Apolitically Incorrect » Rants

Patronage in the Digital Age

Rob Oakes — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:20:22 +0000

As wonderful as the internet may be, it causes a lot of problems. For starters, it is putting newspapers out of business. It’s also radically changing how artists, writers and musicians make their living. And in case you weren’t paying attention, it’s starting to look like a crisis.

Different groups have responded to the impending collapse of publishing in different ways. Some writers sell sponsorships for their books and then offer an acknowledgement when it is printed. Many musicians have adopted the self-publishing and distribution tools long available to authors, leading to experiments like Amazon’s CreateSpace. And there are those who have gone the route of directly asking for contributions and donations to support their work; the digital equivalent of a performer passing the hat, you might say.

The problem is that some of these experiments are running head-long into good old American sensibility and propriety. There are even people saying that some of the new content generation schemes are inappropriate; including that old bastion of American common sense, Ms. Manners. Manners has even gone so far as to say that for a novelist to ask for a contribution is the same as begging, or panhandling.

She says it like it’s a bad thing. The simple truth is that artists, musicians and storytellers have long been beggars. The content industry of the 20 industry is a tremendously new invention, and as I noted above, it’s running into another time tested American value: frugality and a love of private property.

In fact, there seems to be this attitude that, “After I’ve purchased the novel or CD, I own the work and ideas. I’ve invested in its creation.” This little nugget rears it’s head most commonly when discussing music. Even the great Steve Jobs has been known to say, “People don’t want to rent music, they want to own it.”

Except … that’s bullshit. An interesting idea, or a well written book, or a beautiful piece of music isn’t like paying for a hamburger. You aren’t reimbursing someone for providing you a good or service. And I’m frankly shocked that anyone would think that Beethoven’s 9th Symphony or Antonio Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons” is only worth the price that paid on iTunes. The true worth is far greater than the price of admission. Would you seriously think yourself exploited for buying a second recording, or for paying to hear it at a concert?

Of course, that’s when people can be bothered to pay for content at all. An exacerbating factor is that many people expect ideas to be free or very inexpensive. How many times have you heard a variant of this argument, “I would buy more music (or books) if it wasn’t so expensive! Nine dollars for an album is just out of my budget!” Ironically, these same people don’t blanch at dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars for an iPod or iPhone.

While bad, this attitude can further devolve into something much more poisonous: “The artist owes me for reading, viewing or listening to their work. My piracy is helpful! After all, I am promoting them and making them famous!” But being famous doesn’t pay the bills. There have been many authors, artists or musicians who lived in squalor while enjoying enormous fame and prestige.

A music or literature pirate might even justify their position by saying, “I’m sticking it to the music industry (or publishing industry), they’re a bunch of greedy pigs!” And the pirate might have a point, if he weren’t doing far more damage to the creator of the content than to its distributor. Big businesses like record labels and big publishing houses don’t respond to that attitude by lowering prices or dealing fairly with their customers. Rather, they become more draconian in how that content is disseminated. Ever wonder why Digital Rights Management (DRM) and related technologies were born? It might just have something to do with the American sense of entitlement.

Clearly, something needs to change. Artists and musicians can continue to experiment with different pricing and distributions schemes, but I remain rather unconvinced that it will have a lasting effect. What we really need is a return to the patronage system of old, with a few major modifications. Certainly, artists should continue to sell recordings, books and other tangible goods. But the public should also undergo a shift in our attitudes and ideas about what the arts are and how we support them. That might mean that we transform our understanding of what a “donation” is.

When buying a book or donating to a writer, it’s foolish to think that you are somehow providing a fair compensation for the ideas and entertainment that you receive. Instead, it is much healthier to view your contribution as a support so that the artist can continue to create future content. This notion actually fits in pretty well with the concept of Fair Trade.

We also need to understand that the price we pay for a book or CD isn’t about the value of the materials. Textbooks aren’t expensive because they are printed on beautiful paper with artwork and in color; they’re expensive because researching and writing their content is hard. For example, the “Contributors and Reviewers” page for Gray’s Anatomy (the anatomical guide, not the television show) lists sixty different authors and content reviewers, though only the editor and chief is credited on the cover.

Except, how do you actually bring about the needed shift in attitudes and culture?

…

That’s an excellent question, and I’m not sure that I can offer any insight. The Europeans have tried to shape public perception through generous subsidies. But direct governmental support of news agencies and publishers is controversial for good reason. As a cure, it might even be worse than the illness. If you’ve got any ideas, let’s hear ‘em!

Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Rob Oakes — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:27:14 +0000

There’s big news this morning: Barak Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. According to the committee, here’s why: “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given it’s people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

Huh?

Upon reading the headline and rationale, I had to do a triple take. First response: this is an Onion story that someone allowed to get way out of hand. Second response: clearly there’s a mistake, after all, the nominations were made before Barak Obama was even in office. He hasn’t had time to engage in any diplomacy. Third response: shocked silence.

I’m an enormous supporter of Obama. I generally like his vision and thinking on health care reform, nuclear disarmament, and middle east peace. But what has Obama done to deserve a Nobel peace prize? I wasn’t aware that we were handing them out for intentions or even vision; and after looking at the language describing the prize, I remember why:

The Nobel peace prize should be awarded to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses [Emphasis Added].

There are a couple of keywords in that passage which defy intentions, for starters: “shall have done” and “best work”. Both phrases have one thing in common: they describe accomplishments of the past and not the potential of the future. Moreover, it’s more or less an expectation that the award be given for work already done. A brief review of past Nobel laureates clearly demonstrates this:

Martin Luther King Jr (1964). King was the face of the human rights struggle in the United States, and his philosophy, eloquence and organizational ability are probably the single most important factors of it’s success. Even though he was the youngest person ever to receive a Nobel Prize, 1964 came after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the March on Washington, and “I Have a Dream”.
Mikhail Gorbachev (1990). This guy had just finished dismantling communism, thereby ending the cold war. (And all this while worrying about the very real possibility of a military coup.) It’s hard to argue that removing the threat of Nuclear Holocaust didn’t make the world a better place.
Nelson Mandela (1993). After spending 27 years in prison for the audacious crime of demanding equality (given the much more seditious label of sabotage), he had finally realized a major agreement with the regime of South Africa, ending apartheid forever. He then went on to unite his country and serve as the first president elected in a fully representative democratic election.

And now, Obama … but what has he accomplished?

Sure, our European allies no longer hate us. Except … they never hated us in the first place. The strained feelings of the past few years have had much more more in common with a serious sibling disagreement than anything else. Now that the real problem (George W. Bush) is gone, relations have largely gone back to what they were prior to 2003.

I’ll give you that Obama has some wonderful plans to bring about peace in the Middle East … But that has been a major goal of every US administration for the last fifty years. And at the moment he’s made about the same amount of progress as his predecessor: that is to say, none at all.

Awarding the prize without a true legacy of accomplishment is not only controversial, it’s short sighted; and this is the second time in the last three years that the award has been a real stinker. The 2007 award, given to Al Gore for his educational efforts to combat climate change, was also a tremendous disappointment. Why so many divisive prizes all of a sudden?

Nobel prizes aren’t supposed to be controversial, they’re supposed to be obvious. The scientific prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine) aren’t awarded at the time discoveries are made, but after the utility and importance of those discoveries is known, which requires time. It isn’t uncommon for the award to recognize work that was done twenty or thirty years ago. Ditto for literature. Why should the peace prize be any different?

