My technology hates me. I had to scan something Aidan wrote to keep a copy, and my scanner wouldn't work until the sixth or seventh try. I didn't change anything I was doing, just on the sixth try it seemed to say, "Wellll, OK. If you really want to do this...". Only now I can't print what I scanned because I have no ink left in my color cartidge. Sigh.
So I changed gears and tackled my photo problem. They won't e-mail; I don't know why. I can post them here; that is incredibly simple. It even gives me the option of making photo borders or backgrounds for the blog; I might dig into that more later. Anyway, since the pictures won't go with the e-mail I figured I would dig out and dust off the photo printer (the photo printer is my shining example of why I have to install everything myself. When Quin does it I never seem to grasp how the thing actually works). Apparently I am out of one of my color options, because the pictures look all weird. On close-ups, they have no eyes, just something that looks like TV show. That's creepy. Aidan tells Oliver that's the picture of him when he becomes a Sith (since Anakin has yellow eyes in the Star Wars trailer). The pictures with the snowman actually look pretty cool. The sky is all whitish gray, but there is a dark outline just around the snowman, and the tree looks like a pixelated watercolor. I might keep those just 'cause they're arty.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Ned Kelly, Bushranger
That doesn't mean what you think it means. No, it doesn't mean that either.
I just saw the film Ned Kelly recently. I got the DVD on e-bay for $5, and it was worth about that. The film itself only really appeals to fans of Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom. OK, so me anyways. The movie was about a C+, nothing superlative, but it did give one the sense that there was a bigger story here. Ned Kelly is an Australian historical figure from the Victorian age, for those who might not know.
So I hit the library. The bad news is they only had one book on Ned Kelly. The good news is it was a very good book which I believe won the Booker prize, only don't quote me on that. It's called The True History of the Kelly Gang by Peter Carey. The further bad news is that this book, while a very good read, is a novel, a work of fiction. Just like the movie.
So I started prowling the 'net, and this is why I love the internet: there is a web space dedicated to Ned Kelly that breaks down the facts and fictions of both this novel and the movie. How helpful is that? So I've got all my Ned Kelly facts straight in my head and can go on to other things. I must recommend that book again; after reading it all I could think was, "Why wasn't this one made into a movie?" It would have been much more interesting to see.
One last creepy thing: of the four men/boys in the Kelly gang (who were only 19-25 when they died), Joe Byrne is supposedly this big ladies' men (which is why you get Orly Bloom to play him in the movie, right?). However, there is only one picture of him that keeps showing up over and over, and I'm wondering every time I see it why the only picture anyone can find of him he appears to be sleeping (eyes closed, head tilted in a really odd way). Perhaps you see where this is going, but on this Ned Kelly website I finally learn the truth: he was dead in that picture. The Victorian police propped his dead body up against a wall so journalists could take all the pictures they want. I liked it better when I assumed he was dozing off.
I just saw the film Ned Kelly recently. I got the DVD on e-bay for $5, and it was worth about that. The film itself only really appeals to fans of Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom. OK, so me anyways. The movie was about a C+, nothing superlative, but it did give one the sense that there was a bigger story here. Ned Kelly is an Australian historical figure from the Victorian age, for those who might not know.
So I hit the library. The bad news is they only had one book on Ned Kelly. The good news is it was a very good book which I believe won the Booker prize, only don't quote me on that. It's called The True History of the Kelly Gang by Peter Carey. The further bad news is that this book, while a very good read, is a novel, a work of fiction. Just like the movie.
So I started prowling the 'net, and this is why I love the internet: there is a web space dedicated to Ned Kelly that breaks down the facts and fictions of both this novel and the movie. How helpful is that? So I've got all my Ned Kelly facts straight in my head and can go on to other things. I must recommend that book again; after reading it all I could think was, "Why wasn't this one made into a movie?" It would have been much more interesting to see.
One last creepy thing: of the four men/boys in the Kelly gang (who were only 19-25 when they died), Joe Byrne is supposedly this big ladies' men (which is why you get Orly Bloom to play him in the movie, right?). However, there is only one picture of him that keeps showing up over and over, and I'm wondering every time I see it why the only picture anyone can find of him he appears to be sleeping (eyes closed, head tilted in a really odd way). Perhaps you see where this is going, but on this Ned Kelly website I finally learn the truth: he was dead in that picture. The Victorian police propped his dead body up against a wall so journalists could take all the pictures they want. I liked it better when I assumed he was dozing off.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Very good news, or how getting a rejection letter is like making the Olympic Team
Many moons ago I entered a story in the L. Ron Hubbard's Writer of the Future contest, a very prestigious scifi/fantasy short story competition only open to never-published or minimally-published writers (like me!). This was in September, so you can see why I had long since abandoned hope. Another quarter deadline in the contest had come and gone and still I heard nothing, so I began to reconcile myself to the fact that my story must have lost its way en route to LA.
Then yesterday, at long last, the Rejection Letter came! Oh sure, it sounds like a negative thing, but truly it was very, very good. My story had been gone so long because I had made the quarter finals. No, I didn't win, but my first shot out made it into the finals, that can only be a very good sign, I think. I've been thinking of it this way, making the finals in this contest is like making the Olympic team: you have to beat out a heck of a lot of people just to get there. Then you go to Athens and only three of you can win (also the case in this contest).
What I am thinking most fervently is that sometimes the difference between gold medal and no medal is just a few fractions of a second.
Unfortunately this isn't a stopwatch event, and there is no way to ever know specifically what kept my story out of the top three. It was over-long and the ending felt rushed has been my assessment over the past four months that I've had to stew and stew and stew over it (I wanted that story back before the mailman was ten steps away from the house).
