, pompous, autograph-writing, egocentrical teacher is a good idea - but it's especially well carried out by Kenneth Branagh. And that duel between him and Professor Snape is really nicely done.
And I also liked seeing Arthur Weasley when Harry was brought back to the Weasley's place, and Mr Weasley interrogates him about Muggles (his obsession).
The way he asked Harry "What is the use of a rubber duck?" was actually really funny - and from what I remember, that wasn't even in the book.
(Oh and for the critics who complained that Hermione was not ugly enough in the movies - the scene where she takes Polyjuice Potion and turns half-cat should convince you she isn't always really cute, neither!)
The "anagram of Tom Riddle" device is not really very clever.
This book does introduce Ginny Weasley who turns out to be a better character later on in the series. Right now, she's not very interesting. Wait for her to grow up and gain a personality. Oh and it introduces Dobby, who, along with other house elves, become more interesting later on.
I read this one and watched the movie thinking "A bit more of the same, unfortunately it's getting a little tired now. And what's up with the Defence of the Dark Arts position?"
Some bright spots:
I actually thought some of the best bits worth commenting on were in the movie.
The whole Gilderoy Lockhart character - the vain, pompous, autograph-writing, egocentrical teacher is a good idea - but it's especially well carried out by Kenneth Branagh. And that duel between him and Professor Snape is really nicely done.
And I also liked seeing Arthur Weasley when Harry was brought back to the Weasley's place, and Mr Weasley interrogates him about Muggles (his obsession).
The way he asked Harry "What is the use of a rubber duck?" was actually really funny - and from what I remember, that wasn't even in the book.
(Oh and for the critics who complained that Hermione was not ugly enough in the movies - the scene where she takes Polyjuice Potion and turns half-cat should convince you she isn't always really cute, neither!)
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
This is the order in which I eked the essence out of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone:
My first acquaintance was the Latin version of it - I tried to translate the first chapter into some semblance of English.
Then I watched the movie.
Then I read the book.
I am, as they say, "The Woman who is Backwards".
The Philosopher's Stone, I thought, was not a bad book. It had a charming simplicity and freshness and fun to it - for younger readers. I guess I don't fall into that category but I'm used to reading kids' books so maybe my brain switches easily into appreciation of that and doesn't need the later bloodsheds and twists of story to think "that's a good book!"
Even if it was a little too predictable for my liking, the characters were very likable. Against the flow, I happened to like Professor Snape. He reminds me of Dr Cox on Scrubs except without the humour and he's not American. But if there were an American Professor Snape and he could just have a little bit of humour, I could see John C. McGinley there. Not that Alan Rickman doesn't do a superb job. He was, I thought, one of the better actors in the cast. I also thought Hermione was brilliantly cast.
And some of the concepts were a bit of fun - like the Sorting Hat, or Professor Quirrell and Voldemort's head! And "Wizard Chess".
However: Some things about the Philosopher's Stone were just plain cheesy. The ending where Gryffindor wins all the points and beats Slytherin - that was too plain cheesy. You might as well have found princes for all the girls to marry.
I found the explanation of Quidditch to be just plain weird. The whole concept of having a game where one team member (the Seeker) be the one who not only can end the match by catching the Snitch, but "whoever catches it usually wins the game" - you wonder why the heck they bother with the Beaters and Chasers at all. Why don't they spend all their time coaching the Seeker and/or hitting the other Seeker of his/her broomstick? Why does anyone really care about the other players at all - the Seeker gets pretty much all the glory?
It seemed to me that the game would be pretty boring most of the time.
I read a whole lot of critics going on about how the Philosopher's Stone was so unique and creative and how it was so like Roald Dahl.
Personally, I thought the writing was entertaining and there were some imaginative concepts there. However I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin (The Wave in the Mind) that those who ranted about its uniqueness didn't seem to note that it drew from two grand literary traditions - the English boarding school and the witches/wizards/magic tradition (with some very obvious nods to established myths and terms in magic).
Even the idea of a "witchcraft school for young witches" isn't a unique one - A set of books by Jill Murphy called The Worst Witch series centres on a witchcraft school attended by young witches of various abilities who have friends and enemies, teachers who are variously likable and dislikable, different "witchcraft classes" and a central character "Mildred Hubble" who gets into trouble constantly but somehow saves the day. The series was even popular to get made into a TV series.
This doesn't detract from Harry Potter as a fun and entertaining series - and most writers either get their ideas from somewhere or have had bits of their ideas "done" before - coming up with a completely unique idea is virtually impossible. However I'd just challenge that particular "school of critic".
The other thing is ... well I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl and when I read the Philosopher's Stone I didn't think that there was a lot to compare Rowling and Dahl with ... oh except they are both popular and successful British children's authors, and Rowling even broke into poetry (with the Sorting Hat) in the middle of her book, which was a popular device of Dahl's.
What marked Dahl's writing for me was not all the weird names he used for his characters (which some people probably felt was similar to all the imaginative names Rowling gave to her characters) but his somewhat savage and often naughty sense of humour.
Kids who get eaten up in a pie. A headmistress who throws a kid over a fence for wearing her hair the wrong way. Farting for sport. Collecting food in your beard for a "snack". Putting worms in the spaghetti, turning children into rats, throwing kids into the garbage chute and then jumping around and singing songs about how fun it is. That's all characteristic of Dahl. Not nearly so in the Philosopher's Stone.