Nor was there a scarcity of qualified nominees, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times summarizes it well:

[What of] Dr. Denis Mukwege at the Panzi Hospital in eastern Congo, or Jo and Lyn Lusi in the Heal Africa Hospital of western Congo, or Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health for his tireless work in Haiti and Rwanda, or Greg Mortensen traipsing all over Pakistan and Afghanistan to build schools, or Dr. Catherine Hamlin working for half a century to fight obstetric fistula and maternal mortality in Ethiopia … or so many others.

Obama has the potential to be one of the truly great presidents, but before showering him with accolades, we should allow him to actually accomplish something monumental. Becoming the first African American president was an impressive start, but is insufficient for a great legacy. It’s impressive the way a birth is impressive and for largely the same reasons: it was the beautiful start of something new.

But Nobel Prizes aren’t birthday gifts, they’re lifetime achievement awards. So shouldn’t we wait for a little bit more of that life to happen before handing it out?

Glass Houses and Stones

Rob Oakes — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:24:48 +0000

Regular readers of this blog might accuse me of having a deep seated resentment against iPhone, Mac OS X and Apple in general. The only problem, of course, is that resentment is the wrong word. Disillusionment and disgust are much more accurate.

You see, purchasing a Mac computer was one of the single biggest disappointments of my young technical life. I had been promised so much!

If you read the ramblings of online pundits or dedicated Apple purists, you will know that switching to a Mac brings a Zen like state to your computing. It will make you more productive, more creative, more organized, more intelligent and possibly even more attractive.

Except after nearly three years of owning one and using it more or less daily, I’ve come to a simple conclusion: my MacBook Pro, in addition to being a lovely paperweight, is a computer. Nothing more, and quite possibly a whole lot less. (Were it just a computer, I might even be able to use it the way that I want, instead of capitulating to the desires of a mega corporation.)

In fact, I’ve further decided that there is only one possible way that you can possibly claim that a Mac is easier to use than a PC (short of using mind altering chemicals, that is). You must choose to stay within Apple’s suffocating glass greenhouse and allow Apple to decide what you can do and dictate precisely how you will do it. The Apple experience demands nothing less.

Want to use Time Machine to back up to a network storage unit different than their ticking time bomb? Sorry, you can’t do that. “It’s not supported.”

Want to run that piece of software that worked just fine until you installed Apple’s latest glorified service pack? Sorry, that isn’t going to happen, either. “Backwards compatibility prevents us from creating innovative and utterly amazing (tm) new user experiences.”

Or want to use that iPhone program that was approved at the highest levels, and then rejected without explanation? “We just can’t allow that. It could result in user confusion.”

It’s either Apple’s way or no way, even when Apple’s way is pathologically stupid. Yet, there is no lack of iCult members who are positively giddy to be treated like iTools!

In contrast, when something goes wrong on a PC, people – rightly, might I add – blame Microsoft. Microsoft makes a disgusting amount of money from their software; and in a sane world, money buys accountability. We pay the CEOs of large corporations obscene salaries and even more ludicrous bonuses to fix problems. If there’s a malfunction, someone is reassuringly responsible; if there’s a disaster, someone is handily available to be lynched.

Except, reality breaks down within the Church of Apple. If a Mac user has a problem, you can rest assured that she will blame herself. You just know that a technical glitch couldn’t possibly be because Apple made a mistake, or the product contains a flaw. Apple merchandise is loving crafted and precisely engineered! And the omnisicient Steve Jobs thinks of absolutely everything!

Is it really so hard to see that Apple’s technical accomplishments represent the pinnacle of human accomplishment? Or that every contact with the Holy Church is divinely sublime?

It is positively convenient to drive 50 miles to the nearest Apple store, wait for more than an hour because the iDisciples can’t keep to their appointment system, and lose your computer for a week and a half because a computer repair service doesn’t stock hard drives. You get to talk to a human being, who will insult you to your face rather than over the phone! If you can’t get it to work, that’s your problem. You’re obviously not smart or cool enough to be an Apple person.

In Apple’s pristine little world, it’s just inconceivable that Apple’s products might not be nearly so desirable as the punditocracy claims. It’s blasphemy of the highest order, requiring that thorough penance to be administered by the all-too enthusiastic congregation of assorted hippies, losers and online freaks. Any individual who so much as implies something negative about Apple deserves the accusations of bias – defined as anything less than a total willingness to sacrifice their firstborn’s blood on the iAltar – that will plague them for the rest of their public life.

After all, Apple has never done anything to encourage resentment or anger. They’re far too busy voiding warrantees, sabotaging relationships and having a party to promote the thousands of invisible (albeit refined) features and APIs of their near-perfect operating system. As a result, it’s simply incorrect to assert that I resent Apple. Until such time as they do something improper, I’ll just have to classify my feelings as disillusionment and disgust.

Why Bother With a Personal Website?

Rob Oakes — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:45:09 +0000

Seven or eight years ago, I remember seeing a print advertisement for Apple’s latest computer: the MacBook. Like most Apple ads, it hyped the benefits of a connected digital lifestyle promising things like “Web design for the rest of us,” and “Access to the ‘Podcast Revolution.’” At the time, I remember thinking, “Why would I ever want to have a connected digital lifestyle? I like my anonymity. That just seems like a privacy violation ready to happen!”

And while I still hold many of those same opinions, I probably should mention that I have thoroughly changed my ideas on the necessity of the digital lifestyle. And, ironically, it wasn’t the promises of convenience, understanding or creativity which resulted in my change of heart. Not at all. Rather, I came to realize that I should embrace digital existence for one simple reason: necessity.

Why A Personal Website Is Necessary

Your privacy is completely dead. Just come to grips with it now. With cameras included on every device, cell-phones everywhere, always connected “social media” and a general attitude of “Privacy? Who needs that?” your hope of quietly avoiding the scrutiny of others might as well be a chemical induced fantasy.

Don’t believe me? Take a moment to scroll through your Facebook friends list. As you do, you’ll learn a host of details about what many people are doing. You’ll probably see pictures of their recent outings and learn a tremendous deal about the people in their lives. Now ask yourself, “How many people in that list am I actually friends with?”

If you are like me, the answer to that question is probably “about half.” And the other half will be comprised of a bunch of acquaintances and relative strangers. And yet, I either know (or can find out) all sorts of details about their most intimate lives. This includes where they are, what they’re doing, who they’re dating, and even where they rank on the “irresistible meter.”

But while Facebook, MySpace and other social media might have delivered the fatal blow, they were merely the culmination of a trend that was already well underway. Ultimately, the seeds of privacy’s demise were planted twenty or thirty years ago when internet chat, message boards, and email arrived on the scene. These technologies demonstrated one thing very clearly: the freedom and convenience of mass communication outweighs the loss of anonymity or the perceived security of privacy.

And even the death of privacy didn’t necessarily require that I embrace the “digital lifestyle.” That particular honor goes to another implement of convenience: the search engine. Whereas Facebook, MySpace, and other communications tools make it possible for us to give up our privacy, search enginesmakes it really easy for others to violate it.

I remember the first time that someone told me they had “Googled” me. A friend and I had been talking about applications and graduate programs, and he asked me how I had become involved with a small humanitarian operation called CHOICE.

After I answered the question, I asked, “How did you know that I was involved with CHOICE?” I was pretty certain that it hadn’t ever come up in casual conversation.

