.

I know one word that fills some writers with dread. Criticism. Or worse . . . critique. If you have ever received one, you understand how a single word can make one cower. Writers love their words. They treasure them as much as the people in their lives. Okay, maybe not. But it is true we hate to have our darlings criticized. Well, have I a story for you.

In April I joined a writing forum. Absolute Write was recommended to me by fellow Blogger Jane Smith. Her excellent site for writer bunnies is How Publishing Really Works. On her site I was moaning and bitching about–well, you’ll have to mosey on over and read the post. Man can I whine. Hate to admit it, but I’m very proud of being able to do so. I moped around another few weeks, but eventually tip-toed over to AW and registered. Happy and head swimming with my writing superbness, I next headed over to the Newbie Forum and introduced myself. I received a warm welcome. Everyone does.

Next I posted the opening page of my BELOVED novel (17 chapters of blood and sweat). The heading for the thread was “Does this opening scene peak your interest?” See anything wrong with that title? Well, I didn’t. In my lust for critique I remembered nothing of homonyms–you know, the words that are spelled DIFFERENTLY but SOUND the same? No worries, though. A moderator had my back. She kindly pointed out my error and offered to change the heading for me. Which she did much to my relief and gratitude. Now, in case you haven’t picked up on the mistake, here is what I should have wrote: “Does this opening scene pique your interest?”

Thus was my grand arrival to Absolute Write. As to the critiques for this piece; the opening was too long, but the sample was well received overall. That WAS NOT the case for my second attempt at receiving a critique.

Lesson No. 1: Don’t sit too high on that horse.

Still green and quite gluttonous of a critique, I wanted to wade deeper into the AW pool. My eyes caught sight of a writing challenge: The Wind and Rain Challenge. Ah, a testing ground for my writing abilities. I thought about it briefly, and quickly came up with an excerpt from my book that had a scene where wind and rain was prominent. I opened the door to the Historical Fiction forum and skidded in, like “Here I am! The next great author!” I posted my precious pookie.

Lesson No. 2: If you post a scene from the middle of a Work In Progress (WIP) provide a summary to help readers understand what’s going on. (Err…but don’t expect that to save you from “WTF” and “Where does this take place?” comments)

I failed to summarize what the gist of the scene was, left in a few typos (another homonym caper), and hit the submit button. I was proud of myself. I wasn’t all that nervous. But by the end of the next 48 hours, I was ready for a straight jacket. Not only did my words fail to impress, but I learned that my MC’s voice wasn’t interesting, that my narration read like an essay, there was too much internal dialogue, that Historical Fiction readers HATE First Person, and DESPISE First Person teamed with Present Tense. URRGH! I had about 20 reviewers tear my sample apart verb to pronoun. My critique was so rough, one AW member asked if I was still breathing. Another responded with a crying smilie. A sympathetic gesture. I think.

Lesson No. 3: Don’t park your tale where it doesn’t belong.

First, it’s important to know that I posted in the wrong category (again). I should have posted in the Literary forum. I do, of course, wonder if my post would have received a more favorable response there. Hmmmm. But there’s good news. I did a good job of conveying my MC’s emotion and I wrote decent imagery.

Lesson No. 4: There’s always someone on your side.

After a day of brutal critique, I began to receive responses from those who favored First Person. They suggested I write my story the way I wanted. Those comments were like air under water.

Lesson No. 5: If you want to be a published writer, grow walnut shells for skin.

Not everything we write will be well-received. You CANNOT please everyone. We all have different writing styles, not only our own but those of books and articles, poems, and the like that we prefer to read. I admit that for a few days, especially that first day of critiques, I seriously–well, for the moment–thought of quitting. I moaned, “I’ve spent all these years writing this damn thing, and I’m no closer to being finished than I was X years ago.” I moped and cried and prayed. More encouraging critiques rolled in and I cheered up a little. I wallowed in “Woe Is Me” land for a time, but it wasn’t to last.

Lesson No. 6: Be genuinely thankful.

Now in the meantime, I replied to each responder–a good receiver of critique will be polite and gracious. I thanked each responder as graciously as my numbed, injured pride would allow me. There were a few who were particularly rough. I admit I felt equally mean-spirited towards their critique, but I also knew I ASKED THEM to be brutal. And so they were.

Lesson No. 7: Suck it up, shut up, listen then learn.

No matter what or how you feel about the critique. Don’t be a fool! Some of those critiquers are published authors and agents, but mostly they are Average Joe readers. You know, the ones who might actually buy your book someday.

It would be an extreme faux pa to be belligerent and defensive. It sends a red flag that you’d be a problem client, that you’re not willing–or able–to edit your work and get it into tip top shape. Because forums like AW are free, it would be naive to waste such a splendid opportunity.

Lesson No. 8: Critiquers are not perfect, but they certainly know what they like.

I learned that if enough people say the same thing, chances are they may be on to something. When I soothed my wounded spirit and calmed my high strung nerves, I realized that my SHARKS weren’t ripping my poor little sample to shreds. They were trying to steer me away from rejection land. When I reread my sample, I knew that most of the critique I recieved was right. My MC was a boring prude. I created him that way. Okay, so what to do I asked myself, still ask, really.

Lesson No. 9: Critiquing other people’s work, improves your own editing eye.

Yep. Since I’ve been at AW, I’m learning about what readers want. It’s not easy to figure out since we have different tastes. However, reading other people’s critiqued work, receiving your own and giving critiques, you learn to spot the dead passages that slow your prose. You learn that long flashbacks, endless backstory and internal monologues and paragraphs of description and narrative put many readers to sleep. You learn whether your dialogue takes off or falls to the floor with a thud. At AW I learned to spot pillow fluff. What is that you wonder? Words that do nothing to enhance the story, that are pointless and off topic, words that scream backstory (commonly known as info dumps).

Personal Experiences At Large

Below is a comment from my online buddy Renu. She’s doing a series of reviews on writing magazines. I encourage everyone to check out her blog, *Write Ideas. Voice your opinion on which magazine is your favorite and listen to great music while you read! (See Note below)

RENU

Write Ideas

May 1, 2009 12:51 AM

I’ve given, but never received a critique on my MS – probably because I’m too shy/scared to share my work. I did get critiques on essays and short articles I’ve written. Can’t call them critiques really because they were all positive! Creative fiction is a different ball game altogether and the one short story I wrote received so many brickbats it remains buried for eternity.

In Part Two, I will share a story about critiquing where I was the bad guy. A good lesson all around. Until next time, Blogger world and beyond….

Blessings to you and whip that prose into shape! Happy Writing!

.

COMMENTS FOR THE ART OF CRITIQUING, PT. 1
(ORIGINALLY POSTED TO BLOGGER)

5 COMMENTS:

Alex Ellis said…
July 1, 2009 7:45 PM

Good advice for those new to AW! As well as for those of us who’ve been there for years….

