I am not staying up til midnight to blog - I've better things to do :-) So you'll have to accept this new year's greeting from me at 7:15 PM on Monday, December 31, 2007.
Like all the years seem to do as you age, this one flew by with barely a blink and a nod. A lot happened this year, and I think that's what contributes to time passing so quickly.
A few things that happened:
1. We bought land in Virginia.
2. My good friend Micah left for a job at a different company. (We'd worked together for over 6 years).
3. My good friend Aubrey left for Seattle to get married and pregnant. (Actually his wife got pregnant, but it's faster to say it the way I did)
4. I published my second book.
5. My short story, The Train, was accepted into Amazon Shorts.
6. My father-in-law looked for a while as if he might die.
7. My wife and kids left for three weeks to take care of her dad.
and so on. I can think of many more things to add to this list, but you get the idea. Time keeps marching on and events constantly change our world around us, whether we like it or not.
There is one thing I hope to accomplish in 2008. That would be finishing the novel I started in 2006. I haven't touched it since April of 07, but it's about 2/3 finished. I have several other aspirations as well; that's the biggest though.
Here's to the New Year, and let's hope it's a good 'un!
Cheers, Jeff
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
What Exactly are the Rules of Poetry?
Poetry is like pornography in this respect - no one seems able to define it, but they know it when they see it. Poetry is an elusive concept for many. They think that if something is written in four-line verses, then it must be poetry. Or if it is written in short-line, truncated sentences, then that qualifies as well. Some seem to think that anything written about love or sex or flowers is poetry, while others think that making a list of single words will suffice. If you can make your political views about how you hate the President rhyme, then you must be a poet laureate! There are many readers out there who would certainly applaud you for it.
So are there rules regarding the writing of poetry? Yes.
And no.
If you are writing a Shakespearean sonnet, for instance, you would construct them with three four-line stanzas (called quatrains) and a final couplet composed in iambic pentameter, with the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
Iambic pentameter means a line with 5 iambic feet. Since each iamb is two syllables, that means each line should have ten syllables. Yet if you read enough sonnets, you will see that writers will break the "ten-syllable rule" at times.
Does this make it less of a sonnet? Of course not.
Let's take a look at punctuation.
I've run into some readers who will ding a writer left and right if they don't use punctuation. While I generally do use punctuation, there are times when what I write seems to defy its use. I will acquiesce to the demands of the piece and let it work on its own merit, and I'm OK with that. E.E. Cummings (sorry for the uppercase letters e.e. lol) either used punctuation in traditional and nontraditional ways or left it out altogether. He was about flaunting an anti-establishment approach to his work.
Would e.e. cummings be criticized for this experimental and bold approach? He probably was in his day, but he is now accepted for what he was - a groundbreaking poet.
So what about the rules of poetry?
Perhaps they are more like guidelines than rules, for they seem to be somewhat flexible.
However, they should not necessarily be tossed out with the bathwater.
There is at least one rule I can think of that is very pertinent to poetry.
That is this...
DON'T BORE THE READER.
So are there rules regarding the writing of poetry? Yes.
And no.
If you are writing a Shakespearean sonnet, for instance, you would construct them with three four-line stanzas (called quatrains) and a final couplet composed in iambic pentameter, with the rhyme scheme abab cdcd efef gg.
Iambic pentameter means a line with 5 iambic feet. Since each iamb is two syllables, that means each line should have ten syllables. Yet if you read enough sonnets, you will see that writers will break the "ten-syllable rule" at times.
Does this make it less of a sonnet? Of course not.
Let's take a look at punctuation.
I've run into some readers who will ding a writer left and right if they don't use punctuation. While I generally do use punctuation, there are times when what I write seems to defy its use. I will acquiesce to the demands of the piece and let it work on its own merit, and I'm OK with that. E.E. Cummings (sorry for the uppercase letters e.e. lol) either used punctuation in traditional and nontraditional ways or left it out altogether. He was about flaunting an anti-establishment approach to his work.
Would e.e. cummings be criticized for this experimental and bold approach? He probably was in his day, but he is now accepted for what he was - a groundbreaking poet.
So what about the rules of poetry?
Perhaps they are more like guidelines than rules, for they seem to be somewhat flexible.
However, they should not necessarily be tossed out with the bathwater.
There is at least one rule I can think of that is very pertinent to poetry.
That is this...
DON'T BORE THE READER.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Finally Figured It Out
Earlier in the season, when the Patriots were defeating opponents by 20, 30 or more points, they were roundly accused by many of running up the score. Most speculated that it was Belichick's way of thumbing his nose at the league after the now infamous videogate episode with the Jets.
It's taken most of the season, but I now think I know what was going on. After winning three Super Bowls, what was left for Belichick, Brady and crew to accomplish? Another Super Bowl Championship would be nice, but, frankly, they've been there, done that.
What remains is this: to establish a legacy and ensure Hall of Fame status by setting new records, both as a team and individuals. I believe Belichick and the front office went into the season with these goals in mind. Why else would they stack the team with a gazillion receivers, including Wes Welker and Randy Moss if not to give Tom Brady a good shot at unseating Manning as all-time leading TD thrower?
I believe they also had an undefeated season in mind as well - the first team in history to do it with 16 games, unlike the Dolphins who did it when the league only played 14 games.
