The back of Aidan's Harry Potter costume (from movie 4, Goblet of Fire) 

Oliver as Ron Weasley 

Aidan as Harry Potter 

Aidan and Oliver among cousins 

Greek philosophy, Tarantino style

You have to read it to believe it: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006952.html#006952.

The Ghost of Halloweens Past

I thought I would quick post some pictures of the boys in Halloweens past. Quin spends so much time on these costumes they deserve a big showcase. Sadly, there was nothing "quick" about this exercise. 100 error messages later, I did get every picture up there. Good grief!

They are going to be Harry Potter and Ron Weasley this year. The wands are done and the robes are on the way. I'll post a pic of this year's costumes when they're ready.

The only one of the costumes that follow that I did any work on was Oliver's woodland fairy. I did that one. Except the wings; Quin did the wings.

Aidan as Teletubby Po 

Aidan as Obi-Wan Kenobi 

Aidan as Buzz Lightyear 

Oliver as a woodland fairy 

Aidan as Li Mu Bai (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) 

Aidan and Oliver as Hobbits 

Aidan as Mulan 

Oliver as Teletubby Po 

Aidan as Darth Vader 

Oliver as Darth Maul 

Would you read this book?

(Greenland, 1409)

In a world where all Norse are now Christians, one tribe strikes out on their own, looking for a place to make a settlement where they can follow the old ways. But the warming trend in the climate that made farming possible for the Norse in Greenland is over and the Little Ice Age has begun. The only way to survive in Greenland is to live as the Inuit live, but to live as the Inuit live is to no longer be Norse.

This is the world Thordís Thorrgilsdottír is born into. When her father, who was both chieftain and priest, is murdered, Thordís takes up the mantle of leadership for this wayward clan. But where should she lead them? Back to the Norse Settlements, where being a member of the community is only possible if one converts to the new religion? Or should she accept the Inuit’s offer to help her people adopt their lifestyle, knowing that the Norse ways would be forgotten in a few generations?

Thordís searches for a third option. Her quest takes her to the spirit world, where a man she’s never met seems to know her very well, and to the future, where a pair of siblings must choose whether to help her return to rescue her own people or keep her with them, where she could be the key to saving their own family.

And in the end Thordís will have to decide whether her own destiny lies with that of her people or somewhere else entirely.




(You'll forgive me, but I just had to start with "In a world where...")

On Scientology

Dennis Miller once lamented the fact that as much as Freedom of Speech is worth defending, does it really have to be 2 Live Crew's "Me So Horny" that we make a stand for?

Scientology, like 2 Live Crew, gets no respect. Why? It can't just be because it seems to be based on silly principles. That's true of almost any religion if you dig deep enough. Not to pick on the Mormons, but that would be a good place to start digging. But the Mormons are actually a good example. Most Mormons you meet are happy, well-adjusted people. They don't dowse for treasure, talk to ancient Egyptian gods, or practice black magic (not that there's anything wrong with that - pagan, remember?). I've never met a Scientologist, but I imagine if I did the space alien thing wouldn't come to mind either. Not to my mind, anyway; I can't speak for yours.

So what's my point? I'm tired of Scientology "jokes". It's socially OK to mock them in a way that it's not OK to mock, say Jews. Yes, yes, Freedom of Speech and all that, you can certainly say what you want, but unless you're George Carlin or Steve Martin you're not being funny. Bowfinger was hilarious, but note Martin is very indirect. The word "Scientology" never comes up, yet we all know that's what he's talking about.

What is being said isn't even particularly original, quite frankly; I hear the same comments over and over again. They're just being disrespectful and rude, and socially acceptable rudeness is the worst kind. What Freedom of Speech means is that you have a choice what to say and what not to say, and you distinguish yourself by not just saying everything that comes to mind.

All right, end of lecture. Speaking of Scientologists, may I recommend Beck's new song, "Girl"? Only Beck could write a song that sounds this happy yet contains the line "You know I'm gonna make her die." Maybe he means dye, like his clothes?

It's been a while since I posted a kitty picture. This is Aidan with the whole herd (Spike in arms, Valentine the dark one with white feet, and Molly with her back to you 'cause she's aloof).  