All in all, quite good but not what I would say gripping. Perhaps it would bave gripped me had I been a lot younger.
My first acquaintance was the Latin version of it - I tried to translate the first chapter into some semblance of English.
Then I watched the movie.
Then I read the book.
I am, as they say, "The Woman who is Backwards".
The Philosopher's Stone, I thought, was not a bad book. It had a charming simplicity and freshness and fun to it - for younger readers. I guess I don't fall into that category but I'm used to reading kids' books so maybe my brain switches easily into appreciation of that and doesn't need the later bloodsheds and twists of story to think "that's a good book!"
Even if it was a little too predictable for my liking, the characters were very likable. Against the flow, I happened to like Professor Snape. He reminds me of Dr Cox on Scrubs except without the humour and he's not American. But if there were an American Professor Snape and he could just have a little bit of humour, I could see John C. McGinley there. Not that Alan Rickman doesn't do a superb job. He was, I thought, one of the better actors in the cast. I also thought Hermione was brilliantly cast.
And some of the concepts were a bit of fun - like the Sorting Hat, or Professor Quirrell and Voldemort's head! And "Wizard Chess".
However: Some things about the Philosopher's Stone were just plain cheesy. The ending where Gryffindor wins all the points and beats Slytherin - that was too plain cheesy. You might as well have found princes for all the girls to marry.
I found the explanation of Quidditch to be just plain weird. The whole concept of having a game where one team member (the Seeker) be the one who not only can end the match by catching the Snitch, but "whoever catches it usually wins the game" - you wonder why the heck they bother with the Beaters and Chasers at all. Why don't they spend all their time coaching the Seeker and/or hitting the other Seeker of his/her broomstick? Why does anyone really care about the other players at all - the Seeker gets pretty much all the glory?
It seemed to me that the game would be pretty boring most of the time.
I read a whole lot of critics going on about how the Philosopher's Stone was so unique and creative and how it was so like Roald Dahl.
Personally, I thought the writing was entertaining and there were some imaginative concepts there. However I agree with Ursula K. Le Guin (The Wave in the Mind) that those who ranted about its uniqueness didn't seem to note that it drew from two grand literary traditions - the English boarding school and the witches/wizards/magic tradition (with some very obvious nods to established myths and terms in magic).
Even the idea of a "witchcraft school for young witches" isn't a unique one - A set of books by Jill Murphy called The Worst Witch series centres on a witchcraft school attended by young witches of various abilities who have friends and enemies, teachers who are variously likable and dislikable, different "witchcraft classes" and a central character "Mildred Hubble" who gets into trouble constantly but somehow saves the day. The series was even popular to get made into a TV series.
This doesn't detract from Harry Potter as a fun and entertaining series - and most writers either get their ideas from somewhere or have had bits of their ideas "done" before - coming up with a completely unique idea is virtually impossible. However I'd just challenge that particular "school of critic".
The other thing is ... well I'm a big fan of Roald Dahl and when I read the Philosopher's Stone I didn't think that there was a lot to compare Rowling and Dahl with ... oh except they are both popular and successful British children's authors, and Rowling even broke into poetry (with the Sorting Hat) in the middle of her book, which was a popular device of Dahl's.
What marked Dahl's writing for me was not all the weird names he used for his characters (which some people probably felt was similar to all the imaginative names Rowling gave to her characters) but his somewhat savage and often naughty sense of humour.
Kids who get eaten up in a pie. A headmistress who throws a kid over a fence for wearing her hair the wrong way. Farting for sport. Collecting food in your beard for a "snack". Putting worms in the spaghetti, turning children into rats, throwing kids into the garbage chute and then jumping around and singing songs about how fun it is. That's all characteristic of Dahl. Not nearly so in the Philosopher's Stone.
All in all, quite good but not what I would say gripping. Perhaps it would bave gripped me had I been a lot younger.
Seven
Even though it wasn't on my list of New Year's Resolutions, somehow I stumbled upon a pursuit this year and turned it into some kind of goal, game, race, whatever. It was an accident that I found it, but I'm glad I did.
I started to read two children's series with seven books in each series. Both well-known. Both highly acclaimed. Both very different. (One I've finished, one I haven't).
The first was the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. I completed the last book in series tonight.
The other was the Tomorrow, When the War Began series, by John Marsden. I've completed up to the fifth book in that one.
Now, first of all, I'll mention that both these series were not just series I forced myself to read to complete a task. I enjoyed reading both - and will definitely complete Marsden's series.
There have been other series which I've heard are good but have been unable to continue going with. I attempted to read Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn. It didn't really do it for me. I pursued with Book 2, then stopped. It just wasn't my thing.
But both these series have been a lot of fun and captured my interest. I was interested in doing a compare/contrast, but the series were so different it was like comparing apples with oranges.
Then I thought, "What the heck? Why can't you compare apples with oranges? They are both fruit!"
So why the heck not? .... just have to finish 2 John Marsden books ...
I started to read two children's series with seven books in each series. Both well-known. Both highly acclaimed. Both very different. (One I've finished, one I haven't).
The first was the Harry Potter series, by J.K. Rowling. I completed the last book in series tonight.
The other was the Tomorrow, When the War Began series, by John Marsden. I've completed up to the fifth book in that one.
Now, first of all, I'll mention that both these series were not just series I forced myself to read to complete a task. I enjoyed reading both - and will definitely complete Marsden's series.
