Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Books as Disgusting as Movies? Apparently.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Copywrong?
The publishing industry has been distressingly tame the the last week or so (of course, I've been sick, so it was nice of them to wait for me) All the same, it's time to uncork a big Bottle of Literary Chaos, don't you think?
Well. That didn't take long...
Kevin sent me an email to alert me that famed Swedish wordsmith (and watercolorist) Lars Gustafsson has riled some and energized others with an op/ed he published in the Swedish mag Expressen in favor of voting for the Pirate Party. The Pirate Party - you might recall - was named for and inspired by the Pirate Bay filetrading trial and exists to push an agenda of extensive copyright reform. (The Expressen link above will take you to a page written in Swedish, you can find his words in translation at Copyriot here.) In his article, he comes out strongly in favor of a more social ideal of setting aside copyright protections as an undue hinderance on the free exchange of ideas provided by the internet. He compares the Pirate Bay verdict and efforts by governments and the RIAA to squelch file-sharing to the efforts of the French government in the leadup to the revolution to squelch the printing of revolutionary tracts.
Copyright Protectionists as French Aristocrats putting down revolting peasantry and soon to meet Dr. Guillotine? Man the barricades and storm the Bastille? Does that mean we have Robespierre to look forward too on the far end, followed by Napoleon as well?
In some ways I agree with him, though I respectfully submit that the learned gentleman overstates his case. While I am apalled by the draconian efforts to encode DRM into my library to the point where the free sharing of beloved movies, music, writers and books with my peers will be actually illegal, I don't think this is necessarily an either/or proposition. Nor do I believe that history bears out the idea that copyright protection -- in and of itself -- stifles freedom of speech so much as it protects (on the whole) creators from penury whilst others party at their expense.
The argument has become the epitome of the reductio ad absurdum argument on every side.
The RIAA has been draconian and almost comically dictatorial, but they're not throwing people in the Bastille, they're suing them in civil court and losing rather a lot. On the other side are people who are benefiting financially from the efforts of others and some who have entire libararies without ever a thought for the creators. There must be a way to counter that without dragging twelve year olds into superior court and assessing $150,000 per track for the crime of being caught up in the dragnet.
On all sides, the arguments boil down to who owns the book on your shelf? Who owns the DVD or the CD in your player? Why does the format of a digitally downloaded song somehow change the manner in which we may use it? Why does the digitization of a book change whether or not I can lend it to a friend or resell it to provide revenue to buy more books? How does the exchange of paper for pixels alter the contract between the page and the reader?
They don't and there's no reason why they should.
I've said it before: the protectivist impulse to profit from every eyeball that looks at a page or every ear that hears a song forgets or ignores the communal aspect of the artform. It forgets that it was the word-of-mouth sharing of great and inspiring music and literature that created the industries so hellbent on stifling that very thing today.
To broaden this, there's the additional problem of the manner in which copyright and the abuse of copyright disallows works inspired by the protected works.
Not long ago, you may remember, I asked YA author John Green during a Q&A what his thoughts were on the Google Books settlement. During his answer, he mentioned that his Edgar Award-winning book Paper Towns would not have been possible if the heirs of Walt Whitman were are vigorous as the heirs of Walt Disney in assaulting the sunset provisions of copyright laws. His book hinges a great deal on the poem Song of Myself and would have been all but impossible to publish if it had been similarly dependent upon the song Message to Myself by Melissa Etheridge.
Not because it would have hindered Ms. Etheridge's ability to make money from the song -- his mostly-young readership would likely have flocked to iTunes to buy the song -- but because it would be considered infringement of extant copyright law. And by ignoring the infringement, Ms. Etheridge would have damaged any future effort to enforce her copyright when actual damage did occur.
As a copyright holder, I understand the frustration felt by other copyright holders. And I understand the kneejerk lashing-out that can ensue. Likewise do I like to think that there's room for reasoned response and discourse. Be that as it may, the book I purchase is mine and the cross-pollination of my collection and the collections of the people in my circle of friends makes more money than a similarly-sized digital libary that only I can use.