Think of all the other potential records - most passes received, passing yards, and so on. The Patriots' early dominance in the season put them in a position to be able to chase after all those numbers. And I believe that has been their intent the whole time.
It's taken most of the season, but I now think I know what was going on. After winning three Super Bowls, what was left for Belichick, Brady and crew to accomplish? Another Super Bowl Championship would be nice, but, frankly, they've been there, done that.
What remains is this: to establish a legacy and ensure Hall of Fame status by setting new records, both as a team and individuals. I believe Belichick and the front office went into the season with these goals in mind. Why else would they stack the team with a gazillion receivers, including Wes Welker and Randy Moss if not to give Tom Brady a good shot at unseating Manning as all-time leading TD thrower?
I believe they also had an undefeated season in mind as well - the first team in history to do it with 16 games, unlike the Dolphins who did it when the league only played 14 games.
Think of all the other potential records - most passes received, passing yards, and so on. The Patriots' early dominance in the season put them in a position to be able to chase after all those numbers. And I believe that has been their intent the whole time.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Just Call Me Old-Fashioned
I have been on writing sites for the better part of two years now. They have been mostly poetry sites, but I've also joined a few prose sites as well. And I also spend some time at the Amazon shorts message boards swapping reviews with other contributing writers to the program.
The poetry sites are all armchair, do-it-yourselfer poets. By that I mean there are no well known, published professional poets at these sites. You won't find Maya Angelou or John Ashbery hanging out at poets.com, thepoetstree.com, worldofpoets.com or any of the numerous "workshop" sites.
On the Amazon shorts boards, you will find writers whose works have been published, though they may not be as mainstream as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. Yet they still aspire to that which anyone who creates aspires - recognition and success.
I read a lot of things, and I've noticed a lot of people writing much about demons, fairies, new age mysticism, and erotic fantasy. I find this to be, perhaps not unexpected given our cultural schizophrenia these days, but somewhat discomforting.
It's as if we've replaced "How do I love thee, let me count the ways" with the bizarre, the occultic and the downright salacious. Perhaps even more unsettling is the amount of people who encourage it. Literary value is being replaced with an odd sensationalism that is like a narcotic of words.
I am a fan of classical writing - I haven't read nearly enough of it to be well versed. But I find it satisfying on many levels. I also think a good story can be told without sex, without demons, without spirit lights and metaphysical nonsense.
Just call me old-fashioned I guess.
The poetry sites are all armchair, do-it-yourselfer poets. By that I mean there are no well known, published professional poets at these sites. You won't find Maya Angelou or John Ashbery hanging out at poets.com, thepoetstree.com, worldofpoets.com or any of the numerous "workshop" sites.
On the Amazon shorts boards, you will find writers whose works have been published, though they may not be as mainstream as Stephen King or Tom Clancy. Yet they still aspire to that which anyone who creates aspires - recognition and success.
I read a lot of things, and I've noticed a lot of people writing much about demons, fairies, new age mysticism, and erotic fantasy. I find this to be, perhaps not unexpected given our cultural schizophrenia these days, but somewhat discomforting.
It's as if we've replaced "How do I love thee, let me count the ways" with the bizarre, the occultic and the downright salacious. Perhaps even more unsettling is the amount of people who encourage it. Literary value is being replaced with an odd sensationalism that is like a narcotic of words.
I am a fan of classical writing - I haven't read nearly enough of it to be well versed. But I find it satisfying on many levels. I also think a good story can be told without sex, without demons, without spirit lights and metaphysical nonsense.
Just call me old-fashioned I guess.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth
So now the Mitchell report has been released. And we find out that there are some marquis names on the list, though not nearly as many as was thought would be. What is the response?
Overall, I'd say the response has been fairly tepid. While the media has been blasting around the report as if we have reached doomsday, statements from individuals on the list remain strangely absent with a few exceptions.
Baseball has always lived by its own code of ethics, the main ethic being that what happens in baseball, stays in baseball. History is rife with stories of drug usage, alcoholism, rampant infidelity in the sports world, even criminal activity in the sports world, but the leagues, for the sake of public relations, have always tried to bury everything in the proverbial sand where they stuck their heads.
It's rather childish when you think about it. It's as if by ignoring the problem, or by playing shallow lip service to it, then it becomes persona non grata. It goes away.
Fans won't do anything about it. They won't boycott any games for a greater principle of cleaning up the sport. Owners won't do anything about it because they continue to make piles of loot despite the cheating. And the players certainly won't do anything about it because they make millions which adds up to privilege.
Roger Clemens' attorney has stated that his client was wrongly accused of using steroids.
Roger had the opportunity to be questioned by the Mitchell investigation team and be above board about everything. He refused to do so. His refusal is more than telling. It is damning.
So where does that leave us all?
Most likely looking towards pitchers and catchers gathering in Florida in February. It will all pass under the bridge and away down stream. There will be puffs of argument from time to time that records now need asterisks.
But, in the end, it will all fade away as if nothing ever really happened.
Overall, I'd say the response has been fairly tepid. While the media has been blasting around the report as if we have reached doomsday, statements from individuals on the list remain strangely absent with a few exceptions.
Baseball has always lived by its own code of ethics, the main ethic being that what happens in baseball, stays in baseball. History is rife with stories of drug usage, alcoholism, rampant infidelity in the sports world, even criminal activity in the sports world, but the leagues, for the sake of public relations, have always tried to bury everything in the proverbial sand where they stuck their heads.
