Notes on Neil Gaiman's appearance at the Sigma Tau Delta Convention, March 2009

So, I went to the Sigma Tau Delta Convention in Minneapolis. Primarily to see Mr. Gaiman speak, and to support my confederates presenting papers. Though I felt like an ass, I took notes while he was speaking and wish to reproduce some of them here for you lovely internet people to read.

Note, this is just a regurgitation of my notes from the notebook. I'll have something polished put together after I sleep some.

• He mentioned a new project, but was (obviously) unable to comment. Sounds like a long short story or novella, from some other comments he made.
• He also mentioned a collaboration with Stephen Merritt on a musical (being done in "an incredibly lazy way.") I know nothing about it beyond that.
  
• Quotes that felt long while writing, but are very short in typing:

"Good stories...aren't found."

"Things are imagined before they exist."

"In the Beginning was the dream."

"I learned [from working in Journalism] to never believe anything I read in newspapers."

• The only rules for writers are as follows:

1. There are none.
2. Write.
3. Finish things.
4. Start again.
5. Don't keep rewriting it. Send it out now.

There was a very Salman Rushdie moment, in which he stated that the job of the writer is to imagine and to write things down. This is a very interesting thing, for as Mr. Gaiman noted in his talk, everything that isn't grown or "a rock" had to have been imagined, at some point. Every human artifact is the product of imagination.

On the whole, Mr. Gaiman was one of the best speakers that I've ever heard--I hate the term "charming," but he managed. Every so often, he'd have to pause due to the crowd's laughter, and he was fascinating to listen to. I must also state that any man who will sign books for upwards of three hours is worthy of any praise that can be heaped upon him--I stood near the end of the line (with my dog-eared copy of American Gods), and he only stood once to take a five minute bathroom break. The man was a goddamned machine. A hillarious book-signing android of some sort.

On "Watchmen"

It's been a while, perhaps I should work up a schedule of sorts.

I recently saw Watchmen, and have been thinking a great deal about it. While it was somewhat disappointing, it is probably the best comic book adaptation yet put to screen.

There were several thematic elements that I thought about more than others, so bear with me for a moment:

• The studio cut Laurie's (Silk Spectre II's) smoking. This might not seem like a major feature, but it was a defining feature of her character in the graphic novel: she was always trying to quit cold turkey, and something would always happen to break her resolve. It made her more human. This was cut by the studios, who have essentially decided that only foreigners and villains smoke.
• The decision to remove functioning electric cars from the back story was a poor choice: it allowed them to talk about fossil fuels (and American dependence thereupon), but it also removed the primary display of Dr. Manhattan's god-like abilities: he can create lithium at will, thus making its availability a moot point, thus removing the problem with electric vehicles.

This isn't a fanboy ranting about how "they changed it, now it sucks" (you would've heard more about how the script was unfair to Rorschach and Jackie Earle Haley, who played him, and might be the best of the performers in the movie.) There are narrative elements that were misused in the execution of the film.

Anyway, it was a good adaptation, and most of the cuts made to the story were very utilitarian. Those two points above, however, seemed problematic to me and did not have a satisfactory explanation or placeholder. It seems that, in an effort to be "topical" (fossil fuels) and "correct" (smoking), they injured the story.

Stopgap measures #1

No new content right now. I restart classes on Wednesday, so I thought I'd throw something to the people who read this to keep you entertained:

What I'm reading:
-Dhalgren, by Samuel R. Delaney
-Catching the Big Fish, by David Lynch

Website of the moment:
TvTropes

Don't go to sleep.

Little Brother by Cory Doctorow

For a book that can't decide whether it's a how-to manual or a story, Little Brother is surprisingly good. I've read some of Doctorow's online writing, but this is the first of his fiction that I've sat down and read; I feel like I've cheated myself. I devoured the entire book in the course of a day (not surprisingly, it is young adult fiction. As I said, though, it is quite good.)

The basic premise is this--twenty minutes or so into the future a terrorist attack on San Francisco floods the BART tunnels and demolishes the Bay Bridge, killing thousands of people. The main character and his friends are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and are picked up by the Department of Homeland Security. When the main character is finally freed (along with two of the three others,) he swears revenge.

The technology depicted is near-future, as reported by grinding.be, and the culture is believably constructed. At times, it seems like Doctorow might be using a strawman in the place of the Department of Homeland security, though it is an extremely well-constructed one and it doesn't really hinder the reading. The horrifying thing is that I'm not entirely certain that it's a strawman.

At its core, though, the story is a bit of a morality tale with a pair of good messages: Youth rebellion is healthy and serves an invaluable role when directed at the proper target, and information technology is a powerful tool.

I'd suggest everyone at least glance over it; the book was released on a Creative Commons license, and is available to read both online and for free download.

Free download.

What Happened

I realize that my posting schedule is irregular, but I've also been having computer problems the last few days. I might post something on operating systems, but I have a feeling that'll be a ways off.

Content follows shortly.

A thought on Rhetoric

This isn't a full post, but I wanted to write something today--if only to post more things this month than last month.

There are two processes that describe reactions to words--Amelioration and Pejoration. The first is when attitudes toward a word improve, the latter is when they degrade. For example, many curse words are ameliorating, becoming more and more acceptable in society-at-large.

"Rhetoric" on the other hand, has pejorated. Chances are that when you hear or read the word "rhetoric", your gut reaction is negative--because obviously "Rhetoric" is hollow and meaningless and meant to trick you. How terribly Platonic of you.

Aristotle defined Rhetoric as (roughly) "the power of determining for any given situation the best means of persuasion." I wish to point out that, while "power" is a translation of the original word, it is the best available translation. If you think about it, though, power is neither good nor evil. Power is, essentially, amoral. It is capable of being used towards evil ends, or toward good ends.

Moreover, I want to point out that when you are attempting to persuade anyone, you are employing rhetoric in one form or another. It isn't trickery, it's the honest application of a means to achieve a desired result--whether that result is a good one or a bad one depends upon what you seek to achieve.

Found Elsewhere #1

"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered."

--Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead
Tom Stoppard