Abigail said…
July 6, 2009 3:45 PM

However, it didn’t stop me from writing at all since I knew the entry I posted (it was on a different blog) was just a rough draft and wasn’t even sure that I was going to keep it or change it in a way to make it better.

He put me down though and got very hostile towards me. He started trolling me as well. I told him that my English teachers taught me what I knew and everything and he said I was lied to. o_O Thing is, he didn’t have an English major (he was 18) or degree or anything (not like I do either, but telling me that an English teacher lied to me when I should be trusting an English teacher makes me question their motive.

The first comment he said to me was “Don’t quit your day job.” It wasn’t criticism, it wasn’t saying what could make it better or what could be changed. It was just that, and when I asked what he meant, he never helped me to what could make it better. Nothing.

Never mind about that though–I need to stop rambling. I liked the article.

Penny Manning said…
July 6, 2009 4:49 PM

What! I loves me some rambling…Hahaha. Ramble on, girl…ramble on. What you have to say is informative, and I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Maybe dude was jealous. From where I’m sitting you have decent writing skills.

Everyone…This responder can write. Check out an excerpt of a short story she wrote: Moments Of Paralysis (It’s my fav). I believe it’s in the Horror genre.

And C…your soldier story also proves you have some appreciable writing skills. I invite you to join Absolute Write (sse link in sidebar) if you’re in need of any honest critiques. Good Luck with your writing!

Abigail said…
July 6, 2009 5:43 PM
Note: What I had before “However” probably was written over (my touchpad likes to highlight things and I don’t realize it until after I hit submit sometimes since I type so quickly). Basically, what I had before it was that I had posted a snippet into a blog of mine on a gaming website that I am a part of (there’s blogs there in the profile, so it was my first blog). I wrote that it was a draft and some guy came along and posted a comment, and it wasn’t a pretty comment either. That’s where the “however” comes into play. xD

And thanks. I don’t know what genre it would go in. Probably a bit of horror and fantasy. I have another short story somewhere. I wrote that one when I was fifteen and I still love it to this day (it was before I wrote Ashes). The other one I have was after I started working on Ashes and it was just something that came out of nowhere.

Dave Keeble said…
July 22, 2009 8:13 AM

That was a great read, I have to say I prefare brutally honest critique to sugar coated opinions any day. The latter can be dangerous, I think.

.
.

Copyright Rene Isaiah / Penny Manning 2009
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
.
.

Having read through a ridiculous amount of climate data, debates, arguments, rebuttals, studies, dissections, et all over the last 3 days, much of which forced me to relearn/learn anew a host of information on these subjects simply so I could actually understand what was being said, I’ve come to the conclusion that most of this debate is futile.

It’s like a conservative debating a liberal; you don’t get a discussion over what is, only what each person thinks is. With both debates, there is a right side and a wrong side, but the epistemological differences in which both sides approach the same information prevents a proper discussion from taking place. Thus, I have concluded that the only reasonable means by which such discussions can take place are ones in which factual information is kept to a minimum, and the discussion takes place at a mostly conceptual level (the problem with facts is that everybody has their own…).

Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy having my positions challenged, but I haven’t encountered anything that even came close to changing my views on this subject. Instead, I’ve found myself more interested in the fundamental motivations for each side, how that underscores their arguments and tempers acceptance of the other side’s positions. It seems to me that this is far more a clash of worldviews than it is science.

Michael

So you’ve written a novel!  Chances are you’ve written your novel in either word, open office, or a freeware program like Q10. Wherever you wrote it, you managed to pound out 50K of ploty goodness and you’re now sitting and wondering, what the heck to I do with it?

The easiest answer is: Edit.

The easiest place to edit would be Microsoft Word or Open office.  They have grammar and spelling checkers.  You’ve spent an entire month butchering grammatical structures and spellings, it’s time to face all those mistakes.  Let you’re Inner Editor be your guide.  It’s also the easiest way without trying to track down websites and deal with installation processes.

yWriter5 is also pretty handy for organizing and dividing into chapters.  It allows you to break up the story into chapters.  Now some people use this during NaNo, but I find it distracting, and I’m not one who likes to fuss over where a chapter starts and stops.  It gets in the way of me just getting all my ideas for the story down.  It will point out spelling erros, but it will not tell you if something is grammatically incorrect.  The program itself is not entirely intuitive, and you have to do a bit of clicking around to edit the text, and they you’re bombarded with rich text editor options.  It also allows you to divide your chapter into scenes and rate those scenes based on whatever you want when you’re creating the ‘project’ file.
In addition to the bits and bobs, it allows you to create and add characters and locations and objects and notes to scenes, but it all gets incredibly overbearing if you’re not one who is obsessive about organizing details and ratings and what time and day a scene takes place and how long it lasts, etc.  The other frustrating thing is that it doesn’t allow for omniscient narration.  You have to create an entire omniscient character if you want the scene or chapter to not be any character’s point of view, and it gets particularly messy if it’s not anyone’s point of view but you’re just sitting in on a discussion of three or four characters.  The other features that I find kind of unnecessary are whether the scene is an action scene or a reaction scene or  the importance box that asks if the scene is part of the plot or subplot.  I’m sitting here thinking, if I can’t figure that much out with out this program prompting me, I’m in trouble.  You can delete chapters, but you can only do it by going into the chapters pull down menue.  Otherwise, you can only toggle time as used/unused, chapter/other (and what that means is beyond me).
As far as the help and instructions goes, it assumes you don’t know how to resize windows and, more often than not isn’t that useful.  When you click on a chapter it has three boxes by default that say Goal, Conflict and Outcome, and you can’t edit them there, you have to edit the chapter accordingly and make the notes in the chapter and scene notes.
TL;DR: Not my personal cup of tea, but someone else may find it useful, and it’s free, so you have nothing to lose in trying it out.

Adobe InDesign has a book project, but it’s not what one would think.  I originally hadn’t thought of exploring this until curiosity got the better of me.  Essentially what has to be done is the whole story has to be typed as an InDesign Document, and then you open a book project and add the document file to the book file.  So if you’ve typed your entire story in word, or some other processor, you have to import every individual page to InDesign and save the story as a document.  When you click on “Book” when the program boots up or in the new project menu, it will ask you what to save the new book as.  So you save it.  And then your screen is blank again.  That’s what confused me when I first went exploring, but Adobe assumes that you’ve already written the story in/imported the story into InDesign and have saved it as an InDesign Document.  It feels a bit complicated to me, but that’s the way InDesign handles books.  I’d recommend just waiting to see what dimensions CreateSpace works with, and just create the pdf file from the word processor.
As far as spell check and grammar check go, InDesign only has spell check.  It’s also a hella expensive.  It costs ~$700 just for use, but if you’re a student you can at least get nice discount and get it for only $200, but it’s still pretty pricey if this is only a hobby sort of thing.