It's rather childish when you think about it. It's as if by ignoring the problem, or by playing shallow lip service to it, then it becomes persona non grata. It goes away.
Fans won't do anything about it. They won't boycott any games for a greater principle of cleaning up the sport. Owners won't do anything about it because they continue to make piles of loot despite the cheating. And the players certainly won't do anything about it because they make millions which adds up to privilege.
Roger Clemens' attorney has stated that his client was wrongly accused of using steroids.
Roger had the opportunity to be questioned by the Mitchell investigation team and be above board about everything. He refused to do so. His refusal is more than telling. It is damning.
So where does that leave us all?
Most likely looking towards pitchers and catchers gathering in Florida in February. It will all pass under the bridge and away down stream. There will be puffs of argument from time to time that records now need asterisks.
But, in the end, it will all fade away as if nothing ever really happened.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Mitchell Report
The following are ostensibly to be found in the George Mitchell report on steroid and/or human growth hormone usage in Major League Baseball. Most of the evidence is documentary, ie cancelled checks, phone records and such.
The following players were connected to steroids, either use or possession, in the report:
Lenny Dykstra
David Segui
Larry Bigbie
Brian Roberts
Jack Cust
Tim Laker
Josias Manzanillo
Todd Hundley
Mark Carreon
Hal Morris
Matt Franco
Rondell White
Andy Pettitte
Roger Clemens
Chuck Knoblauch
Jason Grimsley
Gregg Zaun
David Justice
F.P. Santangelo
Glenallen Hill
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Ryan Franklin
Chris Donnels
Todd Williams
Phil Hiatt
Todd Pratt
Kevin Young
Mike Lansing
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Adam Piatt
Miguel Tejada
Jason Christiansen
Mike Stanton
Stephen Randolph
Jerry Hairston
Paul Lo Duca
Adam Riggs
Bart Miadich
Fernando Vina
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagne
Mike Bell
Matt Herges
Gary Bennett
Jim Parque
Brendan Donnelly
Chad Allen
Jeff Williams
Exavier "Nook" Logan
Howie Clark
Paxton Crawford
Ken Caminiti
Rafael Palmeiro
Luis Perez
Derrick Turnbow
Ricky Bones
Ricky Stone
The following players were cited under "Alleged Internet Purchases of Performance Enhancing Substances By Players in Major League Baseball."
Rick Ankiel
David Bell
Paul Byrd
Jose Canseco
Jay Gibbons
Troy Glaus
Jason Grimsley
Jose Guillen
Darren Holmes
Gary Matthews Jr.
John Rocker
Scott Schoeneweis
Ismael Valdez
Matt Williams
Steve Woodard
The following players were linked through BALCO:
Benito Santiago
Gary Sheffield
Randy Velarde
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Bobby Estalella
Barry Bonds
Marvin Benard
Friday, December 7, 2007
I Don't Get Facebook
I really don't.
I don't know why people are there, why they sign up for an account.
I don't see the site as being terribly interactive except for some goofiness like building a limited snowman or spending $1 to send someone a small icon of flowers or chocolates. It's also a wonky site, not overly intuitive from the start.
Yet they claim tens of millions of users.
I don't get it.
I don't know why people are there, why they sign up for an account.
I don't see the site as being terribly interactive except for some goofiness like building a limited snowman or spending $1 to send someone a small icon of flowers or chocolates. It's also a wonky site, not overly intuitive from the start.
Yet they claim tens of millions of users.
I don't get it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
10 Ways to Tell You have Entered an Online Poetry Workshop
1. The meter is tortured, the topic is banal, the rhyme is forced, but people are still cheering it and calling it awesome.
2. There is a preponderance of poems about fairies, unicorns and knights.
3. Reviews consist of only: "great job", "I really liked this" or "I don't get it".
4. There is a preponderance of poems about making love under trees beside a stream running through a golden field.
5. Love is always rhymed with above.
6. Much sighing and whispering going on in the poems.
7. People refer to a sonnet as free verse.
8. Site members are proud of their high rankings and fabricated titles.
9. People claim to be published poets because their work shows up in a poetry.com vanity publication.
10. There's not much good poetry to be found there.
2. There is a preponderance of poems about fairies, unicorns and knights.
3. Reviews consist of only: "great job", "I really liked this" or "I don't get it".
4. There is a preponderance of poems about making love under trees beside a stream running through a golden field.
5. Love is always rhymed with above.
6. Much sighing and whispering going on in the poems.
7. People refer to a sonnet as free verse.
8. Site members are proud of their high rankings and fabricated titles.
9. People claim to be published poets because their work shows up in a poetry.com vanity publication.
10. There's not much good poetry to be found there.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Go Figure
I have a myspace account. It's part of my online promoting of books that I'm trying to sell. Myspace is a weird place. All the negative stuff with regards to kids on myspace notwithstanding, it's loaded with porn spam and flat out strangeness.
So be it. It's the egalitarianism of the internet I suppose.
However the weirdness I'm referring to is how people respond to you when you request to add them as friends. I can find folks from all around the world, send a friend request and they either accept it or not - no fuss, no muss.
Try sending a request to someone who attended the same school, and I, with very few exceptions, receive the third degree. I get messages saying:
1. Do I know you?
2. Why do you want to be friends?
3. Do we know the same people?
And so on, and so on.