There has to be a middle ground where the artforms can prosper and spread by word-of-mouth without throwing open the gates and making it so that artists simply cannot support themselves by their efforts. Just my opinion, mind you.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Poking the Mermaid...
Dear Starbucks,
When you purchased Clover, you acquired sole access to a truly spectacular and groundbreaking coffee brewing process that blends the best parts of French Press and Vacuum brewing in a new technology. A better cup, by brewing every cup. But if all you are going to do is grind the same beans you have today, all it’s going to do is give America a better cup of mediocrity.
Stop telling America that burnt coffee is good coffee.
Stop burning all the character out of your beans.
Your "Pike's Place Blend" is a hesitant shuffle in the wrong direction. And instant coffee won't save you. Starbucks needs to differentiate its coffee from that brewed now by your two greatest competitors: MacDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.
What does it say to you that the company that brought the idea of gourmet coffee to America is challenged by those two. Dunkin’ Donuts? McDonald's? Can’t you see that homogenizing your beans by roasting out the regional characteristics has made your coffee indistinguishable from the sludge that the donut shoppes pour?
You have become the Burger King of coffee, congratulations.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Starbucks has the market share and the unique position to teach America what gourmet coffee really is. By cornering the market on the Clover and restricting its sale to the Starbucks stores, you are even more in a position to give a better cup of better beans. By roasting single-origin coffees to a lighter roast you can teach America what gourmet coffee really is. You can differentiate from the fast-food franchises that challenge you. You can brew better good coffee rather than giving us a better cup of bad coffee.
Starbucks taught America that there was such a thing as gourmet coffee. Thank you. But you did so by creating an inoffensive product without differentiation from one cup to the next; scorching the regional characteristics out of it; serving it pre-ground and stale so that ultimately, we’re no better off than we were before you told us what was possible and then failed to deliver it. Failed to the point where we now cannot tell the difference between a five-dollar cup and a two-dollar cup at Mickey-D’s.
You can move the needle again, start innovating rather than maintaining the status-quo. Take those Clovers you’re hoarding and actually use them to their fullest advantage. Brew coffee roasted to highlight the regional varietals, teach us to differentiate between Ethiopian and Guatemalan beans, educate our palates to taste the subtleties of terroir. And let us enjoy an amazing cuppa while you turn your cafés back into cafés rather than the high-priced soft-drink stands they’ve become.
It pains me to say this because I know and adore a number of wonderful people that proudly wear the green apron, but Starbucks is the coffee of last resort. If there's nowhere else to buy a cup, I'll enter your establishment, but otherwise... no. Your beans are charred beyond recognition.
I’m not alone in this feeling. You've turned coffee from something transcendent into a lowest-common-denominator softdrink. A better brewing process can't change that. Bad beans beget bad coffee no matter how you brew them. I maintain contact with beanheads across the country and we all say the same thing: until your coffee delivers on it’s promise… well, you could brew it in a golden chalice with water from the the fountain of youth and I wouldn’t accept it.
If you can't do this simple thing, then give the damn Clovers back. You don't deserve them.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
No update today....
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Memorial Day -- Historical Perspective
General Orders No. 11, Grand Army of the Republic Headquarters.WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 1868
The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.
We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors, and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.
If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.
Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from hishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.
It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to lend its friendly aid in bringing to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.
Department commanders will use efforts to make this order effective.
By order of
JOHN A. LOGAN,
Commander-in-ChiefN.P. CHIPMAN,Adjutant GeneralOfficial:WM. T. COLLINS, A.A.G.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Quote of the moment...