There have been other series which I've heard are good but have been unable to continue going with. I attempted to read Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn. It didn't really do it for me. I pursued with Book 2, then stopped. It just wasn't my thing.
But both these series have been a lot of fun and captured my interest. I was interested in doing a compare/contrast, but the series were so different it was like comparing apples with oranges.
Then I thought, "What the heck? Why can't you compare apples with oranges? They are both fruit!"
So why the heck not? .... just have to finish 2 John Marsden books ...
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Equal Rights for Pet Owners
I read a little piece by Clover Moore that pointed out that many pets travel free on public transport in other states, however they don't in NSW. In fact they aren't allowed at all except Guide Dogs (who are often called Blind Dogs. Are Blind Dogs blind versions of Guide Dogs, I've often wondered?)
The piece did say Clover would fight to make pet owners equal citizens and look at pets travelling on public transport subject to certain conditions.
So what would 'em conditions be?
Personally I am looking on with bated breath because I am looking forward to escorting my own pet hippopotamus on the next CityRail carriage. I think my brother is thinking that the entire family could claim free transport as a sub-human pet-species.
Anyhow, again, I am looking forward to those conditions. Will they cart out the usual boring conditions?:
1. All cats and dogs must give up their seats for older cats and dogs
2. Please be respectful and mind your yapping, barking, meowing, tweeting etc into your mobile phones.
3. Please poop in the station litters provided
Or something a little more creative?
Some suggestions:
1. If feeling the need to chew at a bone during the trip, please make sure it is not attached to another (live) passenger's torso. Penalties apply. Fines scaled depending on whether gnawed passenger was travelling on a concession or full fare.
2. Parrots, mynas etc are requested not to annoyingly mimic and repeat other passengers' conversations, especially that of schoolchildren. We've heard it enough.
3. Please take any eggs you may lay on the trip with you. Lice are requested to respect the hair of other passengers.
4. Please do not walk along the train tracks, even if you have nine lives.
5. The term "bitch" will not always be used literally in public spaces.
The piece did say Clover would fight to make pet owners equal citizens and look at pets travelling on public transport subject to certain conditions.
So what would 'em conditions be?
Personally I am looking on with bated breath because I am looking forward to escorting my own pet hippopotamus on the next CityRail carriage. I think my brother is thinking that the entire family could claim free transport as a sub-human pet-species.
Anyhow, again, I am looking forward to those conditions. Will they cart out the usual boring conditions?:
1. All cats and dogs must give up their seats for older cats and dogs
2. Please be respectful and mind your yapping, barking, meowing, tweeting etc into your mobile phones.
3. Please poop in the station litters provided
Or something a little more creative?
Some suggestions:
1. If feeling the need to chew at a bone during the trip, please make sure it is not attached to another (live) passenger's torso. Penalties apply. Fines scaled depending on whether gnawed passenger was travelling on a concession or full fare.
2. Parrots, mynas etc are requested not to annoyingly mimic and repeat other passengers' conversations, especially that of schoolchildren. We've heard it enough.
3. Please take any eggs you may lay on the trip with you. Lice are requested to respect the hair of other passengers.
4. Please do not walk along the train tracks, even if you have nine lives.
5. The term "bitch" will not always be used literally in public spaces.
New Petty Crimes
Mr Coffee and I were just walking down Pitt Street side by side the other day, chatting - I think it was about mobiles or something. At any rate, we weren't chatting on our mobiles to each other like something out of an American teen movie.
Some bearded older bloke a little behind us growled at us to "Stop that talking, it's against the LAAAAAW!"
It was a bit tempting to point out that of course he had been talking in order to point out that talking was against the law, so perhaps he had done himself in.
So beware all ye public yammerers - the vigilante citizen police are on their way to arrest you under the Public Yammering Offences Act.
Personally I think an unkempt beard of the type he was bearing was more of a public offence, but apparently I'm not an expert in this area in this kind of law.
Mr Coffee and I both started laughing at this guy, which I believe may break a section of the Act dealing with giggling, laughing and smirking in public, all the more serious for at a public vigilante officer and all the worse the crime since we couldn't easily stop.
He then threatened that "Next time he would HAVE A CAMERA!" and we wouldn't find it so funny.
I hope he has it set to video otherwise his still photo with no audio is going to sorely disappoint him with no yammering evidence. Or perhaps lack of chatter is the way he prefers it.
Some bearded older bloke a little behind us growled at us to "Stop that talking, it's against the LAAAAAW!"
It was a bit tempting to point out that of course he had been talking in order to point out that talking was against the law, so perhaps he had done himself in.
So beware all ye public yammerers - the vigilante citizen police are on their way to arrest you under the Public Yammering Offences Act.
Personally I think an unkempt beard of the type he was bearing was more of a public offence, but apparently I'm not an expert in this area in this kind of law.
Mr Coffee and I both started laughing at this guy, which I believe may break a section of the Act dealing with giggling, laughing and smirking in public, all the more serious for at a public vigilante officer and all the worse the crime since we couldn't easily stop.
He then threatened that "Next time he would HAVE A CAMERA!" and we wouldn't find it so funny.
I hope he has it set to video otherwise his still photo with no audio is going to sorely disappoint him with no yammering evidence. Or perhaps lack of chatter is the way he prefers it.