I don't know what it is, but networking via school attended seems to invoke some sort of suspicion on the part of the requestee. And a real irony is that they often have "friends, networking" listed as their reasons for being on myspace.
It's funny, in a wry sort of way.
So be it. It's the egalitarianism of the internet I suppose.
However the weirdness I'm referring to is how people respond to you when you request to add them as friends. I can find folks from all around the world, send a friend request and they either accept it or not - no fuss, no muss.
Try sending a request to someone who attended the same school, and I, with very few exceptions, receive the third degree. I get messages saying:
1. Do I know you?
2. Why do you want to be friends?
3. Do we know the same people?
And so on, and so on.
I don't know what it is, but networking via school attended seems to invoke some sort of suspicion on the part of the requestee. And a real irony is that they often have "friends, networking" listed as their reasons for being on myspace.
It's funny, in a wry sort of way.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Pet Highway Peeves
Here are my biggest highway driving peeves in ascending order.
1. Folks who won't move over a lane when they see people trying to enter the highway - especially irritating when there's no one else around for hundreds of yards.
2. People who follow very close in the passing lane creating a line of cars impossible to penetrate when you need to get over.
3. People who follow me very closely in the passing lane when I'm already going 10 or more over the posted limit.
4. Passing lane inhabitants who won't pass.
5. The biggest pet highway peeve for me? Those who won't get up to highway speed on the on-ramp. They are usually going too slow to work their way into a spot when there's traffic and often come to a stop right before entering the highway. I've almost rear ended someone who did this as I was looking at the traffic and trying to sync up with it.
Feel free to include yours.
1. Folks who won't move over a lane when they see people trying to enter the highway - especially irritating when there's no one else around for hundreds of yards.
2. People who follow very close in the passing lane creating a line of cars impossible to penetrate when you need to get over.
3. People who follow me very closely in the passing lane when I'm already going 10 or more over the posted limit.
4. Passing lane inhabitants who won't pass.
5. The biggest pet highway peeve for me? Those who won't get up to highway speed on the on-ramp. They are usually going too slow to work their way into a spot when there's traffic and often come to a stop right before entering the highway. I've almost rear ended someone who did this as I was looking at the traffic and trying to sync up with it.
Feel free to include yours.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sweet Irony
You can't make this stuff up!
After a very Presidential-esque news conference - [Senator Hillary] Clinton turned around to leave the reporters and their peppering questions. A staffer swooped open a curtain, and chaos ensued. Four large American flags came crashing in front of Senator Clinton as she headed for the door. In a controlled panic, the staffers and the Senator attempted to catch the flags before they fell to the ground.
Click Here for article.
After a very Presidential-esque news conference - [Senator Hillary] Clinton turned around to leave the reporters and their peppering questions. A staffer swooped open a curtain, and chaos ensued. Four large American flags came crashing in front of Senator Clinton as she headed for the door. In a controlled panic, the staffers and the Senator attempted to catch the flags before they fell to the ground.
Click Here for article.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
He's Back!
Last night's game 6 of the American League Championship Series heralded the return of the postseason Curt Schilling. The good Curt Schilling, not his evil meltdown twin.
Curt pitched a great 7 innings. He looked a bit shaky in the second inning, giving up the homerun to Victor Martinez, who really has Curt's number. Then he ended up with runners on 1st and 3rd but managed to get three outs.
But after that he settled down and gave us vintage Schilling. It may be the last time we see Schilling pitch in a Red Sox uniform - hopefully there will be at least one more appearance, but it's tough to say.
By all indications of the season, Carmona and Sabathia should have been able to give the Sox fits. Perhaps it's postseason inexperience that got the best of them, but the back of the rotation, Westbrook and Byrd have been more effective in this series.
How about that J.D. Drew, eh? I said he should be pulled, but look at the way he came through - grand slam in the 1st and an RBI single later on. He was the spark of the offense last night.
Jacoby Ellsbury had a great first postseason game with an RBI and a run. There was a great hit by him that was foiled by an even greater catch from Sizemore. But Jacoby still made his presence known, and what a refreshing change from the plate struggles of Coco Crisp. Ellsbury looks ready for the bigs, and Coco has to be thinking he'll be traded by next season. It's sort of too bad, he has a wonderfully marketable name. It is Ellsbury's time, however, and Coco never really became what everyone expected of him.
Who is the dummy at Fox who keeps playing "Cleveland Rocks" by Ian Hunter? It's understandable when playing at the Jake - but at Fenway Park when the Indians are getting stomped, it becomes really ludicrous and more than annoying.
So this is going 7 games which is not something I foresaw. Based on past history, I'd have to say that Dice-K is going to stink it up again. The Tribe has figured out how to go deep in the pitch count with him which exponentially reduces his effectiveness.
He really needs to be on a short leash tonight. Beckett has stated he'll be available out of the bullpen. Lester will be as well, so perhaps disaster can be averted.
I really think Fox should start the games at 7:00. An 8:00 start really means no baseball until 8:30, and given that baseball is a slow game, it makes for late nights.
All predictions off for tonight. Go Sox!
Curt pitched a great 7 innings. He looked a bit shaky in the second inning, giving up the homerun to Victor Martinez, who really has Curt's number. Then he ended up with runners on 1st and 3rd but managed to get three outs.