Everyone has a different way of editing, just as everyone has a different way of writing.  How you do it is entirely up to you.  This is just a couple of programs that are out there outside of your everyday word processor that are out there.  I know that scriviner has one out for Macs, but I am a Windows user, so I have no way of knowing how well that program works or what all it does.  If you know of any others I’d like to hear of them.

Here is my little friend Ignatius, who sits on my desk at work and cheers me year round. Every year at Christmas, he dons his gay apparel and greets anyone foolish enough to traverse the corridor to my office. I thought I’d share his special holiday cheer with all of you.

I don’t know what kind of animal Ignatius was, but he was found one day in the woods, lost and alone. I know he’s happy now, because he’s always smiling. He keeps me company while I catalog books and scour the web for this week’s lunch hour links for writers.

This week we’re looking at a lot of posts on self-publishing, print-on-demand (aka POD publishing), vanity presses and the like. Unfortunately, some of our readers who are in favor of self-publishing may be offended, because I didn’t see a lot of posts advocating self-publishing. I try to be impartial and give you an opportunity to make up your mind about these issues, so if you know of some links advocating self-publishing with facts and figures, let me know.

Of course, all this commotion was set off by the Harlequin/Horizons (now Horizons is being called DellArte) fiasco from last week. Author Jackie Kessler has a great breakdown of what is wrong with Harlequin’s reasoning in her post Harlequin Horizons versus RWA.

You might want to get your feet wet on the subject with Jane Smith’s post at How Publishing Really Works where she declares Max Dunbar is her new best friend. Then follow her link to Dunbar’s post on The Great Underground Myth: Why Self Publishing Doesn’t Work.

Once you’ve absorbed some of the terminology, go to a highly recommended post from literary agents Carolyn and Ashley Grayson of the Ashley Grayson Literary Agency. Their post, Hyatt Has No Reservations, answers issues raised by Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson, who tried to explain Why Agents May Be Opposed to Self-Publishing. The link to Hyatt’s post is also in the Grayson post, so you don’t have to come back here for it. Both posts are lengthy, but well worth the read.

J.A. Konrath gives a dollars and cents view of the self-publishing experience where he generously shares his Kindle Numbers: Traditional Publishing vs. Self Publishing. There is a caveat, though, Konrath is only talking about his e-book figures, not print, so read his post with that in mind.

If you’re curious about book sales for a debut writer, head over to Writer Unboxed and read JC Hutchins’ informative post on Debrief: A Month into My Novel’s Lifecycle.

On the business side of writing, literary agent Chip MacGregor has a really nice post writer’s platforms with his article What is a Platform?

Follow up MacGregor’s post and visit my friend Jonathan Danz, who Got Thinking about Jeff Vandermeer’s post on author platforms. You can see links to Vandermeer’s posts and a short video on Jonathan’s site.

THE CRAFT OF WRITING

We’ve talked quite a bit about editing and revising manuscripts, but this link tweeted by @inkyelbows is great. It’s an excerpt from Kate Greenville’s book, The Writing Book, and the excerpt is entitled How Much Should You Revise?

At the BubbleCow blog is a great series on being a proactive writer. Here is the third post in that series Proactive Writer: Embrace Technology (links are there for the previous two articles in the series).

Nathan Bransford has a post on How to Respond to a Manuscript Critique/Editorial Letter. His advice holds true whether you are working on revisions prior to publication or if you’re working through revisions suggested by your critique group. 

Hey, hey! One of my pet peeves is proven correct. Thank goodness for the Oxford comma, and Maeve Maddox shows you how to wield it with uncommon grace in her post, The Serial Comma is OK With Me.

Charlie Jane Anders has put together some valuable advice from published authors on how to Bridge the Gap Between Two Cool Moments in Your Novel.

I’d also like to point out a new link in the sidebar to John Robert Marlow’s Self Editing Blog. He has some super articles there on technique and story structure.

FUN STUFF

This was just too good to resist, file it under your funny for the day, but in case you missed New Moon, there’s a great summary of the action (or lack thereof) here with Genevieve Valentine’s post, New Moon: The Bad, The Worse, and the WTF. Valentine also talks about some of the negative self-images young women may be receiving from Meyer’s novels.

Andris Zalitis sent a cool link to a nature sounds program he devised. If you need soothing nature noises to drive out the traffic and distractions, visit Nature Sounds for Me and experiment with his free nature sounds mixer.

Looking for that special gift for the hard to buy for dark fantasy/horror fiend, er, family member? Well go here and see Kerry Kate’s doll collection.

Yes sir, your little darlings will be enchanted when they find one of these cool dolls in their stockings come Christmas morn! I know I would!

Sick to death of Santa and those pesky elves on your Christmas cards? Too much holiday cheer and not enough drear? Well skip over to Lisa Mannetti’s Chancery House for some really cool holiday cards that will get you in the holiday spirits, er, spirit.

MORE NIBBLES AND LINKS

Jane Friedman at Writers’ Digest is back with the Writers’ Digest Best Tweets for Writers.

While I was off slacking, Andy Shackcloth was busy gathering some great links for his Sunday Wash-up. Bookmark Andy’s page where you can find great articles and the best links that he can find on the Internet.

That’s it for this week, and I certainly hope I haven’t forgotten anyone, but just in case roll through the sidebar and visit a few of the folks there.

Have a great week!

Gallery

Yes, it fits the dictionary definition of a super-group. Yes, it’s got two guys that have spent the better part of the new millenium resting on their laurels. Yes, none of that stuff really matters. What actually counts is the quality of the music and for the most part Them Crooked Vultures’ self-titled debut delivers the goods.

I’ll admit that it took me a while to get over the band’s pedigree. I found myself picking through the tunes playing ‘Spot the Old Band’s Sound’. Instead of just listening to a song, I’d be trying to figure out how the influences of Queens of the Stone Age, Foo Fighters and Led Zeppelin affected the tune.  Josh Homme, Dave Grohl and John Paul Jones have fairly outsized musical pedigrees, and the temptation to pick through the material for nuggets of their former groups was too tempting to resist at first.  Once I got over that, I found myself enjoying the album on it’s terms.

First, at this point the term ‘old pro’ is too weak to describe these guys. The musicianship and technical mastery isn’t Yngwie Malmsteen-level wankery…thank God…but these three know their way around their instruments and around a recording studio.  That expertise definitely helps to create a solid sound. Grohl and Jones are especially synced in, interlocking together to crank out some phat grooves. As far as Homme is concerned, he seems to have been inspired by his new bandmates. His riffs and lyrics haven’t seemed this lively since Songs for the Deaf back in 2002.  The snarky humor, the oddly-endearing lyrical wordplay and spunky riffage have all made a welcome comeback for Homme.  