“Oh, I Googled you and saw a newspaper article on your project.”

Since I generally had gone out of my way to avoid having my life archived by the Google, this was somewhat of a wake-up call. (I wasn’t even aware of the newspaper article on the project.) And, as you might guess, I politely excused myself from the conversation to head straight for my computer.

After typing in “Rob Oakes, Utah” into the little search box, I found out all kinds of interesting things. I learned that a 1999 horsemanship clinic in Scotland had generally been a success and that I had been instrumental in bringing Patch Adams to the University of Utah. I also learned that a group of mostly crazy philosophy students took issue with a letter I had written to my student newspaper. Luckily, I didn’t find anything negative or terribly embarrassing.

Define Yourself Before Someone Else Does

In an age when Google can easily aggregate and filter the content of your private existence, the only real defense is to proactively define yourself. Yell it to the world! Tell them who you are! Exhibit yourself and the things that describe you. This might take the form of your thoughts, ideas, interests, hobbies, family, friends, feelings, or something you are passionate about. Online diaries, self-written books, poems, pets, or ramblings on your favorite TV show. What is important is that you are the author of your own persona. And it is for this reason that every adult or professional should have a personal website.

A website is a tremendously efficient way to share with the world. It is accessible to anyone with a browser and a bit of curiosity and can easily be the one single place where others can access all your writings, thoughts and curriculum vitae. And while you're at it, you should also include information about how people can get in touch with you.

A well crafted and maintained website is a sign of an organized and thoughtful professional. If they are an academic, you can ask, “Does this person consistently publish?” “What material do they exhibit from their work?” “Are they proud of the things that they have accomplished?” A highly visible person is often someone who who wants to collaborate and network with others, which is an invitation for future opportunities.

And given all of the above, what does it say if that information isn’t there?

Proactively defining yourself is so important that a mentor once told me me it is the very first thing any serious person should do. “Everyone needs a ‘web presence’,” I remember him saying at the time. He used his website for publications, helpful hints, pictures and other things that he was passionate about. And, ironically, despite his status as a world famous researcher, the single most popular article on his site was about how to have a good time on a bike. It had been viewed tens of thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) of times.

But a good-website goes beyond establishing your online persona. It can be a tremendously valuable repository of knowledge. After all, where should you leave notes on how to set-up and configure your home server, the instructions for installing PyQt on Mac OS X for the first time, or the essential (though obscure) Subversion commands that you infrequently need.

Others have successfully used their web sites to create a diary of life, adventures, and miscellaneous travels. Or to share pictures, videos or memories. Or even to release stress by spouting off at no-one in particular. You can too.

A Website Is More Than Social Media

Okay, so Facebook and MySpace can provide you with some of the same benefits as a good website. But they aren’t really the same. Consider: the very format of Facebook and related services doesn’t really lend itself to cohesive thinking or content. Rather, they encourage the “Twitter” mentality. That is to say, “Explain the state of the world in 120 characters or less.” (In case you haven’t tried, it’s hard to communicate important things in 120 characters.)

And what’s worse is that those 120 characters have a tremendously short half life. I’ve read in places that the lifetime of a “Tweet” or “Facebook Update'” is only about fifteen minutes. In contrast, a good personal website or blog can make your work and thoughts permanent in a way that social media simply cannot.

Conclusion

A website matters because it allows for you to set your own identity. When you type your name into the little search box, what you prefer to see? A link to your website – which showcases your identity, your very best work and thoughts – or that picture where you passed out at the family Christmas party? It’s a pretty good bet that Google will have links both.

Thus, take control of your digital existence and build yourself a website. You’ll be glad that you did.

Trials and Travails of a Tack Snob

Rob Oakes — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:25:48 +0000

Anyone who knows me well can tell you that I am self-centered, arrogant and more than slightly conceited. In addition, I have exquisitely “discerning” tastes, pretenses to education, and sophistication. Put simply: I am a snob.

I like to have nice things and I enjoy browsing and shopping in tremendously stuffy stores. I want people to think about the overall experience and quality, and I have an extremely low tolerance for when they don’t.

Unfortunately, being a snob is substantially easier when you have the income and social standing to support it. In what I consider to be one of the tragedies of existence, I have neither. In a genuflection to reality, therefore, I take the approach of owning a very small number of high quality things. Quality, not quantity.

While I try to apply this rule to most things, there is one area of my life where I make absolutely no compromises: horsemanship. My tack needs to look, feel and hang a certain way. Some of these preferences stem from the “need” to look a certain way, but many are practical. I hold strong opinions about how things should be done and get more than a bit fussy when life doesn't follow my lead.

Consider, for example, a specialized riding hackamore that I often use (seen modeled by my somewhat evil mare, Peekaboo). I like for it to be made from yacht cord, with a 25 foot lead rope and rawhide touches and tassels. (Style is just as important as substance in most everything.) While I might be willing to concede that my hackamore is a glorified halter, the various evolutions I’ve added are extremely important to me. I’ve ridden quite a few colts, and I’ve found that spending the first 30 to 60 days in a halter helps develop a foundation that will last for the rest of the horse’s life. The tugs, weighting and motions of the halter are first instilled on the ground and then transfer to work under saddle. You can use a halter with 8 foot rein and 25 foot lead right from the very beginning without having to change tools and this can make a big difference in the horse’s overall development.

There’s just one problem: I’ve never been able to find a 35 foot lead made of yacht cord and I’m simply not willing to go with nylon. (The yacht cord is important because I like its feel, weight, and durability.) Additionally, no one makes a halter with rawhide and tasseled accents. (What can I say, I’m a sucker for horse hair tassels.) Because no one sales the tack I want, I am left with only one alternative: I make it myself.

Hand made (by me) halters, headstalls, riata, and a large variety of other things made from rawhide (in addition to those made of string, leather and miscellaneous baling twine) all hang in my tack locker. Each one was (more or less) lovingly crafted with an eye to detail and quality. But even taking the route of the obsessive connoisseur doesn’t solve every problem.

Like … how can the materials for custom, hand-made tack cost more than the store-bought finished product?Don’t believe me? Consider my quest for the perfect lariat (a handbraided piece of rawhide wonder known as a riata) some 60 feet in length. I’ve been saving for rawhide so that I can braid it for a while now. Naturally, it will be my third riata since I just can’t seem to keep my hands on the others. The first one that I created was both spectacularly beautiful and according to a good braider friend of mine, utterly unusable. Thus, it hangs in my office as decoration. On the second round, I created a usable piece of kit (which quite unfortunately parted my company during a weekend roping clinic).

Thus, we are now on round three. From the first two attempts, I have given up trying to find usable rawhide in my local area. The local leather supplier largely pedals crap, and overcharges to boot. My first experiment in buying hide from California was an utter disaster. It was only after a great deal of searching and writing to every commercial braider in the Western US that I was finally pointed to a nice little website that sales quality stuff. The catch? It’s horrifically expensive and the supplier is often out of stock. Apparently, there is a reason why most serious raw-hide braiders both treat and cut their own string. Pity that I don’t really have the time, space, or overall desire to do so. Gives new perspective to, “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” More depressing, you can find a perfectly passable riata on e-bay for between $150 and $200 dollars (a little less than it would cost me to braid my own).