But after that he settled down and gave us vintage Schilling. It may be the last time we see Schilling pitch in a Red Sox uniform - hopefully there will be at least one more appearance, but it's tough to say.
By all indications of the season, Carmona and Sabathia should have been able to give the Sox fits. Perhaps it's postseason inexperience that got the best of them, but the back of the rotation, Westbrook and Byrd have been more effective in this series.
How about that J.D. Drew, eh? I said he should be pulled, but look at the way he came through - grand slam in the 1st and an RBI single later on. He was the spark of the offense last night.
Jacoby Ellsbury had a great first postseason game with an RBI and a run. There was a great hit by him that was foiled by an even greater catch from Sizemore. But Jacoby still made his presence known, and what a refreshing change from the plate struggles of Coco Crisp. Ellsbury looks ready for the bigs, and Coco has to be thinking he'll be traded by next season. It's sort of too bad, he has a wonderfully marketable name. It is Ellsbury's time, however, and Coco never really became what everyone expected of him.
Who is the dummy at Fox who keeps playing "Cleveland Rocks" by Ian Hunter? It's understandable when playing at the Jake - but at Fenway Park when the Indians are getting stomped, it becomes really ludicrous and more than annoying.
So this is going 7 games which is not something I foresaw. Based on past history, I'd have to say that Dice-K is going to stink it up again. The Tribe has figured out how to go deep in the pitch count with him which exponentially reduces his effectiveness.
He really needs to be on a short leash tonight. Beckett has stated he'll be available out of the bullpen. Lester will be as well, so perhaps disaster can be averted.
I really think Fox should start the games at 7:00. An 8:00 start really means no baseball until 8:30, and given that baseball is a slow game, it makes for late nights.
All predictions off for tonight. Go Sox!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Quick Hits
Josh Beckett's performance gives me goosebumps. He killed the Indians' momentum last night, or at least stifled it for the game. We'll see if it carries over Saturday.
The Cleveland drummer finally shut up last night - blessed quietness! Great pic of him at bostondirtdogs.com.
Since Schilling, Dice-K and Wakefield can't seem to go beyond 4-2/3 innings, here's a suggestion: In Saturday's game, have them pitch 3 innings each. Maybe we'll be able to see the good version of them, and they will win the game.
Joe Torre has decided not to accept the Yankees' offer: Good on ya, Joe!
Too many people get too incensed over Manny goofs and gaffes. I don't get it. A lot of money doesn't guarantee intelligence, glibness, or integrity. Get over the thought that it should.
Little Dusty finally had a break out night after struggling for the first four games. Now where is Ellsbury? And why is Coco still playing?
Maybe J.D. should get the rest of the series off.
Schilling is slotted to pitch Saturday. Boston needs ALDS (07) Schilling to show up for the game, not ALCS (07) Schilling. Of course, if ALCS (04) Schilling wants to make an appearance, I'm all for that.
They're coming home!
The Cleveland drummer finally shut up last night - blessed quietness! Great pic of him at bostondirtdogs.com.
Since Schilling, Dice-K and Wakefield can't seem to go beyond 4-2/3 innings, here's a suggestion: In Saturday's game, have them pitch 3 innings each. Maybe we'll be able to see the good version of them, and they will win the game.
Joe Torre has decided not to accept the Yankees' offer: Good on ya, Joe!
Too many people get too incensed over Manny goofs and gaffes. I don't get it. A lot of money doesn't guarantee intelligence, glibness, or integrity. Get over the thought that it should.
Little Dusty finally had a break out night after struggling for the first four games. Now where is Ellsbury? And why is Coco still playing?
Maybe J.D. should get the rest of the series off.
Schilling is slotted to pitch Saturday. Boston needs ALDS (07) Schilling to show up for the game, not ALCS (07) Schilling. Of course, if ALCS (04) Schilling wants to make an appearance, I'm all for that.
They're coming home!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Abyssinia Red Sox
The ALCS is one game away from being finished.
Steady, reliable Josh Beckett will pitch Thursday night. Of all the starters, he has the best chance to win the game and bring it back home to Fenway.
Still, he could lose, and I wouldn't hold it against him. Throughout the entire season, he has been the true ace of the staff, the only 20 game winner in all of MLB. The Josh Beckett of 2007 is so far removed from the Josh Beckett of 2006 that it's like two totally different pitchers. If this season is any indicator, Josh has the stuff to end up in the HOF one day.
The 2007 Red Sox were ostensibly built for the postseason.
Of course, it takes the postseason to see just how far off the building went.
As it turns out, the starting rotation (with the exception of Beckett) hasn't lived up to expectation. Schilling has had flashes of brilliance, but nothing consistent. Matsuzaka looks more and more like a monumental waste of money ($100M). Tim Wakefield's contract is cheap and year to year, but his effectiveness just hasn't been there the second half of the season.
The bullpen has huge anchors in Okajima and Papelbon. Delcarmen has stepped it up this year, but still makes costly mistakes. Timlin has been fairly effective. He's long in years, though, and his days have to be numbered. Lefty specialist Lopez can't get lefties out. Journeyman workhorse Julian Tavares was left off the ALCS roster, which makes no sense. He was always a good innings eater and fairly effective in his own right. Kyle Snyder, well I don't have much good I can say about him.