All of those factors and more work to create moments of true magic.  “Mind Eraser, No Chaser” is the exuberance of a band finding a winning riff and letting it rip.  “Reptiles” wobbles and lurches like a drunken bar band doing brilliant Rolling Stones-ish sleaze rock for the 21st century.  The surprising  “Gunman”  makes you think that if they wanted to, TCV could pound out an album of tough dance numbers and beat The Bravery or Franz Ferdinand at their own lame game.  Best of all is “Scumbag Blues”.  Grohl’s drums snap and march with a ruthless intensity, as Homme croons out his trademark falsetto and Jones’ clavinet turns add funky textures to the proceedings.  It’s a truly masterful piece of work and one of the best rock songs of 2009.

There are weak moments.  “Warsaw or the First Breath You Take After You Give Up”  has a title almost as long as the song itself and by the four minute mark you find yourself wanting to hit the ’skip’ button.  “Elephants” starts off promisingly, but it too feels like it was stretched out far past the band’s ability to pull it off.  If there is a general criticism to be made about TCV is that the album’s songs feel overpacked with ideas and riffs.  A little paring down would’ve served the record better.

I would’ve liked to hear this band attack slightly more rocked out material.  These three guys have written some of the most pounding grooves in the rock canon.  For most of this album, they eschew their heavier side and keep things more on the straight and poppy.  While I like the album in general, it could’ve been interesting to see what would’ve happened if they had cranked up the crunch just a bit.

Overall though, Them Crooked Vultures packs a strong punch.  Is this disc as world-smashingly great as Zep’s Houses of the Holy, FF’s The Colour and the Shape or R by QOTSA? Certainly not, but then again that’s not the point.  For what it was meant to accomplish, TCV is a rousing success.  With word that the group intends on making a second album, Them Crooked Vultures seems less than a one-and-done affair and more like a real live band with a bright future.  As solid as this album is, I can’t wait for volume two.

Web Gallery Project 3

November 30, 2009

No one is all bad.  Obama does occasionally do things right. I’m amazed at Obama’s decision to send 30,000+ troops to Afghanistan.  This has taken tremendous courage on Obama’s part.  He has angered his support on the far left for the good of our soldiers in Afghanistan for the good of the American People.  Read the idiotic open  letter below from Michael Moore (MM) to President Obama.  The letter is important for what it does not say.  For one it Appears that Michael Moore is not getting enough attention so he makes it an open letter. The second thing I would like to put out is they illogical things he says in the letter.  If Michael gets enough publicity from this letter we will surely see another one of his fake documentaries on the big screen.  MM is somewhat like an M&M thin candy coating outside and full of brown stuff in the inside).  My comments pertaining to some of his more stupid comments are noted by “TP.” 

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”?

TP – Come on Michael.  No president wants to be a “War president.”  But, we do have to defend our country and our way of life.  You know so you can drive your big fancy car a project the image of being a defender of the poor.  Here is a quote from you recently: 

If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president.

TP – I you were not so stupid you would know that life is not as simple as you project it to be. You use words to inflame “you are the new war president.”  I am sure you have put this in your 3×5 card index for a future movie.

Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.

TP – So tell us MM how is Obama destroying “hopes and dreams” by protecting our way of life.  You do not have the advisors that the President has, you do not get the intelligence reports the president gets, you do not have the responsibility of the entire nation on your shoulders.  Most of us are getting wise to you.  MM, you shoot your mouth off to make more controversy so you can mold them into another movie or book to add to your millions.  Why dont you give your millions of dollars away to the needy.  You dont need it.  You hate capitalism.  What do you do with all of your money you make from selling your books and movies using the capitalistic system?

With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics.

TP – only the ones that are not informed and not logical.  The world is not black and white MM.  You seem to think the people who elected Obama are stupid.  They will not automatically become disillusioned cynics because you say it is so. 

You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.

TP – This one-act by Obama does nothing to support your phrase “all politicians are alike.”  You are making a simplistic and over-reaching assumption. 

I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

TP – To much drama here MM.  Just stick to the facts, the real facts.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government.

TP – Politicians make wars that our military have to fight.  You have not basis of understanding the war decisions that Obama has to make.  Only a foolish president would not listen to his generals.  It sounds as if you want to president to make the decision sitting in the White House without input from his generals.  This would be stupid.

WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that.

TP – If you have been watching the news rather than sitting at home watching your movies over and over you would have seen that the president wisely took the advise of his generals, the advise of his war council and HE made the decision.

And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

TP – you can always tell a person that pretends to be smart is really dumb when he has to resort to words above like f*&in’.  Do you do this because you think it is cute or is it because you just can’t come up with the right word? You hate generals?  These brave men have dedicated their lives to the United States so people like you can be free to make your millions and constant blow hot air.

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

TP – You are correct  on this one but this is a different time, different circumstances, different people.  Heraclitus (MM he is a well-known philosopher) once said “A man never steps into the same stream twice.  The man is never the same man and the stream is never the same stream.”  Do you remember “9/11″ where 3,000 people died?  You probably don’t. 

There’s a reason they don’t call Afghanistan the “Garden State” (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number.

TP – This is not a laughing issue, so your joke about Genghis Khan falls flat.  Refer to the Heraclitus quote above. 

I do have Gorbachev’s number though. It’s + 41 22 789 1662. I’m sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you’re about to commit.

TP – Wow MM.  Please again refer to the Heraclitus quote above.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the “war president.”

TP – This your opinion MM.  You have never fought in combat.  You have never had to be responsible for millions of lives.  You only inflame to make movies.  My son, SSG Darrell Griffin, Jr.  was a soldier that gave his life in Iraq.  He understood the Iraqi people.  He understood freedom is not free.  Since you hate capitalism so much, I can send you a list of countries that are not capitalistic.  Oh ya, you will have to give up your millions of dollars if you want to live in one of them.  And oh ya, you will not have the freedom of speech that you have in this country to make your inflammatory films and write your hateful books.  Do you have any other skills that you could use to make a living in one of these other countries?

 Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line — and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

TP – Are you aware that radical Islamist have been attacking the Us since the end of WWII?  Remember the Beruit Barracks bombing, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, the last WTC bombing?  Laying down our armies as you suggest would only encourage them to push even harder to over throw our country. 

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn’t have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

TP – MM, you have no basis for your comments.  They are simplistic and without foundation.  Just more of your nonsense rhetoric.  MM, you need to start being factual in your rants.  You are fast becoming irrelevant to thinking patriots.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan!

TP – Stop the press, stop the generals, stop the president.  MM says there are only 100 al-Qaeda in Afghanistan!  Before we start sending all our troops home we should probably verify where you got your information.  MM, this statement only shows you are more stupid than I thought.

A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush’s Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

TP – Wow MM! Only 100 guys living in caves?  What have you been smoking MM?