This situation doesn’t only apply to raw-hide or leather. Oh no, getting hold of the rope of preference (double braided yacht-cord) is just as difficult. There are only three stores in my area which will sale it by the foot, and each one overprices it horribly (often 2.00 per foot or more). It’s even difficult to find it online for much less (about $1.60 per foot from u-braid it). Given my taste for longer leads, it is essentially impossible to get rope cut for less than fifty dollars. And yet, fifty dollars can buy a huge amount of crappy rope. Even worse, you can buy a Parelli hackamore for about $75. What. The. Hell?

It’s just not fair. Since when are raw materials more expensive than finished products?

I suppose that I could use inferior materials, but that would lead to an inferior product. And inferior products are simply intolerable. Truly, it is a curse to be gifted with superior taste.

Barn Architecture

Rob Oakes — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:21:58 +0000

There is a reason why the tuxedo hasn’t changed in more than a century. Put simply, there is no need for it to. Unlike other things, it doesn’t need to evolve or mold itself to the fashions of the current age. It’s just fine the way it is. It’s traditional.

And barn architecture should be traditional. They are practical buildings, and as a result should be made of relatively impractical things. That means natural materials. Most of the structure should be made of wood (preferably oak) or stone with big timbered logs being an even better choice. Steel and concrete can be acceptable, but edge out on the tacky side.

Thus, there is only one word to describe the structure being proposed by MVRDV and Mole Architects near Suffolk in the United Kingdom: travesty. (Though monstrosity comes remarkably close as well.) First, they are proposing an “open” architecture with beautiful bay windows and gobs of free-space. While barns can certainly be open, they should not include bay windows. Have you ever seen the type of slime a dedicated horse can produce? Second, it’s made out of modern materials: specially treated steel and composites … and it’s cantilevered. Words do not even begin to describe how wrong it is to cantilever a barn. (Even if it is really a vacation home that some hack decided to call a barn. I would never house animals, much less people in such a disgusting and clearly unsafe building.)

Traditional barns are so much better. Traditional barns have character.

Save Your Favorite Show By Watching Online

Rob Oakes — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:13:13 +0000

Whenever I hear the statistics on television watching, I get more than a bit nauseous. “According to the AC Nielson Co, the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (~28 hours/week or 2 months non-stop TV watching per year).” I’m not nauseous for the significant amount of wasted time, but for the fact that there is almost nothing worth watching. How can the average American spend four hours a day watching hideous reality TV and Law and Order reruns? Eck.

Sure, are a few awesome shows (Battlestar Galactica for one), but the majority of television is utter rot. And sure, reality TV may be responsible for the cultural illiteracy of entire generation of American youth, but the real problem lies among timid television executives. Despite noble sentiments to the contrary, television (in addition to music and literature) is a business. (A horrifically expensive business.) TV executives want to make money, which is done by running programs that are popular and profitable. This usually means that instead of trying something different, they opt for renewing Law and Order: White Collar Crime over something, for lack of a better word, good.

That’s why it’s such a shock and pleasure to see a series like Kings emerge. (Put out by NBC of all people!!!) Kings isn’t just different, it’s bold. It is a retelling of the biblical story of David, except set in modern times. I came across Kings when browsing through the iTunes music store. They were giving the pilot episode away for free, so I decided to download it and give it a try. I was blown away.

The writing is smart, the acting is excellent and the production is closer to what you would see in a motion picture than on the small screen. Like the biblical account, Kings gets the Goliath bit out of the way right up front, because, Goliath is probably the the least interesting part of the David saga.

Unfortunately, like many other promising television shows, NBC handled the launch of this one poorly. First, they spent millions on an initial promotion. Then, when the show failed to gain a massive audience after two showings, they changed the show’s air time from Sunday evenings to Saturday (the worst night of television) without bothering to notify anyone. They were then surprised that the ratings went down.

Kings isn’t like an episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, it is going require some time to find it’s audience. However, timid television executives aren’t known for the patience (or their foresight). As a result, it looks like a piece of interesting television is headed for the chopping block. And that’s a real shame, because Kings is one of the first shows in a long time that has persuaded me to turn the television back on.

However, there is something can be done. As I alluded to above, TV is a business; as a result, it isn’t necessary to convince NBC that Kings is worthwhile television, only that there is an audience for it. And surprisingly, the least effective way to do that is by telling your friends and family to tune in to a program. Want to save your favorite show? Stop watching it on television.

Here’s the problem: television isn’t a democracy. The only people who are allowed a vote are the 25 to 30 thousand households with Nielsen rating boxes in them. Nielsen boxes are poll stations that record what gets watched and then transmit that information back to the networks. When you hear Fox brag that 30 million people tuned in to the premiere of American Idol, that number is based on an estimate from the Nielsen households. Other than those 25 thousand, the rest of us simply don’t exist to the networks. We’re invisible. And if the networks don’t know you exist, then trying to save your favorite show by tuning in to watch it won’t have any effect.

There is, however, an alternative. Go watch your favorite television through a medium where they the viewership can be counted. That means either online or through download services like Amazon Unbox or iTunes. Video sites like Hulu.com make it easy to watch TV on your own schedule. It’s completely free (supported by 30 second ad clips), but more importantly, the viewership can be counted. TV executives like numbers. They want to know who is watching a given television show, when they watch it, and how they watch it. Hulu give them access to all of that information for the entire population, not just a few select Nielsen households. So, go do both yourself and an excellent television show a favor. Head over to Hulu and catch the first episode of Kings online. Then go tell your friends to do the same. It feels good to make a difference.

Of Artists and Artisans

Rob Oakes — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:14:34 +0000

When dealing with creative types, I've always felt like there were two separate camps: the artists and the artisans. Artists are those people out on the fringe -- experimenters, big thinkers, creatives. Many amongst these types would probably say, "Fine art exists to do new things. Ya know, push the boundaries."

Then there are the artisans. Compared to the artists, this group is probably a bit dull. Because, someone has to do the actual work. Illustrators, soundtrack composers, advertising and design people, and writers. While creative, an artisan is usually much more concerned about craft than about launching cultural revolution. Moreover, the output is usually subservient to some larger purpose: sale a product, tell a story, whatever.

And while it might not be completely fair, I think it is safe to say that these two groups don't like one another very much. Artists look down their noses at artisans. Artisans aren't really creating art, after all.

And I've met more than a few artisans which feel like artists have thoroughly wrecked fine art. The pretentious, latte drinking, beret wearing snobs! Who do they think they are, creating sloppy work and calling it "experimental." I mean, what do you really get for that experimentation? Art so bizarre that few people recognize it as such. What is the point of art which no one understands?

In the fight between high and low art, I'm partial to the cause of the artisans; particularly in literature. If there is one area where craftsmanship really matters, it's wordsmithing. Any three year old can finger paint, not every three year old can sling a coherent sentence. This is probably why I don't really like "literary" or "experimental" fiction. It's hard to read, it's weird. If it were difficult for a reason or a purpose, that would be one thing. But most often it's weird simply for the sake of being strange. The odd plotting techniques, dialogue, or structure most often gets in the way of the story rather than aiding it. You can keep your polycosmic perspectives and dimensional dialogue. I just want read a good story which is competently written.

This is why I am grateful for "genre fiction." Like great artisans everywhere, the goal isn't about doing something new, but creating something enjoyable. A solid piece of work rather than a striking new piece of art. Artisans don't bog down in the style while trying to be innovative. Rather, they focus on the story first and then revel it in its delivery. I find this approach to be so much more satisfying. A good story drags you in and compels you to turn the pages. Then you can relish the language. When both come together, that's brilliant literature.

