Had a 4.8 extreme hill run that I didn't finish followed by at 51:09 and I think it's because I was easing up on the bike. Quit standing. Also really thought a bit about it and it seems it's just too hilly. So today I ran instead a relatively flat 3 mile course in 26:40. Which is a PR for the last 15 years. And hopefully only for a week or so.
Life is better without caffeine by the way. Thinking lately about how I need dreams to hold on to. Somehow, someway, even if they're vague, even if they maybe can't stand much scrutiny. Dreams of being good at suduko I guess. But I need a few more suduko type games. Writing fiction. Standing to write of injustice. (Must remember... though I don't want to type. Possibly something original with music that would cost money....)
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Sinners of Erspia by Barrington Bayley
What is it called when a story is about quickly traveling from world to world? I thought "Space Opera" but although this story could be defined as space opera, it's really just a vague term for sci-fi that is somewhat simplistic. Which is to say, most of it.
Bayley is a "man of ideas". No hero with an ace. No overriding sense of injustice. Not much mystery. Although finding this Klystar actually does keep this going.
Here we hop from mini Klystar planet to planet, a few maybe not sufficiently explored. This book does have tons of sex. Way more so than I thought ever got published in sci-fi back in the day. Maybe it was published fairly recently although except for the sex it reads like it could have been published many decades past. From interviews Bayley says he hasn't managed to get published in a decade and that the life of most (sci-fi/fantasy) authors is about ten years. Maybe that's what he refers to, that his style is dated now, and he can't get published anymore....
Unusual book. Has rape and murder and graphic torture yet manages to be lighthearted. Lacks seriousness. Maybe purposely so? To manage to get in the rape, etc, caused by the Ahriman bad thought projections?
Some basic ideas about mankind's general stupidity, about how we're really only half conscious. Told in third person. I think I prefer first.
I think this sort of book could be fun to write. Key is not being too serious though. In the past I toyed with ideas that were similar to this but I tried to keep them serious. Pulling off a very serious version is not easy. The idea is to just quickly roam through many different type societies. A space ship is an easy vehicle to manage it. Vance though did it in Tschai without a ship, and was even very serious. Better to start attempting something like Bayley did or Vonnegut.
What is it called when a story is about quickly traveling from world to world? I thought "Space Opera" but although this story could be defined as space opera, it's really just a vague term for sci-fi that is somewhat simplistic. Which is to say, most of it.
Bayley is a "man of ideas". No hero with an ace. No overriding sense of injustice. Not much mystery. Although finding this Klystar actually does keep this going.
Here we hop from mini Klystar planet to planet, a few maybe not sufficiently explored. This book does have tons of sex. Way more so than I thought ever got published in sci-fi back in the day. Maybe it was published fairly recently although except for the sex it reads like it could have been published many decades past. From interviews Bayley says he hasn't managed to get published in a decade and that the life of most (sci-fi/fantasy) authors is about ten years. Maybe that's what he refers to, that his style is dated now, and he can't get published anymore....
Unusual book. Has rape and murder and graphic torture yet manages to be lighthearted. Lacks seriousness. Maybe purposely so? To manage to get in the rape, etc, caused by the Ahriman bad thought projections?
Some basic ideas about mankind's general stupidity, about how we're really only half conscious. Told in third person. I think I prefer first.
I think this sort of book could be fun to write. Key is not being too serious though. In the past I toyed with ideas that were similar to this but I tried to keep them serious. Pulling off a very serious version is not easy. The idea is to just quickly roam through many different type societies. A space ship is an easy vehicle to manage it. Vance though did it in Tschai without a ship, and was even very serious. Better to start attempting something like Bayley did or Vonnegut.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Into the Labyrinth by Tracy Hickman and Margeret Weis
Long ago, more than a decade, maybe not quite two, I read some of the earlier books of this ..I guess seven part series. I really liked Alfred the Sartan, because he had such a hidden ace up his sleeve. And yet he was dismissed as an incompetent idiot (subject to great injustice). That's what it's all generally about. That made up for the negatives for the most part. Years later I come back for the heck of it to I think book six. Same sort of stuff I guess.
Negatives are that just about everyone is a blundering idiot. But then that usually is the real fantasy part about fantasy fiction. There are dragons also and that sort of thing. Blundering idiots and few characters with hidden aces. Not really enough feeling of injustice though here in book six. Skimming through the final book now. Meh.
The book just isn't very consistent. I recall at the very beginning it didn't feel quite so lightweight as Hugh the Hand was being taken to be executed. But ultimately as we spend time with the main villain (Xar) it's really just a silly bunch of books. How does one make evil that isn't ridiculous anyway? Not so easy. Imagine writing about George Bush and Dick Cheney... Horrifically dark and not remotely something to escape to, or just ridiculous. Perhaps Terry Prachett has the right idea.