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
The Asian Wants a Xenophobe
I read in the celebrity section of the Daily Tele that Pauline Hanson might be interested on getting on a dating reality TV show - and she likes the idea of The Farmer Wants A Wife.
That's a show where rural males are tried out with city ladies, and the city ladies are put through the hoops to see if they could manage a country life - things like sticking their hands up cow's bums and stuff. Maybe a man will look at a girl with her hand up a cow's bum and just say "That's the girl for me." I don't know, maybe lot's of country romances start out that way.
But I just don't think we're exploring Pauline's potential to the fullest. My concept for a show would be The Asian Wants A Xenophobe (or The Asian Wants Pauline).
Watch a host of Asian males with Pauline Hanson as the dubious prize. Watch Pauline vy for their attention - or at least their votes, and the males put her through various tests.
Pauline Hanson attempts to put her hand in a martial arts slice through 6 breadboards!
(if she psyches herself up to think they are Asian immigrants' faces, she may well get through this one!)
Pauline Hanson doing the lion dance!
Pauline Hanson having to order in a Vietnamese restaurant without once asking a waiter to "Please Explain" the menu.
I think this one's got legs. Bring it on!
That's a show where rural males are tried out with city ladies, and the city ladies are put through the hoops to see if they could manage a country life - things like sticking their hands up cow's bums and stuff. Maybe a man will look at a girl with her hand up a cow's bum and just say "That's the girl for me." I don't know, maybe lot's of country romances start out that way.
But I just don't think we're exploring Pauline's potential to the fullest. My concept for a show would be The Asian Wants A Xenophobe (or The Asian Wants Pauline).
Watch a host of Asian males with Pauline Hanson as the dubious prize. Watch Pauline vy for their attention - or at least their votes, and the males put her through various tests.
Pauline Hanson attempts to put her hand in a martial arts slice through 6 breadboards!
(if she psyches herself up to think they are Asian immigrants' faces, she may well get through this one!)
Pauline Hanson doing the lion dance!
Pauline Hanson having to order in a Vietnamese restaurant without once asking a waiter to "Please Explain" the menu.
I think this one's got legs. Bring it on!
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Public Toilet Queasiness
I'm going to come out of the bathroom and admit to another phobia.
I have a distinct phobia about public bathrooms.
I really dislike them. I avoid going to any public bathroom; of course some places' "amenities" are better than others but all up, it's not my cup of tea. Or cup of toilette. Or bowl of toilet.
I know there have been studies saying that the public toilet seat is in fact no more swarming with germs than your work keyboard, but I've never believed it. I'm sure they must have done a switch when they did that test. Someone switched the toilet seat with the keyboard and the tester just didn't notice when he or she was taking a sample of germy bits.
I always imagine toilets with this infestation of creepy crawlies. I can never bring myself to sit down on a public toilet seat, which means environmentally unfriendly-like covering the toilet with lots of toilet paper so no skin at all has danger of any even accidental contact.
I can't believe the average public toilet could be considered as clean as a keyboard. not some of the ones I've seen. Twice I've been to a public toilet and someone before me has blasted faeces all over the toilet seat. I have never seen that on a work keyboard, fortunately.
I usually attempt to go to the toilet before I leave the house so I don't have to go in the public bathroom. Sometimes I go twice at home before I leave the house. I dont' know if this ups my chances of not having to go once I've gone out.
There have been some public bathrooms which are not all puddly wet on the floor and don't look like a poo-bomb has hit them, but I never feel quite comfy in the cubicle.
It just doesn't feel the right place for swishing out the bladder and bowel area.
I can never feel at home in a public bathroom.
Or maybe that's the point.
I have a distinct phobia about public bathrooms.
I really dislike them. I avoid going to any public bathroom; of course some places' "amenities" are better than others but all up, it's not my cup of tea. Or cup of toilette. Or bowl of toilet.
I know there have been studies saying that the public toilet seat is in fact no more swarming with germs than your work keyboard, but I've never believed it. I'm sure they must have done a switch when they did that test. Someone switched the toilet seat with the keyboard and the tester just didn't notice when he or she was taking a sample of germy bits.
I always imagine toilets with this infestation of creepy crawlies. I can never bring myself to sit down on a public toilet seat, which means environmentally unfriendly-like covering the toilet with lots of toilet paper so no skin at all has danger of any even accidental contact.
I can't believe the average public toilet could be considered as clean as a keyboard. not some of the ones I've seen. Twice I've been to a public toilet and someone before me has blasted faeces all over the toilet seat. I have never seen that on a work keyboard, fortunately.
I usually attempt to go to the toilet before I leave the house so I don't have to go in the public bathroom. Sometimes I go twice at home before I leave the house. I dont' know if this ups my chances of not having to go once I've gone out.
There have been some public bathrooms which are not all puddly wet on the floor and don't look like a poo-bomb has hit them, but I never feel quite comfy in the cubicle.
It just doesn't feel the right place for swishing out the bladder and bowel area.
I can never feel at home in a public bathroom.
Or maybe that's the point.
Too fat to die
A death row inmate has put on so much weight he may be too pudgy for them to lethally inject him.
I thought obesity was supposed to be a death sentence, not avoid one!
I thought obesity was supposed to be a death sentence, not avoid one!
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Got my Keys ... Got my Phobia
I have a phobia. It used to be secret, but hasn't been since I went around telling people about it and now am publishing it on the net.
It's about switching things off, especially my heater.