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”

TP – MM who are the haters?  From your rants and ravings, your films and books I think you have established yourself as one of the haters.  If the shoe fits put it on.  And I am sure it is a nice snug fit for you.

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

TP – MM, it is not the “corporate backers” as you call them, but the people of the United States that elected Obama.  I am confused.  Are you telling Obama that he should pander to his corporate backers?  Wow,  MM you are confused.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can’t take it anymore. We can’t take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of “landslide victory” don’t you understand?

TP – MM, cry babies like you call it caving in if Obama does not agree with you.  He is not just your president.  Even though I did not vote for him he is still my president.  He is doing what he feels is good for the country in this particular instance and he is not doing this for political reasons.  If you are shallow enough to judge his presidency from such a narrow view-point then take off your blinders.

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor.

TP – I can send you an address where you can send your millions of dollars and they will see it gets fairly distributed to the poor. 

You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

TP – “their incessant venom on hate radio and television” as you call it is free speech in action.  I have heard a lot more venom fall from your fangs that any talk show host I have heard.  You are so hateful that you are soon going to be irrelevant.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it’s time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan.

TP – MM, I am a parent of a soldier that lost his life fighting in Iraq.  So if you want him to ask the soldiers I can answer for my son, and many other soldiers.  After my son was killed I was allowed to embed with my son’s combat unit in Baghdad to complete a book were working on.  100% of these brave soldiers felt what they were doing was right.  Real Americans and our soldiers want to win and leave, not abandon the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Sure the soldiers questioned our being in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they still fight for the freedoms we have in this country.  It is people like you that sadden our troops with your nonsense.  Read “Last Journey.”  This is the book my son and I wrote.  It will tell you how our brave and thinking patriot soldiers feel about what they are doing.   

Do you think they will say, “No, we don’t need health care, we don’t need jobs, we don’t need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, ’cause we don’t need them, either.”

TP – MM stay on the subject.  You are talking about the war.  Healthcare and jobs are important but do not confuse the issue you are addressing here. 

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that’s what they’d do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

TP – MM, obviously you did not do your homework on this issue.  The military demographics pretty much reflect the demographics of our U.S. population.  Our military goes to great lengths to make sure this is so.  We are all concerned about American Children sleeping in the streets and people standing in bread lines.  But, you use them to support your views on the war.  You do this because you know people are emotional about these issues.  These are important issues but shame on you for using their images to support your weak argument against Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan. 

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights,

TP – MM, more of your hate speech.  There was no torture on our part. What about the beheadings by the insurgents, the insurgents killing innocent people with suicide bombers?  MM, the Bill of Rights is still in place.  Why did you not capitalize the “Bill of Rights” in your letter?  Was it a Freudian slip?

invading nations who had not attacked us,

TP – We did not attack ourselves on 9/11 MM.

blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam “might” be in (but never was)

TP – MM, I don’t know if anyone told you but we did get Saddam.

, slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan.

TP – Do you remember Uday and Qusay, Saddam’s sons?  They used to go down the bridle roles of couples getting married to have “fun” with the bride to be.  This is one of many ways they got there kicks.  Are you defending their behavior?  Are you suggesting that we should have left them alone to their evil devices?

We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish — the full terror of which we scarcely know.

TP – Our soldiers have found hundreds of mass-graves from Saddam’s evil rain.  We have witnesses thousand of innocent Iraq’s and Afghan’s die from suicide bombers.  Are you suggesting we should turn our backs on them?

When we elected you we didn’t expect miracles. We didn’t even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn’t even function as a nation and never, ever has.

TP – Bad guys usually have guns (al quada, taliban, etc) so good guys have to use guns to protect innocent people from bad guys with guns.  MM, I hope this explanation was simple enough for you.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop.

TP – you are not being consistent.  Above you said Afghanistan has never been organized.  We are helping the Afghan people.  You are suggesting we abandon them, that we have no responsiblity to help the countries of the world out that has oppressive regimes that kill its people.  American is strongest country on the earth and we have a responsibility to use this strength for world good.  We can not turn our heads and ignore the raping, murdering acts of repressive regimes and organizations like al queda and the taliban.

For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God’s sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON’T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother’s son.

TP – MM, I will debate you anywhere any time.  If this is too much for you I will arrange for my 13 year-old son to debate you.

We’re counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore

Thomas,

From an outside perspective, the Greenway project seems as just another park along the water’s edge, but in actuality, you presented the remarkable factors necessary for the eventual park construction.  Based on the amount of noxious pollution deposited in the system it seems whimsical, from today’s standards, that the agency was ready for action yet it needed a significant disaster to gain support.  Initially, it seemed as if the political body was more concerned with mitigating flooding and controlling water levels rather than eliminating water contamination.  How much of a factor was the pollution? You mentioned the auspiciousness and serendipitous series of events that contributed to the greenway project but to you think the project stewards would have seriously considered pollution as an environment hazard of the same magnitude as flooding, if the event had occurred ten years earlier?  I am thinking about the importance of Rachel Carson’s writings and the cultural shift towards environmental protection generated from the direct challenge to technocratic and scientific rationalization happening around the time of the flood.  The presentation addressed the significance of the political organization and interest but I was wondering about the cultural changes emerging in the 1960’s and what effect if any, it had on Denver’s community.

As mentioned, the agency’s formation was timely, which allowed them to step in once the project was deemed necessary but were there any other precedents of rebuilding along that stretch of waterway following the flood of 1965?  You spoke to the difficulty around the various municipalities having to adopt a unified standard of flood control and I was wondering if they were working of an existing model to establish the accepted figures.  Also, who was responsible for the design and construction?  Were there local landscape architects or civil engineers working with the greenway group or were professionals recruited from outside the city with experience in waterway park design?  And if there were professional designers/planners did they remain working with the greenway group on future projects?

Earlier in the semester, Anne mentioned the importance of having the plans on the shelf and being able to quickly address the devastated area immediately after a major catastrophe, which seems to be the case in Denver. Following from that, there also needs to be an agency in place ready to carry out the project, but we’ve yet to address the significance of credibility and experience attributed to the designers or engineers who have dealt with a similar situation successfully in the past.  It would be helpful to know if this was the case for the greenway project.

Sarah,

Your presentation fueled some passionate discussion about the importance of water and how its is represented and processed in an urban context.  Beginning with an image of the Roman Aqueducts, it occurred to me that different cultures ascribe particular values to water which is reflected in the manner of its management and representation.  Societies living in arid climates are forced to recognize the scarcity of this natural resource and have adopted stricter policies which heavily regulate water consumption and distribution; diametrically, we witnessed a grave disregard for water regulation during the industrialization period in Denver along the abundantly supplied waterway. This was a chronic issue confronting the majority of American industrializing cities which depended on water as a source of energy production, transportation, effluent dispersal and potable drinking water.  Modern zoning attempted to alleviate these and other health-borne issues and regulatory policies were enacted to ensure better practice concerning water use/abuse.  I was wondering how you felt about the treatment of water in the Hattersheim and Lindenplatz, considering that after processing, it may take years to return that water back to the atmosphere. Alternatively, if that water was bio-scrubbed and reused for plantings, it could be introduced back into the atmosphere within a few weeks, based on the hydrologic period cycle and the rapid dispersal of water trough plant transpiration.