Which brings me to the point: high literature stopped trying to tell stories quite some time ago. After all, storytelling is so old hat. It isn't new, it isn't experimental, it isn't exciting. And while they were trying to invent a new art, high literature stopped being literature. Which is probably why it's dying. It's ironic that when art comes before craftsmanship that both suffer. But any artisan know this, which is why they keep good company: da Vinci, Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, and most other great "artists" were artisans (craftsmen) first. They weren't artists till some 20th century scholar got around to calling them such.

A Pitiful and Pathetic Story

Rob Oakes — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:51:50 +0000

It may just be me, but I find it tremendously ironic that we spend so much of time in the thrall of computers. I mean, if a computer goes out, it completely destroys the ability of far too many people to get anything done.

Consider a quick example. Last week, while out to lunch with my Dad at the Cheesecake Factory, the power went out and computer systems died. The entire place just stopped working. People weren’t able to place their orders or receive their food. My Dad and I ended up splitting his pasta because mine wasn’t put into the system before it went down. (This was okay, since the Cheesecake Factory serving sizes are enormous and I still felt bloated on even half an order of pasta).

And even though lunch was still great, this experience reveals an important point. Why, exactly, is modern society so in thrall to computer systems? A restaurant is perfectly capable of operating without a fancy, just-in-time computer tracking system. Waitresses can still take orders, chefs can still prepare food and people can still eat. Yet … the place completely fell apart without their computers.

The truly ironic bit, however, is that it hasn’t always been this way. Within the living memory of most people (including me), life happened without computers. People managed to get our work done, communicate with loved ones, and stay on top of the news. And while the big beige boxes make all of these tasks easier, it is still possible to perform them without a computer.

Theoretically, at least.

I should know. My main computer decided to die last week. If computers could have sudden heart attacks, stroke or collapse, it would have been that kind of death. The little thing was cruising along just great and … I suddenly got a weird memory error. Then it wouldn’t boot. Then the hard drive started making really weird noises (like a pig when it’s been sleep deprived). That really scared me, so I called Dell technical support.

Luckily, Dell has excellent technical support. Or … it does if you pay for it. I have many friends who have purchased Dell systems and spent frustrated hours talking to people in either India or China with neither person really understanding the other. But in nearly ten years of using Dell products I am (happily) unable to share these frustrations. While I have spoken to many an Indian or Chinese person, they are usually named Garvin and live somewhere in Ohio.

The secret to avoiding frustration, pessimism and homicide lies in clicking the little box next to “Extended Warranty.” It might add two or three hundred dollars to the price of the machine, but I can testify from the last several days that it is worth every penny. Consider my case: my machine is nearly three years old and while it has been rock solid for all of those years, computers (especially laptops which get used A LOT) don’t often last much longer than the typical three year shelf life. Luckily, I have a four year warranty on it.

When I called Dell and described the problem, the technician made me run a few diagnostics. However, we both had to acknowledge (rather quickly) that it’s very hard run diagnostics on machine that won’t boot. He authorized a replacement mother board and dispatched a technician to come to my house to fix it. The technician arrived the next day. Awesome!

Except … that didn’t fix the problem. While the machine will now boot, it is extremely unhappy. I have never had problems with the dread Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) … until yesterday afternoon. So I called the support people back and made all kinds of accusations. They calmly talked me down and said that they will be sending another technician out to replace essentially everything (system board, CPU, wireless card, graphics card, etc). If that doesn’t fix it, they’ll exchange the system. Just to clarify, they are basically giving me a new computer.

And I didn’t even need to have a fit. After the initial diagnostic, I didn’t have to justify, make up stories, or yell. (The fact that I might have yelled just a bit is completely irrelevant to this story. The points is, I didn’t have to yell.) The parts and computer technician will be here tomorrow. There’s nothing like fantastic turnaround service! Crazy awesome!

There’s just one hitch, I am going to be completely useless for another day. Sure … If I wanted to be productive, I probably could be. (After all, I have an absolutely killer backup, sync and share configuration which guarantees that all of my files are available in duplicate and in some cases triplicate.) But who wants to be productive?

Maybe this explains why people are so powerless without their computers. It’s just an excuse for us to be useless and powerless. There a certain degree of liberation in uselessness. If the computer doesn’t work, it can’t possibly be my fault that the work didn’t get done. It’s a technical failure, not a personal one.

Thus, if you will excuse me, I need to go enjoy the rest of my day. I’ve got a fantastic excuse to be both useless and powerless.

Reluctantly Reviewed: iDefrag

Rob Oakes — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:05:28 +0000

There are few things more inconvenient than unplanned or unanticipated software reviews. If you are going to review and look at software, it is substantially more fun to plan out a careful comparison between two products. When done in a methodical way, you can think about how to test them, explore their corners, and determine if they they might make a good fit with your workflow.

In contrast, if you are drafting an unplanned software review, it usually means that something has gone terribly wrong. What is tremendously ironic, however, is that the unplanned reviews are often much more extensive and thorough then the planned variety. They are more valuable. Unplanned reviews show you how the software performs in a time of relative crisis.

Or, that’s how this particular software review began life at least. Rather than setting out to review defragmentation utilities on Mac OS X, it’s something that mostly just happened. The original goal was easy: I wanted to do was use Apple Boot Camp to install the Windows 7 Beta on my Mac. It’s amazing that such a simple thing could spawn nearly two full days of relative misery.So while you can find most of the unsavory details in a previous rant, here’s the take home point: Mac OS X doesn’t have a defragmentation utility. That’s right, the world’s most advanced OS can’t handle a basic system necessity. Well done Apple!

Into this gigantic void steps iDefrag. Like an obnoxious usher, it helps lost bits of file find the rest of the party; and just like those ushers, it does it’s job in a straightforward and no-hassle manner … mostly.

The user interface is extremely simple, after all, this program only does one job. Using the free demo version, you can analyze your drive and see where the greatest sources of fragmentation occur. To do anything about it, however, you have to shell out your money. After running the demo, I quickly realized that I would need to spend the cash.

My Mac gets used for three primary reasons: 1) Run OsiriX and Matlab, 2) Sync to my iPod Touch, 3) Rip and convert DVDs to files that can be played by the iPod touch. These three uses have one important thing in common, they either create or use very large files. And while OS X will indeed automatically defragment some files, it only works on those lucky buggers that are less than 20 megabytes in size. While this might be adequate for documents, it just doesn’t cover my needs. Most video files, medical image volume sets, and music files can be substantially bigger than 20 megabytes. And of course, my hard drive was an utter crap-fest. The demo version made this quite clear, in a brilliant red color; the same universal red that screams disease, danger, and violence.

Luckily, iDefrag can use one of “Four powerful defragmentation algorithms” that:

Optimize[s] or compact[s] your disk as required. Includes a sophisticated programmable optimization engine – if you’re an advanced user, you can rearrange the contents of your disk how you want (Advertising Materials).

Another advertised point is that the disk can be defragmented while in use. While this sounds great in theory, it is incredibly underwhelming in practice. Sure, you can defrag the disk while it’s in use … but it uses the most underpowered algorithm and it takes a very long time. Okay, so the program started in a rather … disadvantaged … position when it took on my disk, but it still took more than eighteen hours for the first round of defragmentation. These eighteen hours passed while using the “Quick” algorithm. And during all eighteen of those hours, the machine was completely unusable since iDefrag monopolizes both RAM and the CPU. But that is only a minor quibble.