Faulty analogy?

Have you ever seen the movie The Fifth Element? Well, you should. But aside from that, in this movie Chris Tucker wears a dress. Now the director had a sense that if he just asked Chris Tucker to wear a dress, the actor would say no. So he had the costume designer draw up some really outrageous, out-there designs. When Chris Tucker flipped out, the director pulled out the original designs, much tamer by comparison. That's how you get Chris Tucker in a dress.

This story has come to mind everytime I read a story about Harriet Miers. My Pollyanna nature likes to think the best of all people, but I'm starting to feel like someone is pulling a prank here. He can't honestly think she is the best he can find for that job. But maybe I'm wrong about her. But maybe I'm right, 'cause you know I'm the freak that doesn't think Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie are as nuts as they act (hello, people, they're actors!).

Anyway, it's some final polishing to Full Circle today and then back to the novel. Which I'm calling Hammer and Snowflake, but if you must you can think of it as "Vikings in Space".

Writing Update

The WIP is up to 3800 words. OK, that's just an acorn, but someday it will be a might oak. I think.

I've been writing to Paul McCartney's new one, Chaos & Creation. While I don't think it's better than George Harrison's last one, it would be hard to top that one in my book. It's definitely the best think Paul has done since Flowers in the Dirt and maybe before. I especially like "English Tea". Very twee. Very me.

Random musing

I'm on overdrive for the first draft of my third novel, so readers here can expect short, infrequent posts. But I had to get on to mention this: I've seen dozens of pictures of Iraqis voting today - print, TV, and internet. I have yet to see a man voting. They are letting the men vote too, right? How about women who aren't as old as the hills? It's great they are all getting involved with the process, it's a pivotal moment for Iraq and I don't want to cheapen that, but jeez, big media, skew the coverage much?

Just a quick post...

to say that Tobias Buckell (previously mentioned here and here) has a website up for his to-be-released novel Crystal Rain. Now granted I'm a sucker for flying machines, but this looks seriously cool. Check it out.

What's wrong with public school?

Some homeschoolers are virulently anti-public school. Honestly, they'll start foaming at the mouth if you bring it up. I'm not one of those. I think if my boys had to go to public school they would do OK.

Then I read articles like the one in the StarTribune today. It was about parents volunteering to help out in the classroom. Apparently teachers are getting more volunteers than they need. And this is a problem? It gets worse: the word "hyper-involved" gets tossed about. My favorite, one teacher accused the parent volunteers of spying. They were really only there to evaluate her teaching.

And this is wrong how? Good grief! The very idea that anyone should surrender their child at the door and leave everything up to the teacher in her infinite wisdom just rubs me the wrong way. They don't want you to teach your own children how to read because it messes with their system.

The system needs to be reformed, I guess everyone believes that on some level. Being a bit of a capitalist, I think competition is a good thing. People need to have more choices about their children's education, and have the information to evaluate the options so they can make educated choices. Yes, Ms. Teacher, that means going into your classroom and evaluating what you are doing. Yes, it's going to be all about their child. I don't think anyone should have to choose what would be best for children overall at the expense of their own child's education (which is really their own child's future).

It seems lately I've been seeing more and more news stories like this one. The teachers want the parents out of their hair. Well, parents? Are we going to stand for that?

My family (the non-South Park version) 

Naturalism vs. Surrealism

The DVD for Vampire's Kiss came in the mail this week. What a terrific movie. Nick Cage at his finest. It had a commentary track, which was an unexpected surprise. It wasn't a special edition or anything, just some film company milking their back catalogue. It was the director and Nick Cage both talking about the movie, recorded cerca 1998 but I know the DVD wasn't available then so I would guess it was recorded for the laser disc (remember those?).

It's going in my top ten best commentary tracks ever. There is no discussion of what anybody ate, or things that happened off camera, or how hot is she, it's all about the craft. I love when people talk about the craft. I'm not even that particular about which craft. Here it was film making and acting (the director was not the writer, so there is no discussion of writing here).