Its hard to argue against the use of water art in urban parks, based on the amount of patronage they receive, but I sensed you were unconvinced about the how the actual processing was intended to inform the audience or at least stimulate some modicum of intellectual reflection about water’s importance.  It seems the fascination of interacting with water or nature in the city is quite a novel experience.  Do you think this flippant manner is endemic of our inability to effectively recognize the severity of our situation concerning the limitations of natural resources?  If not, how can we bridge the need to have recreation with urban nature/art while designing better methods of water management an processing?

During the semester, we have discussed the need for catastrophe to heighten our senses and alert us to the potential dangers inherent in our deleterious practices, but there are proactive designers and scientist with an ecological bent, working towards educating through environmental design.  During your research, did you uncover any precedents that spoke to this interest, if not, do you think it is simply a matter of designing a seductive urban water park that reveals intelligent processing and reuse.  This type of approach borders on landscape urbanism and the intention to illustrate the hydrological processing at the level of the park while addressing concerns of artistic merit and intellectual engagement. That would seem to satisfy your criteria and I wonder if you might find some projects that utilize this approach.

The last 10 days have been intense/mad/hectic and as a result, I’ve not had a chance to really think about the pgcert, or respond to comments. I’m aware I need to reflect and articulate my thoughts on my ARP. This weekend hopefully!

But today I was in an end of term critique where we did a little experiment. We regularly get students saying in their QEQ’s that they don’t really understand how they are assessed. With the term 1 assessment approaching next week (another busy week ahead), we changed the format of the crit and separated the 2nd years into groups where they critted their classmates work, assessed and graded the work with the same form which we as staff use,  and took notes which were subsequently written in the comments box on the right. It was an unusual session in that the person being reviewed wasn’t present, but extremely interesting in the way the students found very little difficulty in talking about the work. Everyone spoke up, everyone’s opinions were considered, and a general consensus was reached fairly easily. They (I thought) tended to be slightly harder than I might have been myself in a few instances, (so hopefully they’ll understand if their own grades are not what they’d want!!!) but they were surprisingly accurate in the main. I do think they can’t fail to have a greater understanding of the assessment process (maybe we forced them to learn AKA Biggs!).

I wasn’t 100% convinced that we got the format right though. I still feel the student needed to have a right to reply, and we simply didn’t have time for this. As staff, we should have had a more coherent discussion about the crit’s format beforehand, figuring exactly how we would do this within the time available with our 38 2nd year students. My idea was to take a group of 10(or so), split that group in 2 and have them assess the work of the other 5 students (in the morning perhaps) with the staff member moving back and forth across the groups, and in the afternoon we all come together to discuss the work fully, giving the student a space to have their voice heard. I think it’s important to try these things to see if we can creatively get students to actively participate in their assessment, but I also think the focus of  the teaching could become too heavily weighted towards assessment if we’re not careful. As a one off though, it was interesting. Time will tell if the process has become clearer.

Please click here to view the slideshow on the student server.

(Note: there will be a number beside two triangles next to the ‘pause’ button; it represents the number of seconds for each transition. The left arrow lessens the time while the right increases the time. )

~ click this text to see the slideshow on the school server ~

The path from Celtic to Japanese…

Je vais voir le spectacle de Lady Gaga demain et je voulais voir les critiques pour savoir si je vais être satisfaite…Jusqu’a présent il n’y a rien de bon, les quelques critiques que j’au pu lire disent que le Lady Gaga était bonne, mais semblait inconfortable avec ces costumes. Est-ce qu’elle doit changer des éléments de son spectacle tant attendu par ces fans. Voici une critique que j’ai trouve sur Cyberpresse.ca, elle a été écrite par la journaliste Emilie Cote. Je  vais faire ma propre critique sur son spectacle qui met en première le rappeur Kid Cudi un peu plus tard…..En attendant lisez cela…..Je reviens avec ma critique…… Est-ce que je devrais être excitée? Bon, tout cela sera dans ma critique…..

CRITIQUE D’EMILIE COTE

Lady Gaga au Centre Bell: Quand on veut trop

[Elle le sentait sans doute très fort, ce premier spectacle de sa tournée The Monster Ball. Mais Lady Gaga n'a pas livré la marchandise au Centre Bell, hier soir. Disons-le bien simplement: son «bal des monstres» était décevant.]

Brad Pitt, sa beubar psychée, et Quentin Tarantino étaient tous trois invités sur un plateau de télé au Japon, lors d’une émission (une putain d’émission de cuisine !) au cours de laquelle Brad Pitt a balancé qu’il cherchait à convaincre le réalisateur de faire un prequel à Inglorious Basterds “voire même un deuxième ou un troisième” a-t-il ajouté, sur le ton de la plaisanterie, corroborant ainsi ce qui s’était dit quelques temps auparavant, de la bouche même de Tarantino : “Si Brad parvient à gérer le truc, il y aura un autre Inglorious Basterds“.

Les 3 clips constituant l’émission pour ceux que ça intéresse de voir ce show quasi surréaliste où les deux stars doivent jouer les juges pour deux équipes de cuisiniers qui s’affrontent, sur une instru du “on est pas là pour se faire engueuler” de Boris Vian…

Comme toutes les news concernant QT (rappelez-vous de l’émission de télé allemande au cours de laquelle il annonçait une suite prochaine à Kill Bill), et bien que d’un point de vue parfaitement logique, étant donné que la Weinstein Company et la société de prod de Brados ne peuvent qu’être satisfaits des résultats en salle du film, une suite rapporterait des sous, seul le réalisateur le plus mégalomane peut s’opposer à la volonté de la superstar qui rendrait le truc possible.

Le problème c’est que les acteurs ne rajeunissent pas, et qu’au lieu de parler, il devrait juste s’y mettre, avant que son prequel à Inglorious Basterds, et son Kill Bill 3 ne finissent comme Double V Vega, son longtemps attendu prequel à Reservoir Dogs et Pulp Fiction, que Travolta et Madsen seront maintenant bien en peine de jouer, et qui, comme nombre d’entre eux, sont des projets avortés.