Long ago, more than a decade, maybe not quite two, I read some of the earlier books of this ..I guess seven part series. I really liked Alfred the Sartan, because he had such a hidden ace up his sleeve. And yet he was dismissed as an incompetent idiot (subject to great injustice). That's what it's all generally about. That made up for the negatives for the most part. Years later I come back for the heck of it to I think book six. Same sort of stuff I guess.
Negatives are that just about everyone is a blundering idiot. But then that usually is the real fantasy part about fantasy fiction. There are dragons also and that sort of thing. Blundering idiots and few characters with hidden aces. Not really enough feeling of injustice though here in book six. Skimming through the final book now. Meh.
The book just isn't very consistent. I recall at the very beginning it didn't feel quite so lightweight as Hugh the Hand was being taken to be executed. But ultimately as we spend time with the main villain (Xar) it's really just a silly bunch of books. How does one make evil that isn't ridiculous anyway? Not so easy. Imagine writing about George Bush and Dick Cheney... Horrifically dark and not remotely something to escape to, or just ridiculous. Perhaps Terry Prachett has the right idea.
I'm writing up a research paper for a research group I'm on. I did up the first draft and got feedback from the rest of the group about it. I'm the only man on the team. It's me and around ten or so women. And all the women are managers, etc. I'm the lowest ranking person. There was one other woman who ranked as low as me but she just got promoted.
I don't think I'm going to get promoted anytime soon...? Kind of hope not. I think my people skills maybe aren't good enough. (Either because of the father I had, or how much of a dreamer I am, or just how much extreme stuff I've been through, I ultimately don't relate quite well enough, somehow.... There is also the fact I'm the only man.) But then this women who just got promoted sits in these research meetings and never says anything, while I've mostly carried the project so far and spend more time giving my opinion than most managers.
Which is a little dangerous of course. The underlings are somewhat expected to keep their mouths shut and be yesman in any corporate structure. But perhaps not too horribly so, in this particular structure. I think the people are generally very happy with my input and work. I do disagree with managers regularly. I worry a bit about doing so. Ideally, it's what I should be doing. If my managers are any good it's what they should want me to be doing. But such "ideal behavior" at times hasn't worked out for me in the past. And I'm definitely tempering it a bit more these days than I once did. Ultimately though I've always felt extreme disgust for the yesman. Those who obey authority even when they know it's wrong. Those of the Milgram shock experiment. The "good germans", etc. And so, so many people I've known in my own personal experience.
Anyway a few people suggested changes to the paper that I could have expected well enough. Really I figured it was just a first draft. But I must say making the expected changes to make it read more like other published work, will actually make it not as good of a paper in terms of actually imparting information to the reader. What I mean to say is the established writing form isn't entirely rational. And that ultimately I'm a bad writer because I try to follow the rational instead of just following the crowd. And I suppose I'll always be a bad writer for this reason. (Although the Finnish papers I read were far more rational, but I'm expected to follow the American ones...)
And then furthermore, despite my endless reading and endless attempts to write, I'll never be anything special at it. For example, I don't see the point in avoiding a repetitious structure when starting a new paragraph that explains yet another person's previous work. You make it harder to follow if with each chapter you switch things around, yet I know that's what I'm supposed to do. Same thing in that I don't think a different word/adjective should be used when you refer over and over to the same thing. Again, just brings potential pointless confusion. Finally I want to start out with a very very brief introduction of all the potential benefits of the practice change we want to make before jumping into the particulars. This way the reader sees all of them, right in one paragraph. All together, very easily compiled.
But no, that's just not how it's done. So I'll have to break that up into at least three paragraphs and make them not as brief and make it a bit harder for the reader to quickly get information from it.
So this first draft was very easy to understand, I have to now go back and make it less easy to understand and instead more like other people's papers.
So today I sit, still sick with the flu, trying to do this. And it's harder for me than it might be for another, because I'm not just copying the accepted normal way. I'm caught between doing it in what ought to be the right way, and doing it the accepted way. Trying to figure how far can I push it towards the right way. Probably not very far actually.
And this is what it's like, again and again, reiventing everything, because actually most things really don't work that well. It's a bit of a pain in the ass today. And if you carry it all the way, it makes life hell. It leaves one in torment. Take it all the way, and good luck functioning in the actual world at all.
"...there are people who are dead-alive, people who are alive-alive. The dead-alive also write, walk, speak, act. But they make no mistakes, and they produce only dead things. The alive-alive are constantly in error, in search, in questions, in torment." Yevgeny Zamyatin
It is so much better than my time working as an engineer/scientist though. There is absolutely zero tolerance for any originality whatsoever in that massive field. You have more freedom of speech and are less compelled to kiss ass in the military.