-Ambrose Bierce 'The Devil's Dictionary'That quote popped up in a random Google Search this evening. Wonderful. First Google brings us ads that (allegedly) predict our desires from page content; now they've branched out into prophecy? You know, it occurs to me that if they thought the ALA, publishers and the Author's Guild were touch customers, they've got some nerve muscling-in on the streetcorner guys with the "End is Nigh" signs.
Friday, May 22, 2009
A Clear Morning's Cold Dawning... ('Mummer's Masque' snippet)
Seattle, WA
The breeze shredded the column of steam rising from AJ MacLeod’s coffee mug as he stepped out of the Mercedes. The bitter wind cut to the bone, reminding him of winters he had endured during college on the East Coast. He stemmed the memories by focusing on the cup in his hand. The warmth radiating into his palm balanced out the cold seeping into his knuckles from the outside. The sensation centered him, allowed him to shake off the dark memories that clamored at the gates…
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Book News?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sonnet Self-Reflection
At risk of reviving the Great Debate, I daresay that they were and remain 154 of the most vexing pieces of poesy every visited upon the world. The sonnets raise ever more questions about the biography of the man than the plays ever have, though the questions have more to do with his preference of gender than the possibility that he was a literary McGuffin for someone else.
Are they autobiography and therefore a confession of his homosexuality? Were the sonnets addressed to the young man urging him to continue his genetically line (presumably despite his inclinations toward men) written for hire for the youth's father (as has been posited by those who don't accept the "Shakespeare was gay" thesis)?
Or are they just snippets of the things on his mind as he did other things and wanted these snippets of verse out of his head and put down somewhere he could keep track of them, a sort of poetic chapbook?
Honestly, we have no idea. As is the case with so much of the Bard's works, the sonnets rest comfortably atop a cushion of mystery, viewing the mortal scribblers who try to pin them down with sphinx-like disdain.
There are interesting arguments made by all sides of the "Shakespeare as Gay" debate and I don't really feel that his gender-preference changes the impact or cultural value of the poetry. Not for me, anyway.
All that aside, after this morning's round of NPR stories on the Sonnets and sundry issues arising from them, I've been trying to decide which of the sonnets is my favorite. (Shakespeare, of course was not the only sonneteer, simply the most famous and by far the most accomplished of his time.) The NPR piece ended with a call for favorite love verse and like any recursive thought, that returns me to pondering a favorite from the Bard himself...
Being no different than the next bloke to come along with an English Lit class or two under my belt, Sonnet 18 is a favorite (My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun...) and one of the few I can recite from memory.
As with any poetry, though, I tend to think that the real meaning has less to do with the poet than the reader. Biography and time can be transcended by the correct turn of phrase, the timeless advance of age and season and the wax and wane of love... each finds its niche in the reader regardless of the writer's original intent. It goes back to the writer's role of holding up a mirror in which we may see ourselves in others. The laments of Tennyson or the Idylls of Byron are each reflected and transmitted through our experiences and viewed in our terms, and so it is with Shakespeare.
For me, relevance is the handhold by which I manage to bridge the century's divide.
Which is the long way of going about saying that as a chronic insomniac, I have a particular affection for the 27th and 28th Sonnets, which I refer to privately as the "Sleep Cycle".
Sonnet 27
Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed, The dear respose for limbs with travel tired, But then begins a journey in my head To work my mind, when body's work's expired. For then my thoughts (from far where I abide) Intend a zealous pilgrimage to thee, And keep my drooping eyelids open wide, Looking on darkness which the blind do see. Save that my soul's imaginary sight Presents thy shadow to my sightless view, Which like a jewel (hung in ghastly night) Makes black night beauteous, and her old face new. Lo thus by day my limbs, by night my mind, For thee, and for my self, no quiet find.
Separation anxiety is nothing new, I suppose.