On peut compter, entre autres, le remake du giallo Psychic de Lucio Fulci avec Bridget Fonda, ou l’adaptation du pulp “Modesty Blaise” (que Vincent Vega lit sur les gogues avant de se faire flinguer par Butch dans Pulp Fiction) et surtout celles des romans d’Elmore Leonard (dont les droits avaient été achetés par les frères Weinstein) dont “Punch Creole” qui avait donné Jackie Brown mais aussi le western “Forty Lashes Less One”, qui raconte comment deux condamnés à mort, un apache et un afro-américain, doivent traquer et tuer les 5 plus dangereux hors-la-loi de l’Ouest en échange de leur liberté, et que Tarantino avait dit en 2007 avoir commencé à écrire, mais abandonné après avoir déclaré qu’il n’écrirait plus jamais d’adaptation. Ce qui fout en l’air par là même l’idée d’un James Bond made by QT (il devait écrire et réaliser Casino Royale), ou dans la veine espionnage l’idée d’un long-métrage tiré de la série U.N.C.L.E. qu’il aurait du réaliser en version blockbuster juste après Pulp Fiction avec George Clooney… avec qui il avait fini par interpréter From Dusk Till Dawn pour son poteau Rodriguez. Entre les rumeurs sur un possible “Jason Voorhees Movie” completement fabriqué ou un remake de Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! avec Britney Spears basé sur le désir de Tarantino de faire un film de sexploitation, qui ont plus ou moins donné Grindhouse, et un film catastrophe intitulé Airport 2005 avec John Travolta en pilote, Pam Grier en hôtesse et Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel, Bridget Fonda, Tim Roth et Samuel L Jackson en passagers, qui s’avéra être une blague, et enfin plus récemment un film de vengeance autour du Klu Klux Klan, combien de ses projets n’ont ainsi jamais vu le jour.

En un mot, mieux vaut prendre tout ça avec précaution, et bien que Kill Bill 3 soit celui sur lequel il semble véritablement focaliser son attention en ce moment, probablement pour boucler la boucle sur cette trilogie annoncée, et même si un western adapté de “40 Lashes Less One” (avec Johnny Halliday pourquoi pas ?), un film de gangsters à l’ancienne ou encore un film d’espions à l’anglaise, dont il a quelque peu proposé un avant goût dans Inglorious Basterds, seraient tous probablement des tueries, il serait vraiment plus intéressant de le voir s’attaquer à ce qui semble (ENFIN diront les détracteurs aussi bien que les adorateurs) être son thème fondateur : le racisme aux États-Unis. Il a jusqu’ici effleuré, et abordé sans vrai sérieux ou présenté de façon frontale (l’emploi du mot “nègre” qui lui avait valu des insultes de la part de Spike Lee, dont il avait ensuite éclaté le visage dans un café de LA), mais ce qui semble être pour l’instant son projet le plus concret – un biopic de l’abolitionniste américain et “basterd” John Brown, qui tenta en 1859 de causer une révolte armée d’esclaves contre les forces de l’ordre, en tuant quelques notables histoire de montrer l’exemple, ouvrant à lui tout seul la voie vers la Guerre Civile et les Droits Civiques – si développé à la manière d’une fresque sur l’esclavage, pourrait vraiment l’obliger à se confronter à ce qui semble être le sujet qui lui tient véritablement et indubitablement à cœur, qu’il en ait conscience ou non.

November 2009

Art345: Imaging and Sound

Write up for: Prospectives.09

The Wayne and Miriam Prim Theater at Nevada Museum of Art: PERFORM

At the theater six performers were presented, I only got to see the first four.

Tara Ryders’ piece Stand between the opposites was a dance performance in a small sand box accompanied by audio sounds and video imagery.  The piece was about understanding the self judgeingly between the gap of ones’ own shadow and light.  I thought the struggle for a declaration between all entities: shadow, self, and light was very clear and well expressed.

Giuseppe Di Bella Healing

The simplicity of the broken milk glass, glue, and the close focus of his hands putting the glass back together with no sound against a white back round was a strong symbol of the process of healing and the amount of care and nurturing that takes place.

Stephanie Lie & John Benson Vibrating Milk

I don’t know how they even thought of it but the idea to create the imagery of sound by sound waves passing through milk (different types of milk too, I think ) lit by a florescent light is very interesting. I think further exploration of this can be done which could lead to some interesting results.

Elle Mehrmand and Micha Cardenas technesexual

I was the most anxious to see this piece and disappointed after I saw it. The idea is wonderful but I think they were having technicalities. I didn’t hear a difference between the sound composed heartbeat and the heart beat of the two artists. All of the extra sounds that was not the heartbeat were distracting to me. I think there are kinks to this project that need to be addressed or more clearly defined.  I commend the Artist on being so bold.

November 2009

Art345: Imaging and Sound

Write up for: Prospectives.09

The Fleishmann Planetarium and Science center PROJECT: AV

Inside the dome of the planetarium, five artists’ works were shown for a video and experimental sound composition immersion.

Stephanie Dodes  was the first to show her video piece Everything for Nothing.  It consisted of an in sync three parts video projection that loops when the video has ended. Her work deals with the blur between sleep, dream, and ritual. The video shows a group of women being lead by the ‘head’ women.

Josh Goldman’s sound piece Hexagonal is composed of sound made by an altered electric guitar. Each string was prepared with different materials and recorded singularly in its own improved composition. Then the artist edited the sounds, taking only what he pleased, into a 6 part composition.

George Marie’s Dialectical Oppositions aims to create a unique music composition by the interaction of two or more forces or ideas.

David Snedegar’s Washingtons deals with how music is seen and felt.

Mattia Casalegno’s site-specific work Structure Dissipative deals with the concepts of emergence, chaos, and stability. This work, to me was the most together in terms on concept, execution, and product. Casalegno’s work is interesting, moving, and comprehensible. I’d like to see it again.

Depuis le match France-Irlande (1-1), de très nombreuses réactions voir des critiques se sont rajoutées les unes aux autres, créant une atmosphère très obscure. De Roselyne Bachelot à Rama Yade en passant par Bixente Lizarazu et bien d’autres, les réactions ont, donc, déferlées.

La dernière réaction en date est celle d’Aimé Jacquet, le sélectionneur de l’Equipe de France victorieuse de la Coupe du Monde en 1998. En effet, il a tenu à réagir dans le magazine sportif France Football sur les derniers évènements, et en très grande partie sur ce match décidement sulfureux.

Aimé Jacquet a quelque peu changé d’avis sur Raymond Domenech, l’actuel sélectionneur de l’équipe de la France. Longtemps soutien indiscutable notamment après l’Euro 2004, Jacquet tourne sa veste. En effet, il déclare un manque de communication flagrant de la part de Domenech : « Il faudrait que Raymond fournisse des explications sur ce qui s’est passé, et aussi depuis l’Euro 2008. Moi je le faisais, même quand les journaux me tombaient dessus. C’est essentiel. »

Il rajoute sur le jeu de la France que « les bleus ont fait un mauvais match et je n’ai entendu aucune explication à ce sujet. Je suis conscient qu’un sélectionneur est jugé sur ses résultats et que s’il les obtient, il doit continuer. Mais cela ne nous empêche pas de parler du jeu ou, en l’occurrence, du non-jeu ». Enfin, l’ancien entraîneur des Bleus fustige la Fédération Française de Football qui selon lui « elle n’a pas compris le fond même du boulot d’un sélectionneur, un job que tu ne peux bien remplir que quatre ans car c’est un poste tellement exposé ».