I have this secret fear that my heater is always on.
Before I leave the house, I always check that my heater is off.
Actually, usually I check my heater is off in the morning after I'm done using it, then I check as I leave my bedroom. Then I open my door again after I leave, and check again, in case it turned itself on after I left my room. Then I go upstairs and wander around, and I think I might have been mistaken, so I check my room again. Then later on, when I'm ready to leave the house, I race into my room again to check the heater isn't on. because you know, you wouldn't want to leave the heater on while you're out of the house all day. Think of all the electricity it may be guzzling!
I often do this several times, while I'm at the front door, after I've taken one step out. I then get to the bus stop or I'm on the train and I ring my Dad (who leaves home after me, usually) and ask him to please check my heater. This is the marvel of mobile phones.
But just last week I did a terrible thing.
I walked out the door and guess what?
I was all set to go, and Dad asked if I was ready, and I was, and I was happy and I ALMOST forgot I had a phobia!
I mean, I almost walked straight out of the house without worrying once about my heater!
How could I do such a thing?
Luckily I remembered my phobia just in time, and I got worried and dashed back inside and checked my heater. Then I felt better.
But then I got on the train and I kept worrying - how could I forget my phobia just like that? It's not normal. It's not right. One day I'll completely lose my phobia and I won't be me anymore. I'll be lost.
And then I'll really be scared.
It's about switching things off, especially my heater.
I have this secret fear that my heater is always on.
Before I leave the house, I always check that my heater is off.
Actually, usually I check my heater is off in the morning after I'm done using it, then I check as I leave my bedroom. Then I open my door again after I leave, and check again, in case it turned itself on after I left my room. Then I go upstairs and wander around, and I think I might have been mistaken, so I check my room again. Then later on, when I'm ready to leave the house, I race into my room again to check the heater isn't on. because you know, you wouldn't want to leave the heater on while you're out of the house all day. Think of all the electricity it may be guzzling!
I often do this several times, while I'm at the front door, after I've taken one step out. I then get to the bus stop or I'm on the train and I ring my Dad (who leaves home after me, usually) and ask him to please check my heater. This is the marvel of mobile phones.
But just last week I did a terrible thing.
I walked out the door and guess what?
I was all set to go, and Dad asked if I was ready, and I was, and I was happy and I ALMOST forgot I had a phobia!
I mean, I almost walked straight out of the house without worrying once about my heater!
How could I do such a thing?
Luckily I remembered my phobia just in time, and I got worried and dashed back inside and checked my heater. Then I felt better.
But then I got on the train and I kept worrying - how could I forget my phobia just like that? It's not normal. It's not right. One day I'll completely lose my phobia and I won't be me anymore. I'll be lost.
And then I'll really be scared.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Borders Books: Identity Theft and Indian Giving
Now, I enjoy a good bookstore - wide variety of products and discounts - and while Borders books has offered that to me, it's a pity that like many of those big corporations that gets popular for products, it falls down severely on the customer service side.
Like my experience with Panasonic and their idiocy about not advertising correctly what their stereo system will do, and then their lame compensation which actually puts me at a disadvantage. These big corporations can afford better than others to both be accurate and to do a little more to please the customer and keep them onside; it just seems that many have got so big for their boots they don't bother - and forget that pissing off one customer can cause a chain reaction that pisses off many. And it's a lot harder and more expensive to gain a customer - especially gaining back a lost customer - to maintain one.
My experience was with this year's Border's The Ultimate Kids' Collection Competition.
Now, I happen to like kids' stuff, so I thought, hey why not? Besides, the stuff I don't particularly "get" - the stuff that's a bit too twee and not nostalgic or in my category of fun - if I win it, I'd give it to my cousins' kids. Or the disabled children my sister babysits. Hey, I know lots of children who would get a kick out of a good story book, picture book, adventure book, whatever. I thought it would be fun. But if I won that gift edition of Pippi Longstocking - it was going straight to the poolroom!
The game is pretty easy in formula - there is a picture of a bookcase with 100 prizes lined up on it. You have to log in and say you'll accept marketing communications from Borders as part of the conditions. You get to click on a prize to see if you've won. You might win the prize you've clicked on. Alternatively you could win a coupon like "3 for two kids books" or you could possibly win the whole 100 books in one swoop. There's only 1 of the big swoop prizes to be given out, and 1 each of the individual prizes.
In order to play again and again, you have to each time enter a "friend's email address" - or what the conditions say has to be a "valid email address" (so they really don't care if that happens to be your worst enemy, not your friend).
Then you get another shot at guessing where a prize may be.
Sounds easy enough, and I played a lot.
One thing I did do though, which probably a lot of ordinarily email savvy people do nowadays, is one of the first emails I entered as a "valid email address" was one of my own alternate email addresses - hey, I am my own best friend!
I then logged in to that email address to see what happens.
Instead of sending an ordinary email from Borders saying "Your friend [my login name] has recommended that you play this game, here's the link" sort of message:
Borders sent a message that PRETENDED TO BE A FORWARDED MESSAGE FROM MY EMAIL, REVEALING MY EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INCLUDED A FORM EMAIL FROM BORDERS.
Identity Theft.