I have two stories ready for this quarter, but I have until March to polish them up. And I already know what I want to change with this story before I send it out again, probably to Asimov's magazine, which I quite like.
On an unrelated note, after teaching Oliver his ABC's, Aidan has tried to move on to addition facts. I explained to him yesterday that that was just a bit much for a 3-year-old to grasp, so now he's helping his brother with counting past ten. Oliver can make it to ten in English and Spanish thanks to Dora the Explorer, but the teens are confusing.
Then yesterday, at long last, the Rejection Letter came! Oh sure, it sounds like a negative thing, but truly it was very, very good. My story had been gone so long because I had made the quarter finals. No, I didn't win, but my first shot out made it into the finals, that can only be a very good sign, I think. I've been thinking of it this way, making the finals in this contest is like making the Olympic team: you have to beat out a heck of a lot of people just to get there. Then you go to Athens and only three of you can win (also the case in this contest).
What I am thinking most fervently is that sometimes the difference between gold medal and no medal is just a few fractions of a second.
Unfortunately this isn't a stopwatch event, and there is no way to ever know specifically what kept my story out of the top three. It was over-long and the ending felt rushed has been my assessment over the past four months that I've had to stew and stew and stew over it (I wanted that story back before the mailman was ten steps away from the house).
I have two stories ready for this quarter, but I have until March to polish them up. And I already know what I want to change with this story before I send it out again, probably to Asimov's magazine, which I quite like.
On an unrelated note, after teaching Oliver his ABC's, Aidan has tried to move on to addition facts. I explained to him yesterday that that was just a bit much for a 3-year-old to grasp, so now he's helping his brother with counting past ten. Oliver can make it to ten in English and Spanish thanks to Dora the Explorer, but the teens are confusing.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Frank is living in my foot
I've been reading a ton of stuff online over the weekend. Judging by this: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html I think I've got the first ten steps under "the context of rejection" covered. Teresa Nielsen Hayden is an editor at Tor who, when asked what the odds are of someone's manuscript being published, has had if it's a good novel, the odds are very good and if it's a bad novel, the odds are not so good. I'm just egotistical enough to find that comforting.
In the category of actual printed material, I just read a book written by Wil Wheaton called Just a Geek which I actually enjoyed emmensely. On the whole, having a story rejected through the mail must be preferable to being an actor going out on endless auditions and not getting a part. It's still personal, but it's a step removed.
THe thing with the Wil Wheaton book... OK most of what I read I get from the library (a fact never to be guessed by anyone who has been to my book-overwhelmed house). I pick out books from home on the library website then swing by and pick them up on Errand Night. My point is, I don't read the back of teh book or see the cover or anything. So why is it when I get a book home I always found that Neil Gaiman has either written a blurb on the back or, as in this case, the introduction? It's uncanny, I think he's reverse-stalking me through my reading material.
In the category of actual printed material, I just read a book written by Wil Wheaton called Just a Geek which I actually enjoyed emmensely. On the whole, having a story rejected through the mail must be preferable to being an actor going out on endless auditions and not getting a part. It's still personal, but it's a step removed.
THe thing with the Wil Wheaton book... OK most of what I read I get from the library (a fact never to be guessed by anyone who has been to my book-overwhelmed house). I pick out books from home on the library website then swing by and pick them up on Errand Night. My point is, I don't read the back of teh book or see the cover or anything. So why is it when I get a book home I always found that Neil Gaiman has either written a blurb on the back or, as in this case, the introduction? It's uncanny, I think he's reverse-stalking me through my reading material.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
First post
So this is the first post. Just trying something new, seeing how it works. Could be fun.
The homeschooling: Aidan is 7 and Oliver is 3, so technically only one of them is homeschooling right now. By technically, I mean officially, as in has had paperwork filed about him with the school district. Homeschooling is just an extension of parenting, it starts at birth and it's every day. I don't believe it every really stops; there is just a slow progression from Mom as teacher to self as teacher. I went to public school myself, but most of what I learned that is of any value to me now I learned on my own time, just me and my library card.
The writing: Well, the second novel is finished, or at least the first draft of it is. That's not as impressive as it sounds, the first novel I wrote when I was 15-16, so it's taken about 15 years to write the follow up. And let me stress, first draft. Still, it's nice to put the words "the end" on page 454 and be able to say, "well, that doesn't completely suck." It needs more work, but I think it's a good start.
But right now I'm concentrating on short stories. I've sent a couple out to various mags and contests and have already started a file for my rejection letters. So far they've been very nice rejection letters, so I'm optimistic. Perhaps this will be The Year.
The homeschooling: Aidan is 7 and Oliver is 3, so technically only one of them is homeschooling right now. By technically, I mean officially, as in has had paperwork filed about him with the school district. Homeschooling is just an extension of parenting, it starts at birth and it's every day. I don't believe it every really stops; there is just a slow progression from Mom as teacher to self as teacher. I went to public school myself, but most of what I learned that is of any value to me now I learned on my own time, just me and my library card.
The writing: Well, the second novel is finished, or at least the first draft of it is. That's not as impressive as it sounds, the first novel I wrote when I was 15-16, so it's taken about 15 years to write the follow up. And let me stress, first draft. Still, it's nice to put the words "the end" on page 454 and be able to say, "well, that doesn't completely suck." It needs more work, but I think it's a good start.
But right now I'm concentrating on short stories. I've sent a couple out to various mags and contests and have already started a file for my rejection letters. So far they've been very nice rejection letters, so I'm optimistic. Perhaps this will be The Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