Lowell and Youkilis have been great at the corners, but Youkilis' offense has been streaky. Lowell, on the other hand, has been a rock, both defensively and offensively. He would like to stay in Boston, but all indications are that unless he accepts a shorter contract, say three years, the Sox won't re-sign him. More's the pity. He is the man this year, and you can't ignore the intangibles he brings to the clubhouse (let alone the tangibles). Isn't that what they kept saying about Kevin Millar in 2004 - look at all the intangibles he brings, never mind the fact that he can't hit, run or field that well.
Dustin Pedroia has had a terrific season, but in the postseason he's looking exactly like what he is - a rookie. Yet, Francona keeps him at lead off - go figure. I thought the postseason was about winning, not waiting for someone to find their groove.
The shortstop position has been laughable. With the exception of some streaky hitting in September, Julio Lugo has been a disaster offensively. Alex Gonzales, a far better shortstop than Lugo, was replaced because it was thought Lugo would bring a little more pop from that position. Didn't happen.
Makes one long for the days of Renteria, doesn't it? Why exactly did they feel the need to get rid of him again?
Then again, why did they replace Cabrera with Renteria? The front office has some 'splaining to do.
Manny and Papi have had substandard years offensively (though, I daresay most hitters would love to have a Manny/Papi substandard year). Clutch hitting has fallen off a bit by them, but they still have the ability to worry an opposing pitcher. With Lowell in the five spot, it is a lineup to take seriously.
Then there's David Jonathan Drew, or J.D. Drew, for short. Another of the front office's less than brilliant machinations, and an incredibly expensive one at that. The irony there is that most of the analysts and pundits (armchair and professional) were naysaying the deal before it was even signed. And they have him signed for what... 4? 5 years? at $14M per year? If I was a cursing person, I'd let off a string right now.
Centerfielder Coco Crisp has been a spark defensively, but a disappointment at the plate as well.
Jason Varitek, team Captain and primary catcher, has fallen off offensively as well. He has been in the leagues for a long time - it's catching up to him.
So, with the exception of the 3-4-5 spots in the lineup, the team is batting around .225 in the postseason. Couple that with only one real effective starter, and I fail to see how this team was built for the postseason.
I hope Beckett wins his start Thursday. I hope the Red Sox are able to take it back home to Fenway.
For if they are going to die, where best to do it than at home?
Kudos to Cleveland for their tenacious play.
Steady, reliable Josh Beckett will pitch Thursday night. Of all the starters, he has the best chance to win the game and bring it back home to Fenway.
Still, he could lose, and I wouldn't hold it against him. Throughout the entire season, he has been the true ace of the staff, the only 20 game winner in all of MLB. The Josh Beckett of 2007 is so far removed from the Josh Beckett of 2006 that it's like two totally different pitchers. If this season is any indicator, Josh has the stuff to end up in the HOF one day.
The 2007 Red Sox were ostensibly built for the postseason.
Of course, it takes the postseason to see just how far off the building went.
As it turns out, the starting rotation (with the exception of Beckett) hasn't lived up to expectation. Schilling has had flashes of brilliance, but nothing consistent. Matsuzaka looks more and more like a monumental waste of money ($100M). Tim Wakefield's contract is cheap and year to year, but his effectiveness just hasn't been there the second half of the season.
The bullpen has huge anchors in Okajima and Papelbon. Delcarmen has stepped it up this year, but still makes costly mistakes. Timlin has been fairly effective. He's long in years, though, and his days have to be numbered. Lefty specialist Lopez can't get lefties out. Journeyman workhorse Julian Tavares was left off the ALCS roster, which makes no sense. He was always a good innings eater and fairly effective in his own right. Kyle Snyder, well I don't have much good I can say about him.
Lowell and Youkilis have been great at the corners, but Youkilis' offense has been streaky. Lowell, on the other hand, has been a rock, both defensively and offensively. He would like to stay in Boston, but all indications are that unless he accepts a shorter contract, say three years, the Sox won't re-sign him. More's the pity. He is the man this year, and you can't ignore the intangibles he brings to the clubhouse (let alone the tangibles). Isn't that what they kept saying about Kevin Millar in 2004 - look at all the intangibles he brings, never mind the fact that he can't hit, run or field that well.
Dustin Pedroia has had a terrific season, but in the postseason he's looking exactly like what he is - a rookie. Yet, Francona keeps him at lead off - go figure. I thought the postseason was about winning, not waiting for someone to find their groove.
The shortstop position has been laughable. With the exception of some streaky hitting in September, Julio Lugo has been a disaster offensively. Alex Gonzales, a far better shortstop than Lugo, was replaced because it was thought Lugo would bring a little more pop from that position. Didn't happen.
Makes one long for the days of Renteria, doesn't it? Why exactly did they feel the need to get rid of him again?
Then again, why did they replace Cabrera with Renteria? The front office has some 'splaining to do.
Manny and Papi have had substandard years offensively (though, I daresay most hitters would love to have a Manny/Papi substandard year). Clutch hitting has fallen off a bit by them, but they still have the ability to worry an opposing pitcher. With Lowell in the five spot, it is a lineup to take seriously.
Then there's David Jonathan Drew, or J.D. Drew, for short. Another of the front office's less than brilliant machinations, and an incredibly expensive one at that. The irony there is that most of the analysts and pundits (armchair and professional) were naysaying the deal before it was even signed. And they have him signed for what... 4? 5 years? at $14M per year? If I was a cursing person, I'd let off a string right now.