I don't think I'm going to get promoted anytime soon...? Kind of hope not. I think my people skills maybe aren't good enough. (Either because of the father I had, or how much of a dreamer I am, or just how much extreme stuff I've been through, I ultimately don't relate quite well enough, somehow.... There is also the fact I'm the only man.) But then this women who just got promoted sits in these research meetings and never says anything, while I've mostly carried the project so far and spend more time giving my opinion than most managers.
Which is a little dangerous of course. The underlings are somewhat expected to keep their mouths shut and be yesman in any corporate structure. But perhaps not too horribly so, in this particular structure. I think the people are generally very happy with my input and work. I do disagree with managers regularly. I worry a bit about doing so. Ideally, it's what I should be doing. If my managers are any good it's what they should want me to be doing. But such "ideal behavior" at times hasn't worked out for me in the past. And I'm definitely tempering it a bit more these days than I once did. Ultimately though I've always felt extreme disgust for the yesman. Those who obey authority even when they know it's wrong. Those of the Milgram shock experiment. The "good germans", etc. And so, so many people I've known in my own personal experience.
Anyway a few people suggested changes to the paper that I could have expected well enough. Really I figured it was just a first draft. But I must say making the expected changes to make it read more like other published work, will actually make it not as good of a paper in terms of actually imparting information to the reader. What I mean to say is the established writing form isn't entirely rational. And that ultimately I'm a bad writer because I try to follow the rational instead of just following the crowd. And I suppose I'll always be a bad writer for this reason. (Although the Finnish papers I read were far more rational, but I'm expected to follow the American ones...)
And then furthermore, despite my endless reading and endless attempts to write, I'll never be anything special at it. For example, I don't see the point in avoiding a repetitious structure when starting a new paragraph that explains yet another person's previous work. You make it harder to follow if with each chapter you switch things around, yet I know that's what I'm supposed to do. Same thing in that I don't think a different word/adjective should be used when you refer over and over to the same thing. Again, just brings potential pointless confusion. Finally I want to start out with a very very brief introduction of all the potential benefits of the practice change we want to make before jumping into the particulars. This way the reader sees all of them, right in one paragraph. All together, very easily compiled.
But no, that's just not how it's done. So I'll have to break that up into at least three paragraphs and make them not as brief and make it a bit harder for the reader to quickly get information from it.
So this first draft was very easy to understand, I have to now go back and make it less easy to understand and instead more like other people's papers.
So today I sit, still sick with the flu, trying to do this. And it's harder for me than it might be for another, because I'm not just copying the accepted normal way. I'm caught between doing it in what ought to be the right way, and doing it the accepted way. Trying to figure how far can I push it towards the right way. Probably not very far actually.
And this is what it's like, again and again, reiventing everything, because actually most things really don't work that well. It's a bit of a pain in the ass today. And if you carry it all the way, it makes life hell. It leaves one in torment. Take it all the way, and good luck functioning in the actual world at all.
"...there are people who are dead-alive, people who are alive-alive. The dead-alive also write, walk, speak, act. But they make no mistakes, and they produce only dead things. The alive-alive are constantly in error, in search, in questions, in torment." Yevgeny Zamyatin
It is so much better than my time working as an engineer/scientist though. There is absolutely zero tolerance for any originality whatsoever in that massive field. You have more freedom of speech and are less compelled to kiss ass in the military.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Krisiloff Diet by Milton Krisiloff
You have to buy the book to find out what the diet is. I bought it for my dad as this is a diet to alleviate urology issues. The diet is:
Avoid all caffeine, alcohol and spicy foods.
That's it. But he won't just tell you that for free. You've got to buy his damm book. The rest of this thin book is anecdotal stories of people who got better when they followed the diet. He also calls it the anti-inflammation diet. I wonder if he means that in the same way that is used concerning histamine and omega 3's. I doubt he's got an answer. The man's understanding is a tad on the crude side. Seems like being a urologist would be somewhat of a cushy (although depressing) job. I had previously though there was a correlation between fatty, animal based foods and prostate issues. Still do, actually. Although avoiding caffeine, alcohol and spicy foods may be a good idea, this book is still a bit close to the simplistic magic pill mindset which medicine seems to have fallen to.
You have to buy the book to find out what the diet is. I bought it for my dad as this is a diet to alleviate urology issues. The diet is:
Avoid all caffeine, alcohol and spicy foods.
That's it. But he won't just tell you that for free. You've got to buy his damm book. The rest of this thin book is anecdotal stories of people who got better when they followed the diet. He also calls it the anti-inflammation diet. I wonder if he means that in the same way that is used concerning histamine and omega 3's. I doubt he's got an answer. The man's understanding is a tad on the crude side. Seems like being a urologist would be somewhat of a cushy (although depressing) job. I had previously though there was a correlation between fatty, animal based foods and prostate issues. Still do, actually. Although avoiding caffeine, alcohol and spicy foods may be a good idea, this book is still a bit close to the simplistic magic pill mindset which medicine seems to have fallen to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)