Basically, what does this look like, especially if you play this game a lot - which, by the way, Borders explicitly encourages you to do on its website (with its "Play again - hurry up - prizes will go fast - etc exhortations)
It makes you look like a spammer. Without your permission, or even your notification, and unless you send this to yourself near the beginning - you mightn't find out. If you had instead sent them to all friend's emails, you might have annoyed friends complaining, possibly even blocking you, if they don't like that stuff and they see you've sent it to a couple of their emails.
Anyhow, undeterred, I played on. However, I decided that this was really unsavoury, and after all, it did say "valid" not "working" email address, so why should I enter working email addresses if a whole lot of people may receive them and Borders would make me look like a spammer?
I decided then to enter valid, but not working, emails. They had a correct form - in fact, if you don't enter an email address with the valid form, the competition prompts you that it's not valid, please enter a valid email, so it seems if they accept it, it fits in with their definition of "valid".
I played on and won a lot of prizes. I mean, a lot.
It wasn't difficult because Borders seemed to choke the game for a while then suddenly give them out in spurts and I got in when they were given out in spurts.
I even won Pippi Longstocking!
Later, I received a phone call from a Borders spokesperson on a Monday before the comp ended - whom I will call Melanie Paris here. Melanie called from Melbourne and asked me to call her back. It was about the competition.
I did. Twice. She didn't answer the phone, but I left messages.
On the Tuesday afternoon I looked at the prize tally - suddenly it had gone up by a lot - coincidentally by the exact number of prizes I had won! It looked suspiciously like they had decided to strip me of my prizes and place them back in the prize pool before talking to me. I checked my email, they hadn't notified me either. So I decided I'd send my time that afternoon winning many of them back. And I did - not all but most of them. And as I suspected, they were the prizes I'd won before - I was winning back many of the same prizes.
On the Wednesday, I received a call from Melanie Paris, who wanted to talk. She sad she was concerned over the NUMBER of times I had entered and WON and that she wanted to investigate because she thought that the emails weren't valid and were bouncing. I pointed out valid wasn't the same as working, and a bouncing email wasn't indicative of whether either an email was either not working or not valid.
She just went on about some "investigation" and later on - that afternoon - Melanie Paris called and told me that they'd decided to strip away all the prizes except one token prize (the first book I'd won, which wasn't Pippi Longstocking) because they'd decided that "valid" meant "working valid email address.
It's such a pity they'd decided this and don't put it in the rules.
My guess is, they saw I'd won a whole lot of prizes, freaked a bit, and tried to come up with an excuse to take them away because they realised they'd mucked up - instead of getting it right in the first place.
So I asked Melanie Paris, what would I need to do to win a prize? Enter a working valid email address.
Funnily enough, the prizes went back in the prize pool last night. I knew exactly where every single prize was, and which prizes were already taken - as I'd won them all previously - yet although I played continuously for quite a while, I didn't win anything while the prize tally went down ... until I changed IP address, logged in under a different email and cleared the cookies on my browser. Possibly a coincidence, but rather suspicious. Could it be that they blocked me - thus it was not playing against the rules they were against, but just me, personally?
A summary of offences:
1. Borders steals your identity, sending spam-like emails as Borders promotions under your name and email identity, without your express permission
2. Borders changed the meaning of "valid" email address to mean "working" email address - to suit their needs
3. Borders didn't return my calls - but returned prizes to the pool without letting me know (on Tuesday). This also meant that I had no chance to ask them what they objected to in my playing before they were returned and no real possibility of asking how I could win them back in a manner they would approve of on Tuesday.
4. I "suspect" Borders blocked me from playing last night, after my books were returned ... for the second time
5. If Borders was really concerned that I had won so many prizes, and needed some prizes for the continuation of the game for the week, but it was clear I had played by the rules, then the obvious way to deal with it would ave been to negotiate with me more fairly. Taking away all the prizes I had won and giving back 1 isn't negotiation. Asking to negotiate with giving back some prizes would have been.
6. If Borders' real beef was that I had entered in non-working email addresses:
a) There should have been terms that set this out clearly
b) They could have installed a system that checked for this
c) They certainly could have notified me about this when I first started winning prizes. So I had a chance to change my style. But considering the fact they waited til the end of the game ... it obviously shows complete incompetence ... or that they didn't so much care about non-working addresses as the fact that they couldn't stand that someone had let all their prizes fall off their competition before the official closing date. Dumbasses!!!!
Like my experience with Panasonic and their idiocy about not advertising correctly what their stereo system will do, and then their lame compensation which actually puts me at a disadvantage. These big corporations can afford better than others to both be accurate and to do a little more to please the customer and keep them onside; it just seems that many have got so big for their boots they don't bother - and forget that pissing off one customer can cause a chain reaction that pisses off many. And it's a lot harder and more expensive to gain a customer - especially gaining back a lost customer - to maintain one.
My experience was with this year's Border's The Ultimate Kids' Collection Competition.
Now, I happen to like kids' stuff, so I thought, hey why not? Besides, the stuff I don't particularly "get" - the stuff that's a bit too twee and not nostalgic or in my category of fun - if I win it, I'd give it to my cousins' kids. Or the disabled children my sister babysits. Hey, I know lots of children who would get a kick out of a good story book, picture book, adventure book, whatever. I thought it would be fun. But if I won that gift edition of Pippi Longstocking - it was going straight to the poolroom!