It was, therefore, much to my dismay that iDefrag failed to solve my most pressing problem: it did not let me partition my disk with Boot Camp. After all, I only bought the program for that one reason. Thus, I returned to various Mac support forums and started looking for an explanation … which I eventually found. It turns out that I used the wrong algorithm. Rather than the “Quick” algorithm, I needed to use “Compact.” So I did. And got a love love message from the program (seen at right).

Turns out that the most powerful defragmentation algorithms can only be used in the offline mode. Who would have thought? After all, both Linux and Windows are perfectly capable of defragmenting the drive while it is online. They can even resize and move partitions. (But that is really beside the point, comparisons with the competition are just tacky.)

There is a solution to this problem, though. While reading through a support forum, I realized that iDefrag ships with a secondary program: Corialis Disk Maker. Using “Disk Maker”, you can create a boot disk (remember those?) to run iDefrag. Which I did.

The first time I tried to boot the resulting disk, I got a spinning black wheel on the log-on screen which didn’t go away (even after two hours of not so patient waiting). I eventually forced the system to shut down by holding the power button and tried again. The second time, it successfully booted and ran (though took a disturbing five minutes to do so). I selected the “Compact” mode and pressed the play button. I then waited for a long time (six hours on this run) before the job eventually finished.

After this secondary run, I was ecstatic to find that Boot Camp could successfully partition the disk. Hallelujah! Two days after starting my adventure, I finally had a defragmented and partitioned hard disk ready for Windows 7 installation. For that reason, let me publicly acknowledge iDefrag’s greatness. Without you, iDefrag, I wouldn’t be writing this post now. Well done!

Conclusion

Pros:

After a false start, downloading a secondary program, and restarting the machine with a special boot disk; iDefrag just works (tm), mostly.
The program for creating the boot disk is included in the price of iDefrag. Yay! You only get gouged once!

Cons:

Expensive. iDefrag is $30. Unfortunately, it is also the only defragmentation program available on Mac OS X.
The “Quick” mode isn’t quick.
All the powerful algorithms have to be used in the “offline mode.” Can you say “boot disk?”
To create the boot disk, you have to download a second program.

Mac OS X doesn’t need to be defragmented? Yeah, right.

Rob Oakes — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:13:45 +0000

When it comes to computers, the natural inclination of most people is to stick with what they know. This makes plenty of sense, it takes a great deal of effort to learn a program. For these people, upgrading or changing can be painful or difficult; and when required, they raise an extremely valid point, “My current setup works for me. Why should I move to something new when it simply isn’t needed?”

I’m at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Somewhere in my demented little mind, I need to play with new programs. There’s a reason why I run all three major operating systems – Linux, Windows, and Mac – and why all of my computers have at least one Virtual Machine on them. I’m a software junkie.

For people like me, new operating systems are better than crack. Everything changes! Some of the more obsessive addicts will literally hunt through the most obscure file dialogs and windows just to figure out what’s different. While this is all somewhat humorous for well adjusted people who do not live in their parents basements, the typical geek takes such changes very seriously. “Add and Remove Programs is now called Programs! Gah!” People have demanded that Microsoft be boycotted for less. But while anything related to Microsoft is fertile rant country, I’d like to aim at another company which elicits some very strong feelings from its users: Apple.

Before I begin my descent into spittle drenched obscenities, I’d like to provide some background. Last week, Microsoft released the latest version of Windows, called “Windows 7”, to beta testers. As you might have inferred, I downloaded the beta as soon as it became available. (Well, that’s not exactly true, I technically downloaded the beta before it became available. BitTorrent can be your friend.) And it doesn’t disappoint, there are enough new things to really set my geek lust into high overdrive.

Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to play with the new version in a limited environment, called a virtual machine. At a practical level, this means that I haven’t been able to test drive some of the niftiest features! So, I finally worked out a way to do a native install without completely destroying one of my computers: through Boot Camp on Mac OS X.

At a theoretical level, Boot Camp is an awesome feature. It helps you work out the details of a multi-boot configuration and provides an easy set of easy instructions. Unfortunately, it’s only awesome at the theoretical level. At the practical level, you run into one of Apple’s most nefarious pieces of propaganda, “Mac OS X doesn’t need to be defragmented. It automatically defrags as it goes.”

Wrong.

Fragmentation occurs on all hard drives, regardless of how they are formatted. It’s a consequence of disk use and how files are saved. I like to think about disk fragmentation via the use of a simple analogy. Imagine that you and your family are going to the movies. Being social, you invite your neighbors and some friends who (for whatever reason) think that an evening at the movies would be all kinds of zany fun. There are a few levels of organization in your group: the individual people, which are similar to bytes; the families, which are similar to files; and the entire group, which is similar to a partition.

When you arrive at the movies, you discover that much of the theater has been sold out. As a result, while some families will be able to sit together, others will have to sit in pairs or trios. (For this analogy to work, keep in mind that I live in Utah; they’re big families.) The families that get split up are “fragmented.” Now let’s assume that splitting up the family just isn’t a good idea, so Dad asks the usher for his help in getting everyone together on the same row. The usher acts like a defragmentation utility. He helps move other people around until all 8 of the family members can sit together in the same row. But even though the family (file) is now together, the group isn’t. The usher could further move people around until the entire group is sitting together, if he wanted, but it's probably unnecessary.

Every modern OS does at least some defragmentation. Both Windows and Linux have useful defragmentation utilities that are extremely capable. While Mac does a tolerable job on defragmenting files, it completely lacks a useful drive defragmentation tool. Instead, the “Community” just says, “Mac OS X is the world’s most advanced operating system” and “It doesn’t need to be defragmented.”

Yeah, right.

The angry and bitter skeptics (meaning me) usually get an additional line of propaganda, “Okay, so it doesn’t really defragment, but most people won’t ever need to completely defragment the drive. It’s just overkill.”

Hardly.

Steve Jobs’ utter lack of planning and cover up has completely killed my hopes for a dual boot Mac. As you might guess, this makes me oh so happy. Below is a love note that “Boot Camp Assistant” left for me this morning, after it failed to partition my hard drive.

To be clear,“The World’s Most Advanced Operating System” can’t create a new partition because it lacks a basic file utility. Yes, it’s light years ahead of the competition. The preferred solution is to use Time Machine to backup the whole drive (all 250 GB of it), reformat, and then copy the data back. That’s just stupid. I use a samba share for my TimeMachine backups. A full backup and restore to the server, over wireless, takes about four days.

But don’t lose faith, because there is a third party utility called iDefrag which can successfully defragment the drive. Of course, it sales for the “highly reasonable” price of $35. In contrast, the “inferior” competition ships these utilities for free.

Either way, I’m not getting my Windows 7 fix any time soon because of Steve Jobs’ ego and Apple propaganda. Apple, again, has utterlyand thoroughly destroyed my child-like sense of wonder and faith in the world. Well done!

(Swearing starts here.)

Good Intentions, Unfulfilled Actions

Rob Oakes — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:42:37 +0000

On a summer day sometime in 2000, I was walking through a small street market with a friend. This little market was located in the thriving community of La Pintana, a suburb of Santiago, Chile. Open air markets are one thing that is uniquely Chilean and Santiago has several that are utterly charming in their extraordinary weirdness. You can find hand statues, hand carved from stone; beautiful bags knitted and woven from local sheep or alpaca hair; fine horse tack made by local artisans and miscellaneous knick-knacks which can only be justified as “cultural.”