Centerfielder Coco Crisp has been a spark defensively, but a disappointment at the plate as well.
Jason Varitek, team Captain and primary catcher, has fallen off offensively as well. He has been in the leagues for a long time - it's catching up to him.
So, with the exception of the 3-4-5 spots in the lineup, the team is batting around .225 in the postseason. Couple that with only one real effective starter, and I fail to see how this team was built for the postseason.
I hope Beckett wins his start Thursday. I hope the Red Sox are able to take it back home to Fenway.
For if they are going to die, where best to do it than at home?
Kudos to Cleveland for their tenacious play.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Game 3 Thoughts
So Dice K only did what he's been doing for some time now - getting deep into pitch counts early and lacking control to paint the corners consistently. Any surprises there?
Even so, the game was still winnable. Four runs is not insurmountable, except the Red Sox we saw last night were sloppy at the plate and on the basepaths. They looked terribly like a team struggling, not at all like the Sox of the first game in the ALCS.
Do you realize that Jake Westbrook was able to do what neither Sabathia nor Carmona were able to do? Stymie the bats?
It happens.
It happens a lot during the season.
When it happens during the postseason, you start to wonder about the legitimacy of the team.
The Rockies roared through their NLCS, and the Indians are doing whatever it takes to win the ALCS.
The Red Sox don't look like champions right now. They are down 2-1 in the series. They can come back. But it won't be easy. Their next two games are in Cleveland, and they have to win at least one of them. If they don't, they're done.
Game 2 was pivotal as stated in a previous post.
It started something a little bit ugly.
If the Sox manage to squeak by the Tribe, one has to wonder what will happen in the World Series. I don't think they can overcome Colorado's momentum.
But first they have to overcome Cleveland's.
I still say Cleveland in 5 or 6.
You heard it here.
Even so, the game was still winnable. Four runs is not insurmountable, except the Red Sox we saw last night were sloppy at the plate and on the basepaths. They looked terribly like a team struggling, not at all like the Sox of the first game in the ALCS.
Do you realize that Jake Westbrook was able to do what neither Sabathia nor Carmona were able to do? Stymie the bats?
It happens.
It happens a lot during the season.
When it happens during the postseason, you start to wonder about the legitimacy of the team.
The Rockies roared through their NLCS, and the Indians are doing whatever it takes to win the ALCS.
The Red Sox don't look like champions right now. They are down 2-1 in the series. They can come back. But it won't be easy. Their next two games are in Cleveland, and they have to win at least one of them. If they don't, they're done.
Game 2 was pivotal as stated in a previous post.
It started something a little bit ugly.
If the Sox manage to squeak by the Tribe, one has to wonder what will happen in the World Series. I don't think they can overcome Colorado's momentum.
But first they have to overcome Cleveland's.
I still say Cleveland in 5 or 6.
You heard it here.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Game 1 Thoughts
I won't be doing this for every game, but game one of any series is a seminal game in that it has the ability to set the tone for the rest of the games.
If you are a Red Sox fan, you had to like what you saw last night. Not so much that they blew out the Tribe 10-3. And not so much that Beckett was still in form. But the plate discipline and patience were the key, the real reason behind their success.
The Red Sox have had a spotty year of offense - that's the perception, and it's a valid one. I think that they were one of the top teams in runs for the season - at one point they were 2nd or 3rd. But numbers of runs scored is less important than when they are scored. Eight runs in a game is a lot of runs, but if you lose 9-8, it's a moot point.
Of course, in the end, they had enough run support to own a 96-66 record and that's saying a lot, However, they didn't often live up to their offensive potential with Ortiz hurting a lot of the year and Manny having a subManny year. That allowed Mike Lowell and Dustin Pedroia to really shine. Even Lugo and Drew picked it up in September.
To be able to get the offensive machine to life like they did last night was huge. It sparked on all sorts of cylinders up and down the rotation. They worked the pitches, drew a lot of walks and took Sabathia out of his rhythm early, which is no mean feat in itself. If this offense shows up every night, I think the Red Sox are unstoppable with adequate pitching support.
Schilling pitches the next game, Dice-K after that and Wakefield after him. Curt pitched a gem against the Angels, and that's the Curt we hope to see tonight. His control was phenomenal, and he used a myriad of pitches to entice the batters to fail.
Dice-K still remains a question mark. I think Wakefield does too. Tim has been a stalwart of the rotation. Of late, though, he hasn't looked all that good, purportedly from recurring back problems. He does have postseason experience which is a plus, but I can't place a lot of confidence in him yet.
On the other hand, Carmona and Byrd were terrific against the Yankees and should be treated with the utmost respect.
So here we go, off to the races. The Red Sox took game one, and I expected that based on Beckett alone. We'll see how the rest of the series goes. I don't see the Sox steamrolling the Indians, but it could happen.
Or it could go the other way. Tonight may be pivotal.
If you are a Red Sox fan, you had to like what you saw last night. Not so much that they blew out the Tribe 10-3. And not so much that Beckett was still in form. But the plate discipline and patience were the key, the real reason behind their success.
The Red Sox have had a spotty year of offense - that's the perception, and it's a valid one. I think that they were one of the top teams in runs for the season - at one point they were 2nd or 3rd. But numbers of runs scored is less important than when they are scored. Eight runs in a game is a lot of runs, but if you lose 9-8, it's a moot point.