The game is pretty easy in formula - there is a picture of a bookcase with 100 prizes lined up on it. You have to log in and say you'll accept marketing communications from Borders as part of the conditions. You get to click on a prize to see if you've won. You might win the prize you've clicked on. Alternatively you could win a coupon like "3 for two kids books" or you could possibly win the whole 100 books in one swoop. There's only 1 of the big swoop prizes to be given out, and 1 each of the individual prizes.
In order to play again and again, you have to each time enter a "friend's email address" - or what the conditions say has to be a "valid email address" (so they really don't care if that happens to be your worst enemy, not your friend).
Then you get another shot at guessing where a prize may be.
Sounds easy enough, and I played a lot.
One thing I did do though, which probably a lot of ordinarily email savvy people do nowadays, is one of the first emails I entered as a "valid email address" was one of my own alternate email addresses - hey, I am my own best friend!
I then logged in to that email address to see what happens.
Instead of sending an ordinary email from Borders saying "Your friend [my login name] has recommended that you play this game, here's the link" sort of message:
Borders sent a message that PRETENDED TO BE A FORWARDED MESSAGE FROM MY EMAIL, REVEALING MY EMAIL ADDRESS, BUT INCLUDED A FORM EMAIL FROM BORDERS.
Identity Theft.
Basically, what does this look like, especially if you play this game a lot - which, by the way, Borders explicitly encourages you to do on its website (with its "Play again - hurry up - prizes will go fast - etc exhortations)
It makes you look like a spammer. Without your permission, or even your notification, and unless you send this to yourself near the beginning - you mightn't find out. If you had instead sent them to all friend's emails, you might have annoyed friends complaining, possibly even blocking you, if they don't like that stuff and they see you've sent it to a couple of their emails.
Anyhow, undeterred, I played on. However, I decided that this was really unsavoury, and after all, it did say "valid" not "working" email address, so why should I enter working email addresses if a whole lot of people may receive them and Borders would make me look like a spammer?
I decided then to enter valid, but not working, emails. They had a correct form - in fact, if you don't enter an email address with the valid form, the competition prompts you that it's not valid, please enter a valid email, so it seems if they accept it, it fits in with their definition of "valid".
I played on and won a lot of prizes. I mean, a lot.
It wasn't difficult because Borders seemed to choke the game for a while then suddenly give them out in spurts and I got in when they were given out in spurts.
I even won Pippi Longstocking!
Later, I received a phone call from a Borders spokesperson on a Monday before the comp ended - whom I will call Melanie Paris here. Melanie called from Melbourne and asked me to call her back. It was about the competition.
I did. Twice. She didn't answer the phone, but I left messages.
On the Tuesday afternoon I looked at the prize tally - suddenly it had gone up by a lot - coincidentally by the exact number of prizes I had won! It looked suspiciously like they had decided to strip me of my prizes and place them back in the prize pool before talking to me. I checked my email, they hadn't notified me either. So I decided I'd send my time that afternoon winning many of them back. And I did - not all but most of them. And as I suspected, they were the prizes I'd won before - I was winning back many of the same prizes.
On the Wednesday, I received a call from Melanie Paris, who wanted to talk. She sad she was concerned over the NUMBER of times I had entered and WON and that she wanted to investigate because she thought that the emails weren't valid and were bouncing. I pointed out valid wasn't the same as working, and a bouncing email wasn't indicative of whether either an email was either not working or not valid.
She just went on about some "investigation" and later on - that afternoon - Melanie Paris called and told me that they'd decided to strip away all the prizes except one token prize (the first book I'd won, which wasn't Pippi Longstocking) because they'd decided that "valid" meant "working valid email address.
It's such a pity they'd decided this and don't put it in the rules.
My guess is, they saw I'd won a whole lot of prizes, freaked a bit, and tried to come up with an excuse to take them away because they realised they'd mucked up - instead of getting it right in the first place.
So I asked Melanie Paris, what would I need to do to win a prize? Enter a working valid email address.
Funnily enough, the prizes went back in the prize pool last night. I knew exactly where every single prize was, and which prizes were already taken - as I'd won them all previously - yet although I played continuously for quite a while, I didn't win anything while the prize tally went down ... until I changed IP address, logged in under a different email and cleared the cookies on my browser. Possibly a coincidence, but rather suspicious. Could it be that they blocked me - thus it was not playing against the rules they were against, but just me, personally?
A summary of offences:
1. Borders steals your identity, sending spam-like emails as Borders promotions under your name and email identity, without your express permission
2. Borders changed the meaning of "valid" email address to mean "working" email address - to suit their needs
3. Borders didn't return my calls - but returned prizes to the pool without letting me know (on Tuesday). This also meant that I had no chance to ask them what they objected to in my playing before they were returned and no real possibility of asking how I could win them back in a manner they would approve of on Tuesday.
4. I "suspect" Borders blocked me from playing last night, after my books were returned ... for the second time
5. If Borders was really concerned that I had won so many prizes, and needed some prizes for the continuation of the game for the week, but it was clear I had played by the rules, then the obvious way to deal with it would ave been to negotiate with me more fairly. Taking away all the prizes I had won and giving back 1 isn't negotiation. Asking to negotiate with giving back some prizes would have been.
6. If Borders' real beef was that I had entered in non-working email addresses:
a) There should have been terms that set this out clearly
b) They could have installed a system that checked for this
c) They certainly could have notified me about this when I first started winning prizes. So I had a chance to change my style. But considering the fact they waited til the end of the game ... it obviously shows complete incompetence ... or that they didn't so much care about non-working addresses as the fact that they couldn't stand that someone had let all their prizes fall off their competition before the official closing date. Dumbasses!!!!