Nick Cage spends a lot of time talking about his acting choices for the role. I think I said before that this is my favorite role of his. Better than Leaving Las Vegas. Honestly. On the commentary track, he talks about the difference between naturalism and surrealism and that while the vast majority of people are always striving for naturalism, what they don't get is that this is a style, just like anything else.

Wow. That clicked with me. As some one who does not strive for naturalism, it's great to hear him say that. I've never called what I like "surrealism", I call it "hyper-realism". Whether I made that up or read it or heard it, I don't know (man, I wish my brain came with footnotes). Anyway, the goal of naturalism is to recreate life as exactly has possible. As Cage said, there are many different styles of painting, only one of them is photo-realism.

I'm talking just from my own thoughts here, but I think the goal of my writing is not to recreate life as exactly as possible. Big surprise, I know, since I write fantasy, but there it is. I want to create certain experiences inside of the reader's mind and hopefully invoke certain emotions.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, I have to keep stoppping to help someone with his math. Let's try this: Shakespeare (ah, she plays the trump card!). Not natural. The very farthest from natural. Come on, solliquies? Who talks to themselves out loud, let alone in iambic pentameter? But this would fall under my category of hyper-realism. Ask someone to quote some Shakespeare to you. I guarantee what they peak will come from one of those solliquies.

And as most of you know, I have this lttle altar to James Joyce in my office. But that to me is setting the bar just a little too high. I would love to hear a commentary track of Joyce tearing apart the idea of naturalism. That would be something worth listening to, I guarantee it.

The problem with choosing not to work in the style of naturalism is that the vast majority of people prefer it. It's hard enough breaking into the world of publishing without deliberating doing something people aren't going to like. So it's a compromise. Oddly enough, I'm not one of those who thinks "I'll write one break-out novel and then I'll be free to write whatever I want!" because honestly the world doesn't work that way. When your second book tanks, your career is dead. Also, the whole idea is artistically dishonest, not to mention condescending.

Duty calls. Perhaps I can revisit this topic later. I never got to mention what Nick Cage did in that movie he did for Francis Ford Coppola, the one where Kathleen Turner goes back in time to high school. That's a brilliant example of one actor doing something surreal in a movie where everyone else strives for naturalism.

I think he did it just to stick it to his uncle.

Nothing Gratuitous

God damn you, Joss Whedon!

So, I saw Serenity today. I punched out of work and went while the boys were napping (and Quin will go tomorrow and we'll talk about it tomorrow night. It's almost a Bill Gates kind of date).

It doesn't really say anything to say that I liked it. That doesn't begin to cover it. It's not just a "make you laugh/make you cry" kind of thing. It's a "make you feel everything little thing" kind of thing.

This is exactly what I want to write. Or perhaps more correctly how I want to write. There is nothing gratuitous. The jokes aren't just for laughs, they tell you more about the characters. The same goes for the violence. How often can you say that about an action film? That the violence tells you something deep about the character?

Of course what slipped from my mind when I went to the movies today is that this is a Joss Whedon story, and that means all bets are off. You know how you see a James Bond movie and there is never any doubt in your mind that Bond is going to make it through everything unscathed? This is the opposite of that. There was a point in the movie when I actually thought they were all going to die. No kidding. Joss can do that to you.

And Joss knows the power of the soundtrack, especially when to shut it off and let the actors act. Like editing, it's easier to notice when this is done badly than when it is done well. If you've seen The Mummy 2 then you've seen the scene when Rachel Weisz's character dies (she gets better). Brendan Frazer is probably doing an amazing job in that scene, but it's hard to judge because the MUSIC SWELLS and you can't hardly hear him over the REALLY SAD MUSIC TELLING YOU THIS IS A MOMENT OF INTENSE GRIEF. Hate the all caps? Think it lacks subtlety? That's how I feel about movie soundtracks.

On the down side, with no sound everyone in the theater can hear you snuffling away. And I seemed to have picked the showing just for fanboys.

I went to the show sort of expecting to be disappointed. How could a two-hour movie give me a sense of closure? This was clearly a TV series like Buffy, where Joss started out with a multiyear arc in his head. I didn't get closure, that is true. But I sure as hell wasn't disappointed.