This open-air market, however, was neither charming nor amazing. The atmosphere largely consisted of tin homes, cardboard hangouts, the normal array of Chilean gang-bangers (quaintly referred to as patos malos – literally: bad ducks), a few drug dealers, and more than a few passed-out drunks. And of course, the normal variety of cast off American refuse that is available for sale at such an event: lava lamps that were rejected from the USA sometime in 1980, when the US emerged from the collective nightmare known as the 1970s; pirated music, DVDs, software; and bootlegged porn.I suppose this is where I should start the running commentary. You see, La Pintana is one of the poorest, dirtiest and generally nastiest neighborhoods in the world. You cannot appreciate true “ghetto” until you have lived the slum of the third world. There is a substantial difference between poor and nasty. La Pintana in the summer of 2000 was nasty.

While we browsed among the high quality wares, there was a teenager who caught my attention. Seated in the dust among some old and unrecognizable tapes, he was a mess. On his arm there was a water scald burn that extended from arm to forefinger. One leg ended in a stump three inches past his knees and the other was a wreckage that bent at a painful angle. While every major city has beggars who fake illness for money, most were smarter than to try it in La Pintana; those that did were likely to be murdered for the money.

I felt sorry for him. Occasionally, you came across people who looked like they had been sucked through a meat shredder. Chile, while getting many things right, still fought with unpleasant realities like polio, forced child labor and its associated accidents. This kid looked like he had been hit with both. Then, he opened his mouth.

Most Chileans can speak English; that is to say, they speak English the same way that most Americans speak Spanish. Not very well. They can all say, “Hello!” It’s usually said with great conviction, a pathetic accent, and a psychotic leer. They also possess a mastery of basic American profanity, most particularly words beginning with “f” and rhyming with “duck.” (Living in the La Pintana even taught me some new variations on old favorites.)

This young man, however, said, “I don’t suppose you would be interested in a tape?” The sentence was delivered with perfect grammar in the same accent that some of the more intelligent British employ. The same accent which has most people rightfully convinced that the English are smarter than their American cousins.

Being a master of both languages and the obvious, I responded, “Huh? What did you say?” I knew that I had just heard proper English, but my brain was expecting Spanish. When you get English for Spanish, it’s fairly certain that you will understand neither. Instead, I found large red buttons blinking on the logic board of my mind.

The boy repeated himself, “You’re an American, right? Would you like to buy a tape?” Again, the accent was perfect and the grammar flawless. This is also where all logic chose to rebel. Teenagers in the middle of the Chilean ghetto are not supposed to speak flawless English. They stand on street corners, smoke pot or crack, and generally torment their drunken elders.

And it was in the next moment that I had a thought about as close to perfect as I’d ever had or likely will have. Here was some Chilean kid who, despite being in one of the world’s biggest hell holes, had managed to teach himself to speak English. He could formulate sentences, ask questions, and expect responses. And he was selling unrecognizable junk at a street market for the equivalent of an American half-penny. This was unfair, unbalanced and … wrong.

People who can teach themselves to speak perfect English shouldn’t be sitting in the dust with a broken body selling crap. They should be studying at important Universities, writing brilliant poetry, or making important discoveries. Sitting in the dirt was just a hopeless waste and I decided I was going to do something about it. Whatever it took, I was going to fix this situation. Turning to the kid, I asked the obvious. “Where did you learn to speak English? You’re accent is very good.”

“I picked it up from TV and reading.” Gesturing to a tape which might have been purple, he added, “I’ve got Shakira.”

“Ah, that’s impressive.”

Sitting more upright, he added, “Thanks. Do you want to buy a tape or not?”

“Uh … no, I’ve already got that one.”

He sat down and said, “Oh. Okay.” And then he started talking to another person in the market, asking if they wanted one of his worthless, bootlegged recordings which likely wouldn’t play. When I tried to catch his attention, he just ignored me. After all, I wasn’t going to buy one of his tapes.

And in that moment … all my good intentions and resolve died, less than thirty seconds after beginning life. I tried one more time to get his attention, and he again ignored me. Because I didn’t buy a crappy tape for half an American penny. And so, I walked away to go look at worthless garbage.

Nearly ten years after that encounter, I still don’t know how to describe it. Tragic? Maybe. Ironic? Surely. But I think unfulfilled works best. One of life’s greatest miseries is described well by one simple phrase, “What might have been.“ For as good as human intent can be, it’s only human action that matters.

Some thoughts on children’s literature

Rob Oakes — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:27:02 +0000

Well … I’ve gone and done it. I got a nasty email. My somewhat thoughtful comments on Eragon and Inheritance have apparently scraped a few ragged nerves (not mine, thankfully). (Coincidentally, the mysterious letter writer fails to specify as a he, she or it; for sake of argument, let’s go with it.) After making various comments upon my person, upbringing and intellect; the writer comments (letter edited for spelling and grammar):

You’re just a bitter wannabe hack who’s angry and jealous that you don’t have the skill to write your own stories. It’s just a children’s book, can’t you cut it some slack?

Before going further, let’s clarify a few simple things. I am not a nice person. Bitter? Check. Angry? Double check and underline. Petty? Oh, yes. In fact, I have an utterly unique ability to alienate, put-off and offend. As my supervisors, family and co-workers have remarked; I am preternaturally gifted at pissing people off. But Jealous? Of Paolini? Hardly.

I wish Christopher Paolini nothing but happiness, wealth and phenomenal success. May he continue to sell well and single-handedly maintain his publishing company. For, in case you hadn’t heard, they haven’t been doing so well lately. After all, when I finally do get round to writing my own stories, I expect to be cut a six figure advancement check as well.

But that is neither here nor there, I would like to focus on and analyze the last bit of the writer’s comment, “It’s just a children’s book, can’t you cut it some slack?”If I am to understand the point correctly, we can allow some lee-way because it’s a children’s book. After all, most kids aren’t going to catch the inconsistencies or worry too much about the language, or notice that some of the characters largely stand in as blow up dolls, or any one of a dozen other major issues. Right? Am I missing something? We should just let the author off the hook because … well … children are just too stupid to realize that a given book is generally a piece of garbage?

…

Short answer: no, can’t do that. Ready for the long one?

Let’s start with the intelligence issue first. Kids aren’t stupid. One of the smartest people I know is seven. He can hold his own in a discussion of most subjects. The only person I know who can beat me at chess is twelve. These are anecdotal, let’s look at larger evidence of child intelligence: kids have taste and rebel when given crap to read.

Don’t believe me? Go watch a third grade class. Any third grade class. When told to do their “reading,” some will throw things, others will tantrum, and larger ones may hit their smaller peers. All will hate it. And why? Have you ever looked at the tripe which fills most third grade reading books? If not, just go look.

And yet … that same group will sit transfixed when read to. The difference is in the source. When read to, usually the teacher is participating and teachers also rebel when given crap to read; just like kids. The book read aloud is far more likely to be a staple: Peter Pan, the Secret Garden, the Hobbit, or … something palatable. It’s just like television, children recognize crap TV too.

But that’s not the important reason why we don’t cut authors slack. The important reason is far more simple: unlike adult literature, children’s literature matters. A whole bunch. In a recent interview, Neil Gaiman summarizes it well:

Q: So what do you think about children’s books?