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Meeting my Spiritual Animal
I'm reading an essay now - Spiritual Animals, Guardians, Guides and Others Places by R.J. Stewart (published in Psychology & the Spiritual Traditions, edited & introduced by R.J. Stewart Element Books, 1990)
Anyhow, I'm reading a bit about how I may meet my spiritual animal guide.
In fact, according to Stewart I don't go out and find my animal guide so much as I let my animal guide find ME. This could be a little scary to me, because if I'm just wandering around letting an animal find me, just say it turns out to be something like a pugnacious bulldog or ferocious lion? Shouldn't I be on guard?
Stewart says (my interpretation and summary):
Start off with a period of stillness and awareness. You intend to enter into a visualisation where you will meet an animal
The animal will be your companion and will lead you to a journey of power
The animal guide will choose you
(of course there is more to it than this - moving through worlds, feeling certain powers, you receive a gift from your companion)
I haven't tried this experiment. I have felt some strong affinity for some animals but I could say this has a lot to do with social/cultural elements or just because they're cute! I'm a big fan of monotremes for instance. On the other hand, is this the whole point of animal guides, that they can be attached to your emotional and cultural responses and are not supposed to be divorced from them?
If I had a very nice echidna or platypus leading the way in my life ... well I could see that. On the other hand, I'm quite keen on turtles too. Gosh, can't one have an animal guide for every mood?
Anyhow, I'm reading a bit about how I may meet my spiritual animal guide.
In fact, according to Stewart I don't go out and find my animal guide so much as I let my animal guide find ME. This could be a little scary to me, because if I'm just wandering around letting an animal find me, just say it turns out to be something like a pugnacious bulldog or ferocious lion? Shouldn't I be on guard?
Stewart says (my interpretation and summary):
Start off with a period of stillness and awareness. You intend to enter into a visualisation where you will meet an animal
The animal will be your companion and will lead you to a journey of power
The animal guide will choose you
(of course there is more to it than this - moving through worlds, feeling certain powers, you receive a gift from your companion)
I haven't tried this experiment. I have felt some strong affinity for some animals but I could say this has a lot to do with social/cultural elements or just because they're cute! I'm a big fan of monotremes for instance. On the other hand, is this the whole point of animal guides, that they can be attached to your emotional and cultural responses and are not supposed to be divorced from them?
If I had a very nice echidna or platypus leading the way in my life ... well I could see that. On the other hand, I'm quite keen on turtles too. Gosh, can't one have an animal guide for every mood?
Choose your own Middle, Climax and Ending!
Remember those Choose your own Adventure Books?
You were the master of your own destiny. You started the story, and then when you got to a certain point, you would be told to choose what step you wanted to take next, and then you'd be redirected to another page. That way, the story had multiple possibilities and you could keep CHOOSING YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!
While I've been unemployed, I've decided to come up with a whole new concept in books - the CHOOSE YOUR OWN MIDDLE, CLIMAX AND ENDING book.
They say necessity is the mother of invention, and for an uninspired and somewhat lazy writer as myself, this seems to be the perfect sort of book.
I have ideas! I have inspiration!
It just seems that everytime I do, I get about 500 words into writing the first chapter of a book and I forget what the inspiration was. And anyway, what the heck were the characters going to do and why was it interesting and where were they going anyway?
But I've got PLENTY of starts to short stories. I've just never written a middle, climax or end.
My books will allow the reader to choose what the middle, climax and end will be! You don't even need to be redirected to a page! That's sort of lame CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE style, which while it gives you multiple possibilities, does mathematically limit the number of possibilities of stories you can create.
No.
My books will give you INFINITE POSSIBILITIES by giving you the beginning - and leaving the rest completely open! No barriers! No redirection! No bossing you around and telling you what to do or where to go or how you have to end it. It's YOUR BOOK - you can make it whatever you want it to be!
I think it'll be a hit.
No need to thank me - except through royalties.
You were the master of your own destiny. You started the story, and then when you got to a certain point, you would be told to choose what step you wanted to take next, and then you'd be redirected to another page. That way, the story had multiple possibilities and you could keep CHOOSING YOUR OWN ADVENTURE!
While I've been unemployed, I've decided to come up with a whole new concept in books - the CHOOSE YOUR OWN MIDDLE, CLIMAX AND ENDING book.
They say necessity is the mother of invention, and for an uninspired and somewhat lazy writer as myself, this seems to be the perfect sort of book.
I have ideas! I have inspiration!
It just seems that everytime I do, I get about 500 words into writing the first chapter of a book and I forget what the inspiration was. And anyway, what the heck were the characters going to do and why was it interesting and where were they going anyway?
But I've got PLENTY of starts to short stories. I've just never written a middle, climax or end.
My books will allow the reader to choose what the middle, climax and end will be! You don't even need to be redirected to a page! That's sort of lame CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE style, which while it gives you multiple possibilities, does mathematically limit the number of possibilities of stories you can create.
No.
My books will give you INFINITE POSSIBILITIES by giving you the beginning - and leaving the rest completely open! No barriers! No redirection! No bossing you around and telling you what to do or where to go or how you have to end it. It's YOUR BOOK - you can make it whatever you want it to be!
I think it'll be a hit.
No need to thank me - except through royalties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