Whilst I comprehend and cannot deny that the angst of separated lovers stands at the nexus of these two sonnets, I tend to focus (from my own life) on the sleeplessness aspect. It is difficult not to quote these words "How can I then return in happy plight that am debarred the benefit of rest?" so eloquently put as it is. Insomnia too is nothing new and is the go-to for dramatizing the unquiet heart and mind in 16th Century poesy and present as it is in Shakespeare's other insomniac lament in the Scottish Play: "Sleep no more, Macbeth hath murdered sleep!"
Sonnet 28
My favorites? Not necessarily, but they are the two which ring most familiar with me and that goes a long way toward achieving that dubious honor. Their place in my heart was admittedly achieved one dark and restless night in college as I was knocking around and trying not to awaken my roommates and The Arden Shakespeare came easily to hand as what I thought of at the time as insomnia's cure. At dawn I was still awake and reading the words of a man four centuries in the grave. There's something to be said for relevence and self-recognition helping us grapple with our literary culture. (Thanks goes out to 'Open Source Shakespeare' for keeping me from the necessity of re-typing the sonnets in this post.) What is your favorite sonnet (and why)?How can I then return in happy plight That am debarred the benefit of rest? When day's oppression is not eased by night, But day by night and night by day oppressed.
And each (though enemies to either's reign) Do in consent shake hands to torture me, The one by toil, the other to complain How far I toil, still farther off from thee.
I tell the day to please him thou art bright, And dost him grace when clouds do blot the heaven: So flatter I the swart-complexioned night, When sparkling stars twire not thou gild'st the even.
But day doth daily draw my sorrows longer, And night doth nightly make grief's length seem stronger
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Summer Reading and Recommendations
Monday, May 18, 2009
Welcome to Pages to Type
- This is a "novel blog" which is not really novel, but it is about a novel (sometimes) and the novelist who is writing it (mostly).
- Safety goggles or Cokebottle nerd glasses should be worn at all times. The thicker the frames & lenses, the better.
- If you should get any novelty in your eye, flush with water and seek medical help immediately.
- Nothing found herein should be construed as the entire view of the author or anyone else living, dead or existing in an indeterminate state caused by fluctuations in space and time.
- This is where I warehouse the overflow of ideas that occur to me as I write other things. If I put it here, I know where it is and can keep an eye on it.
- Please feel free to feed the ideas. One can never feed an idea too much, they're happier when they're plump.
- WARNING: Improper application may cause excessive coffee drinking, insomnia, Post-it notes on the bathroom mirror and the urge to type into the wee hours of the morning.
Welcome! |
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A short garden tangent
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Dharma Baseball
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday Randomness...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Social Networking at Harper Collins
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Schemers
Monday, May 11, 2009
Podcast to Publication
So now what? We install elevators?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Google Books Un-Settlement
"The associations asserted that although the settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including equity of access to information, patron privacy and intellectual freedom. The court can mitigate these possible negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights Registry the settlement establishes." - From the American Library Association press releaseI wish them the best and I see their point. I'm just not sure their faith in the ability and willingness of the government to exercise oversight on something as complex and nuanced as global information access is well-placed. Meanwhile, Reuters is reporting that state Attorneys General are taking a look at the Google Books settlement with an eye toward doing something about it. What, exactly, remains to be seen. After the state-by-state battles waged by Microsoft in their antitrust suits (not to mention country-by-country since the Internet's global) this thing isn't going to be resolved anytime soon.
Your Mama!
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Flutterby
"Oh, the butterflies are flying, Now the winter days are dying. And the primroses are trying To be seen. And the turtle-doves are cooing, And the woods are up and doing, For the violets are blue-ing In the green. Oh, the honey-bees are gumming On their little wings, and humming That the summer, which is coming Will be fun. And the cows are almost cooing, And the turtle doves are mooing, Which is why a Pooh is poohing In the sun. For the spring is really springing; You can see a skylark singing, And the blue-bells, which are ringing, Can be heard. And the cuckoo isn't cooing, But he's cucking and he's ooing, And a Pooh is simply poohing Like a bird." From "House at Pooh Corner" by AA Milne