Aimé Jacquet n’est pas tendre, mais en même temps, n’a-t-il pas raison ?

Sources : http://www.eurosport.fr/football/coupe-du-monde/2010/jacquet-parle-de-domenech_sto2135665/story.shtml

Et  http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/breves2009/20091127_075645_jacquet-tacle-domenech.html

Date : 27/11/09

Correcteur: Gido0907

Jusqu’ici peu critique à l’encontre de Raymond Domenech, Aimé Jacquet est sorti de sa réserve dans un entretien publié dans France Football de ce vendredi. Selon le sélectionneur champion du monde en 1998, la FFF aurait dû se séparer de Domenech après l’Euro 2008: “Lorsqu’on occupe un poste comme le sien, qui fut aussi le mien (1994-1998), quatre ans, ça suffit ! Car, après, c’est trop dur. Il y a trop de paramètres qui vous empêchent de bien travailler.” Aimé Jacquet reproche également à l’actuel sélectionneur son refus de s’exprimer sur le jeu et notamment le match face à l’Eire: “Les Bleus ont fait un mauvais match et je n’ai entendu aucune explication à ce sujet (…) Un patron doit donner des explications, sinon on donne l’impression de ne pas se poser de questions alors qu’il y en a plein qu’on se pose”.

Vous mangez des boulons avec vos corn flakes, et vous aimez la musique de dur, de vrai, celle qui est sale et qui parle de choses que votre maman vous a toujours caché. Josh Homme, Dave Grohl et John Paul Jones vous comprennent et ont formé “Them Crooked Vultures”. Il faut dire que ce super-groupe, enfant bâtard des Queens of the Stone Age, de Nirvana et de Led Zeppelin a l’air méchant rien que sur le papier. Son pedigree rendait l’entreprise très excitante. Hélas, ce premier album se contente d’être un bon disque de Josh Homme, plutôt qu’un excellent mélange des trois entités.

Attempt number 2 for my menu/restaurant rebranding.  I like this better.  I embraced Futura, and flannel.. and it seems to be working so far…  we’ll see.  Critique very welcome.  =)

Children’s Writing Mentoring Workshop

Where:  Princeton Theological Seminary - Princeton, NJ

When:  January 17th, 2010

Mentors: 

Allison Wortche, Asst. Editor, Knopf and Crown
Adriana Dominguez, Agent, Full Circle Literary
Kelly K. Smith, Senior Editor, Children’s Dept. Sterling Publishing

Cost:  SCBWI Member price: $195, Non-member price: $235

Includes:  One-on-one critique – Full Picture Book critique or the first 30 pages of novel with a synopsis with mentor, group critique, breakfast, lunch, Q&A and First Page Session.

Please note:  Due date for manuscripts is December 14th, 2009.  So sign up before you get involved in the holidays and forget.

For registration and more info go to:http://www.newjerseyscbwi.com/events/100117.shtml

Hope to see you there.  These workshops have been the catalyst for many contracts.

Kathy

Bjorn,

With escalating fossil fuel costs, social and production wise, it logically follows that we should seek alternative fuel sources while acknowledging their limitations and applications.  Your discussion of geothermal teases out these questions about universal application, regional limitations, financial constraints and scales of efficient usage.

In the presentation, you citied a national indexing of geothermal intensities with the western states of America yielding the best locations for potential usage.  Unfortunately, the majority of the northern states, which demand a greater heating load, are geographically removed from the best sources. I had the sense that you didn’t think that geothermal could be a universal application, as is with electricity, did you uncover what is the greatest distance away from production at which service is no longer possible in terms of effective yield? Wondering about this lead me to question the scale of analysis and whether or not you think, given the high cost of capital investment and failure rate, that the examination of sources should be smaller and localized?  So, should a small town or city with sufficient potential yield, invest in geothermal heating and should it be implemented at a district level, following from the success of the Boise model.

I’ve heard some criticism about local depletion and you also spoke about the issue of supplementation and the need to tie back into a local utility to service customer/client need, but what do you think about the supplementation with other sustainable sources.  Such as heating through the use of geothermal coupled with biomass, which also has its limitations and environmental criticisms, but has a much lower capital cost investment and can be derived from existing waste.  Rethinking potential energy and heat sources coming from items considered waste products takes into consideration life-cycle and energy transfer, which seem to be gaining considerable attention with the scarcity of resources and soaring prices attached to fossil fuels. Additionally, there seems to be a larger market of wasted resources considering the amount of material deemed refuse despite the potential energy that could be extracted from it. With an abundance of garbage and the problem of what to do with it, cities may actually be in the best position to reconsider it as a form of energy.

You were questioning place making in relation to geothermal technology and I wanted to broach the idea that neighborhood, town and city design could learn about the importance of site/energy potential by amplifying your study into a comprehensive model.  Although this is outside the scope of the work requested, it becomes potentially interesting to understand your analysis as part of a larger questioning about relevant fuel and heating sources from the neighborhood, to the city, to the region and eventually zooming back out to the regional scale.  One could imagine your intellectual interest’s counterpart conducting a similar survey about geothermal application in another area and then aggregating the data into a map of the U.S., showing the most suitable areas  and scales.  I suppose it would look similar to Ian Mcharg’s regional land suitability for development, compounded with local energy and waste sources making a geothermal dominant town formally different than a solar dominant town.That is not to say that the novelty of experiencing geothermal art is insufficient for place making but I wonder how far you could push the notion of place making relative to energy sourcing.

Obamacare/ Pelosicare – Reason #3 of why it is not good for America. BAD PROVISIONS in the bill. a) People will be finds $2,500 and possibly go to jail if they do not buy health insurance. b). Creates 111 new bureaucracies c) Adds a trillion dollars to the US deficit.  This means that our children and grand-children will be paying for it.

Vous pouvez prétendre mépriser la pop, son caractère facile et son inégalable vacuité, il vous faudra savoir concéder à l’adversaire que oui, vous, malgré votre orgueil viril et vos manières de brute, vous avez aimé cet album. “The Leisure Society” est un groupe discret : “The Sleeper”, leur premier effort, a été publié en Mars dernier, mais n’a pas rencontré un succès fou. La critique a aimé, mais le grand public n’a pas suivit. C’est pourtant un album bourré de maîtrise mélodique, sensible, qui reste accroché à l’oreille dès la première écoute : ce que la pop peut faire de mieux.