A: They’re terrible; they should be banned. What kind of a question is that? I think they’re wonderful … Children’s fiction … has a holy place and position that adult fiction doesn’t have. Adult fiction is a wonderful thing and enriching to the soul and mind, and it takes you to great places. But children’s fiction can change the world and give you a refuge from the intolerable. It can give you a place of safety and show you the world is not bounded by the world you live in.

Children’s fiction has power that adult fiction can only dream of. Adult fiction makes us question our place in the world while children’s literature helps us to find and define it. Some of the greatest books of consequence - Narnia, the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, House on the Prairie - are all children’s works. Many a child learned the lessons of hard work, mercy, tolerance, and temperance while reading the exploits the Ingall’s family. I first learned to recognize loss when reading “Where the Red Fearn Grows” in the fourth grade; I also learned that even if the hurt is unbearable when new, it will someday fade.

Like Gaiman says, Children’s fiction is holy. It teaches, expands, edifies, confounds, frustrates, and spellbinds. Rather than be “given a break,” we should hold our children’s literature to a higher standard. While kids may know crap when they see it, sometimes they don’t know why it’s crap; nor should they have to worry about it. Their only concern should be one of enchantment. Descent into Neverland for the first time only happens once.

Ignoring the problems in a children’s book is bad, bad, bad. It’s letting rot take hold in the walls, knowing about it, and failing to act. So children’s books or their authors don’t get slack. They’re simply too important for that.

Books Do Not Need Baths

Rob Oakes — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:00:58 +0000

Why do adventures have to be so stinking inconvenient? Sure, they’re thrilling and certainly allow for interesting stories, but … by their nature, they’re disruptive and they make things difficult. While difficult things can be fun, more often they’re not. In fact, most of the time, difficult is short hand for hard, tedious, unpleasant and (if it involves anything outside) cold. For this reason, I was slightly annoyed to find that I (and a few of my prized possessions) spend most of Friday having an adventure.

So, now that the stage is set, I suppose that I should proceed to talk about my adventure in the manner of any story (good or otherwise): from the beginning. Also like any story, I should probably include enough of the background that anyone arriving late will understand the context. Thus, what follows is from the beginning with context.

Quite recently, I’ve been involved in a few creative pursuits; though a more accurate description might be response to the creativity of others. Either way, I have been thoroughly non-productive and passionately ignoring deadlines. I even produced a bit of art. And that’s where most of this trouble starts, actually. Not because the art is any good, but because I chose to do it during the middle of the winter and it’s been raining.

After I finished the art, I responsibly took it outside and sprayed it with the matte finish liquid that prevents it from smearing, smudging, or otherwise changing. And somehow, the sketchbook irresponsibly decided to remain outside. In a rainstorm. For two days. My standing theory is that it decided to have a bath, it has, after all been more than 15 years …

Suffice it to say, the sketchbook has now properly seen to its hygiene. It managed to stay in the water much longer than it should have and got more than sufficiently wrinkled. (While wrinkled conjures the right image, inundated better conveys the true reality. In fact, "completely and utterly buggered" is probably the most accurate description of all.)

Just to be clear, the book is a right and utter mess. Besides being wet, the paints and pencils have decided to bleed. The inks have run and the pages are warped and discolored. Thus starts my adventure in book drying. Like any other proper adventure, it has phases. If the first is “shudder at the damage,” while the next is “figure out what to do about it.”

It turns out, drying a book out in the proper manner is a true art. When done right, it a nuanced process that restores the book to its proper and beautiful state. Thus, while the steps are simple, the unpleasantness lies in the details. The process goes like hits: first, keep things dry. Barring that, dry it out.

Sure ... it sounds easy enough! Let me assure you that it’s not. When “done right",” there are no hairdryers, warm air streams or ovens. (Ovens are definitely out of the question.) Drying a book in the “right way” mostly involves lots of paper towels, blotting and time. Oh, and worry. We can’t forget the worry. It’s the the gut clenching type that makes you wonder if you’re completely end up buggered.

After the blotting and time bit come the next step. More paper towels (placed every twenty pages or so) and additional helpings of time. At this point, it’s also fair to use a fan. If you use a fan, just be sure to rotate the book every hour or so. Not rotating results in irreparable warping.

The penultimate stage of book drying is by far the most fascinating, it involves putting lots of weight on top of your (now almost dry) book… and more waiting. I still haven’t quite finished this leg of my adventure, but I will be sure to let you know if any there are additional details of note.

And the final leg, of course, involves money. As the binding is now completely blighted, I need it rebound. And since the pages are a bit … more creatively shaped, it must be bound by hand. Of course, the damn thing is a bloody priceless family and personal treasure and binding by hand is one of those lost artisan pursuits (which is just a nice way of saying expensive).

Most assuredely, there is one sure and steady lesson from this adventure:

Books Do Not Need Baths!

Mud with character

Rob Oakes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:26:54 +0000

I love the winter and I love the spring. What I do not love, however, is the period between the two. It is more than somewhat ironic that we are having a spate of warmer than normal temperatures out here in Rocky Mountain Country and the east is locked in a bitter cold spell. When it's cold, I can do things I enjoy. I like skiing and cold means good snow. I like horseback riding and there are few things more exhilarating than riding through a field of light dusty powder. When you get periods of warm mixed with cold (like our weather of late), however, you get two things I loathe and despise: mud and ice.

Ice ruins everything; it's slippery and dangerous and even worse, it melts! Do you know what melting ice and the questionable mixture of dirt, straw, sawdust and other "stuff" found at most barns forms? If the simple answer, mud, springs to mind; please re-think it. Mud doesn't come close to the reality. Mud brings to mind mud-pies and the days of childhood. Oh no, ice + barn dirt forms a vile sludge. Comparing normal mud to barn sludge is like comparing play-doh to the Blob.

Barn sludge is mud with the character still on. If life crawled out of a big steaming pot of goo, it's that type of mud. It has sawdust, masticated and gastriculated grass, and whatever else comes out of the business end of the horse. Barn sludge is the raw building environment of cellular natural selection. When dry, this mud can be used for buildings and braining people you don't care for. Then, there's the color. Given some of its unmentionable contents, it's a just off green and sometimes steams.

Oh ... and did I mention that because it gets cold that it also freezes? A truly perfect combination: ice frozen shit in the morning and mud in the afternoon. Its neither safe nor pleasant to ride in. So, while a warm spell is sometimes pleasant; give me cold weather in January anytime.

Apolitically Incorrect » Rants

Patronage in the Digital Age

Similar Posts:

Obama Won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Similar Posts:

Glass Houses and Stones

Similar Posts:

Why Bother With a Personal Website?

Why A Personal Website Is Necessary

Define Yourself Before Someone Else Does

A Website Is More Than Social Media

Conclusion

Similar Posts:

Trials and Travails of a Tack Snob

Similar Posts:

Barn Architecture

Similar Posts:

Save Your Favorite Show By Watching Online

Similar Posts:

Of Artists and Artisans

Similar Posts:

A Pitiful and Pathetic Story

Similar Posts:

Reluctantly Reviewed: iDefrag

Conclusion

Similar Posts:

Mac OS X doesn’t need to be defragmented? Yeah, right.

Similar Posts:

Good Intentions, Unfulfilled Actions

Similar Posts:

Some thoughts on children’s literature

Similar Posts:

Books Do Not Need Baths

Similar Posts:

Mud with character

Similar Posts: