Speak Like You Want to be Written About

A friend once said that a person should "speak like you want to be written about." Something clever, profound or witty enough that would make a person want to immortalize it forever. I could quote that friend all day.  She speaks like she should be written about.  Nothing trite, cliche, or overrated - she was a natural at it.

It seems that there are people out there who try too hard.  They try too hard to be witty and clever.  It is forced, stilted and stale like month old bread.  Not necessarily only in speech, writers too fall prey to this as well.  They strive for the stars, for writing something that will be remembered, that will leave echoes.  Unfortunately, some of those efforts don't make it off the ground.  Trite and overdone, like acting when you can tell an actor is acting.  It ruins writing that has potential.

Not every writer falls prey to such fallacy, but there is a lot of writing out there that could have been something, but has amounted to nothing (by nothing, I don't mean to say they are unpopular - look at the Twilight series).  Some of these books have become quite popular.  They sell, and many sell well.  But, they lack something.  I have found, the more I read, the less and less patience I have with books and authors.  Books, that I once loved, I cannot stand anymore. I have realized just how overdone and cliche they have become, how authors had a chance to take it to the next level and fell flat into redundancy, absurdity, and taking the plot off in a direction that will irritate.

Yikes. I am heading into literary snobville.  But, I at least don't believe that genre writing isn't literature.  It is literature, some of it even great literature, like Dune by Frank Herbert. However, reading Rowling, Austen, Dickens, Eliot, and Poe enough can help ruin liking newer books.

There is indeed a major difference between literature and pop fiction.  Some popular books, i.e. Harry Potter, are well-written and original enough to make them good reads, not just overdone fluff.  Like romance novels.  Absurd plots (absurd in how much they have done before and the deliberate grief and misunderstandings - too much soap opera-ness), annoying characters that a person honestly can't sympathize with.

Literary fluff has its uses, just like completely stupid movies with no basis in reality or plot. It is for enjoyment and entertainment. Something to watch/read without really caring what it's about nor remembering anything afterwards. Harsh - probably. I know Twilight will probably never be considered fluff in the fact it's popular and the teens and tweens just love it - I can't really understand that.  They are readable, but not truthfully "good."

A Series of Unfortunate Events by "Lemony Snicket" is something new, experimental and actually works well.  The writer of the series strove to be witty and clever an actually succeeded without being overdone and trite.  Nothing formulaic or overdone, like these vampire huntress novels out there. *shudders* There are way too many of those books.  One author actually admitted that there hasn't been a plot in her books for a long time - how tragic!

I want to be a better writer than that.  Unfortunately, I am not doing so well in that department.  The more I read, the more I realize how much I have to learn. But that's the great thing.  Learning.  Some people will probably never be able to write well or speak cleverly - but that's fine.  Those vocations are definitely not everything - be good at what you like.

So, write, speak like you want to be written about.  Do your best, but don't try too hard - it is a shame to over-do something and end up with month-old stale bread.

Veracity of Dreams

Dream interpretation has been a hot debate, at least in certain circles.  How much stock can one put in a dream?  According to Freud, there are many subconscious desires and knowledge that comes out in dreams.  Of course, Freud was also a big proponent of recognizing sexual urges in dreams.  Sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar, not some weird phallic representation.

I have little faith, myself, in dreams.  They are silly things that are not memorable and I fail to see how they can actually relate to reality.  What does it mean to have a werewolf sitting outside your door or to go bowling with turkeys at your best friend's house?  Consult a dream dictionary and they answers are absurd.  Any reference to wolves/werewolves brings up sex.  Since children have such dreams, I highly doubt dreaming of such a thing represents suppressed sexual desire.

My grandmother, however, puts great stock in dreams.  In sooth, several dreams of hers have come true - the good and the bad.  She says that you know when those dreams will come true.  She has always had a good idea of which of her dreams will come to pass.  Now, nothing is exactly the way it is in dreams.  It is not a true account of the events that have come to happen.  It is eerie when she relates all that she dreamed and what happened later.

Should I believe her?  Well, yes.  I don't put much stock in dreams, but I do hers.  Mainly because I have heard her tell the stories months before such events actually occurred - many without the slightest hint that such events were actually on the horizon.  She has dreamt of deaths and joyous happenings, all of which have come to pass.

So, should I worry about recurring dreams?  Ones that don't seem to implausible?  Ones that worry me?  Grandmother says that recurring dreams prepare you for an event to come.  I believe that I don't want this event to come - it just doesn't seem right, or fair, to the parties involved.  So, I think I shall stick with believing that my dreams come to naught and will leave the "special" dreams to my grandmother.

Mansfield Park Delights and Horrifies

There are three feature film versions of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park.  Next to Pride and Prejudice, that particular Austen novel is my favorite.  So, I was happy to discover film versions - sad but true.  Now, I first saw the 1999 version before ever having read the book.  I absolutely loved it!  I loved Alessandro Nivola as the dastardly Mr. Henry Crawford and Frances O'Connor was a vivacious Fanny Price.  I still love that movie version.  It is a unique blend of biography (Austen's) and fiction (obviously, the book Mansfield Park). There are points where I wish it would follow the book a little more closely, but I really can't complain with the acting or the script.

Afterwards, I learned of another version.  This one made in 1983 starring Sylvestra La Touzel as Miss Price.  Now, I love this version because it follows the book so well, hence it's six hour length.   However, I do not like the fact that there is a lot of over-reacting.  Too much, in fact.  Mostly on the part of Ms. La Touzel.  I think that her histrionics are over-the-top and unbelievable (such as when Sir Thomas chastises Fanny for not wanting to marry Mr. Crawford).  That is really the worst part of the entire film.  Other than that, there really is nothing else to detract from the greatness of a good adaptation of the book.

Now, I caught part of Mansfield Park (2007) on PBS one night.  Bad reception deemed I would not get to watch it.  But I recently acquired the film and must say I could not get through it at all.  Which, I suppose, is horrible to say since it was only 1.5 hours.  The reason?  Bad acting, bad costumes, bad make-up and, most importantly, a bad Fanny.  Miss Price is not some wild girl with unkempt clothes and hair (her corset was always peeking out of an extremely low cut bodice) and her hair looked like it never saw a brush in it's life.  Now, the 1999 version had a more outspoken Fanny, but that worked for the film and the actress.  It seemed to fit just right.  In this film, it seems scandalous.  Maybe because it was so atrociously done. Also, Lady Bertram's character is horribly rendered as a gossipy, holier-than-thou matriarch.  Heaven forbid! Making Tom Bertram and Mr. Yates into one character is deplorable (especially since Julia Bertram becomes attached to Yates).

One must wonder what the writers were thinking.  There are enough Jane Austen aficionados still today who will descry the '07 version.  If you cannot remain true to the characters and you employ bad acting, the wrong clothing of the time and a too-swift moving plot, I doubt there is anyone who can enjoy it.

I do find that after watching the 4-6 hour versions of book adaptations, I lose interest in the 1.5-2 hour versions, mainly because they do not follow the books so well and cut out sometimes integral (at least in my eyes) scenes.  However, I still enjoy the '99 version after seeing the '83.  I don't know how anyone could like the '07 version. 

Sir Spam-A-Lot

Spam. A constant problem. I have closed out several email accounts due to the high volume of spam. Sometimes spam comes from registering products (some companies will sell your email address). Also, not-so-trustworthy sites lure in unsuspecting people and then sell your email to other companies so you are spammed that way too.

Often overlooked as a route to spam and email viruses are forwards and group emails. If you have ever received a forward, you notice a huge laundry list of email addressed who were sent similar items. Thus, people have access to a huge resource of email addresses of which to spam or hit with viruses (not that your friends are untrustworthy, but in the grand scheme of forwards and group mailings, you don't know most of the people who get the message passed on to them).

So what to do? Email programs do offer the BCC field. This field hides all email addresses sent to so people cannot get at your entire address book of contacts. Also, when you receive forwards that you plan to forward on, delete everything except what you thought was so cool. I get sick of forwards where you scroll through huge amounts of email addresses and personal messages until you actually get to the forwarded content. (This works only if your email program is set to forward in body versus as an attachment.)

I would like to think that if people knew what the BCC field was, they would actually take care to use it. I think it is a friendly turn to make sure your family's and friends' email addresses stay protected from spammers and viruses. This is one step to do it. So please do. Every little bit helps. Now some email programs (like Yahoo!) won't let you send an email unless you have one in the "To" field. I use an email account that I check every now and then that is already overloaded with spam. Gmail is excellent because of the huge inbox you get. Thus, no real email is being sent on.

Another way to stop spam is to invest in internet security. I am an avid Firefox user and have WOT installed. It pops up with potentially dangerous sites that can spam you, send you viruses and trojans, so it's a good feature to have. I have a phishing detector and Norton 360 - all of which help. Be wary of using your email on sites, try to read the fine print. When registering or setting up accounts on other websites, check to see if their privacy policy prohibits them from selling your information to other companies.

Tis better to be safe than sorry.

Empty Promises

In today’s world, new books abound: some of them great, some not so great, and others downright unreadable. Of course, what books fall under these categories is highly subjective to the individual reader. I would, however, like to point out that even though books can be deemed “readable” it does not necessarily mean that they are written well or are even feasible. This is not in reference to science fiction or fantasy, but even regular fiction.

The major problem with today’s literature seems to be the amount of no-substance “fluff” getting published. Even though I am in my early twenties, I will still sometimes read young adult books. Now, just because these books are for young adults, does it mean that it is okay to create these implausibly badly written novels? Do youth of today have no standards? No, but some of the works that are out there for them are quite atrocious.

Flashy titles, pretty covers, and well-written blurbs may make these books seem appealing, but underneath all the glitz is, well, nothing. It is always a great letdown to read the blurbs, or back covers and then to sit down with a book that had such promising features to find out it is a dud. It is like the movie business where they put the best of the movie in the trailer, with books they put the best of it on the back cover. It is sad.

The great shame being that these books are produced by the major publishing houses. It seems rather ridiculous that some of the worst books published are sponsored by major presses. Yes, not every book believed to be good will make it, but to have so many being produced at such low quality, it is downright scary. What happened to the good days of good books for children, teenagers and adults? Harry Potter was at least a well-written series, unlike Eragon. No offense to Christopher Paolini, but that book was good in theory, but in reality not the best. I say kudos to young authors who are getting published, but should they be? Amelia Atwater Rhodes had some great books out before the age of 20 (she was first published at sixteen). Those books of hers didn’t make you cringe from their horribleness.

Being a voracious reader and a big fan of Anne McCaffrey’s Pern stories, I had high expectations for Eragon. I was let down. I finally understood what it meant when people said “authorial convenience.” Yes, there were times when the happenings of Eragon were just too convenient. What is the likelihood that in reality someone who knew everything about dragons would just so happen to live in the same town with the boy who managed to find the “last” dragon egg? I tried hard to like it, but in the end I could not. I didn’t even finish the book – which is actually quite rare for me. It is becoming increasingly difficult, however, for me to find a book that will keep me turning the pages.

I abhor skimming, I believe things should be read in entirety, but more and more lately I cannot find the patience to sit through reading a book cover to cover. What is happening to literature today?