Of course, in the end, they had enough run support to own a 96-66 record and that's saying a lot, However, they didn't often live up to their offensive potential with Ortiz hurting a lot of the year and Manny having a subManny year. That allowed Mike Lowell and Dustin Pedroia to really shine. Even Lugo and Drew picked it up in September.
To be able to get the offensive machine to life like they did last night was huge. It sparked on all sorts of cylinders up and down the rotation. They worked the pitches, drew a lot of walks and took Sabathia out of his rhythm early, which is no mean feat in itself. If this offense shows up every night, I think the Red Sox are unstoppable with adequate pitching support.
Schilling pitches the next game, Dice-K after that and Wakefield after him. Curt pitched a gem against the Angels, and that's the Curt we hope to see tonight. His control was phenomenal, and he used a myriad of pitches to entice the batters to fail.
Dice-K still remains a question mark. I think Wakefield does too. Tim has been a stalwart of the rotation. Of late, though, he hasn't looked all that good, purportedly from recurring back problems. He does have postseason experience which is a plus, but I can't place a lot of confidence in him yet.
On the other hand, Carmona and Byrd were terrific against the Yankees and should be treated with the utmost respect.
So here we go, off to the races. The Red Sox took game one, and I expected that based on Beckett alone. We'll see how the rest of the series goes. I don't see the Sox steamrolling the Indians, but it could happen.
Or it could go the other way. Tonight may be pivotal.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Gabe Kapler has a Blog
Former Red Sox benchman/outfielder, the affable Gabe Kapler has a blog on boston.com. It can be found HERE
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Pitching Matchups
ALCS first games:
1. Sabathia vs. Beckett in Boston
2. Carmona vs. Schilling in Boston
3. Westbrook vs. Matsuzaka in Cleveland
4. Byrd (?) vs. Wakefield (?) in Cleveland
1. Sabathia vs. Beckett in Boston
2. Carmona vs. Schilling in Boston
3. Westbrook vs. Matsuzaka in Cleveland
4. Byrd (?) vs. Wakefield (?) in Cleveland
ALCS is Set
The Indians did away with the Yankees last night, which cheered me greatly. That means they will face the Red Sox in the American League Championship Series, a best of seven format with the first two games being played at Fenway Park because the Red Sox had a 5-2 winning season over the Indians.
The Indians concern me. They are popping on all cylinders right now. This is not to say that the Red Sox aren't, but as per my previous post, I don't think the Angels were a really good test for them.
Sabathia and Carmona are the two aces of the Indians' staff with Paul Byrd looking very good last night. The Red Sox Josh Beckett is a confidence instiller, and Curt Schilling can mix it up with the best of them, even at 41. It looked as if he finally figured out how not to be a power pitcher the other night, and he worked his repertoire quite well.
But Matsuzaka is still something of a bother. Though he didn't do badly against the Angels, it wasn't a stellar performance. There has to be an adjustment period for him. To be honest, though, I wonder if the Red Sox really got their money's worth. I guess we won't really know until next season or beyond, maybe? He is needed now, and he is needed to revert back to the MVP of the World Baseball Classic form that he displayed before.
There are many on talk radio who are saying that the Red Sox needed to go through the Yankees in order to validate their postseason success. That is because the Yankees had a winning record over the Sox during the season.
I say that's a bunch of hogwash for a couple reasons.
1. The Sox and Yankees aren't the only teams in their leagues or division. Both teams have to validate their standings by defeating everyone, more than losing to them.
2. The Sox, by virtue of clinching the division title, already validated their postseason standings.
3. If the Sox beat Cleveland, then will they not have defeated the Yankees by proxy?
Any team can get hot for a spell, and any team can cool down. That's why you have the Royals beating the Yankees some times. Or the Devil Rays beating the Sox some times. And so on.
The postseason is really all about who is hot and who is not for that stretch of time.
Predictions? Too early to tell. The Indians are clicking, and they will be the real postseason test for the Sox. If I had to guess, I'd say Cleveland in five.
Make that six.
Or seven.
Or something.
No sweep, though.
Here's to October.
The Indians concern me. They are popping on all cylinders right now. This is not to say that the Red Sox aren't, but as per my previous post, I don't think the Angels were a really good test for them.
Sabathia and Carmona are the two aces of the Indians' staff with Paul Byrd looking very good last night. The Red Sox Josh Beckett is a confidence instiller, and Curt Schilling can mix it up with the best of them, even at 41. It looked as if he finally figured out how not to be a power pitcher the other night, and he worked his repertoire quite well.
But Matsuzaka is still something of a bother. Though he didn't do badly against the Angels, it wasn't a stellar performance. There has to be an adjustment period for him. To be honest, though, I wonder if the Red Sox really got their money's worth. I guess we won't really know until next season or beyond, maybe? He is needed now, and he is needed to revert back to the MVP of the World Baseball Classic form that he displayed before.
There are many on talk radio who are saying that the Red Sox needed to go through the Yankees in order to validate their postseason success. That is because the Yankees had a winning record over the Sox during the season.
I say that's a bunch of hogwash for a couple reasons.
1. The Sox and Yankees aren't the only teams in their leagues or division. Both teams have to validate their standings by defeating everyone, more than losing to them.
2. The Sox, by virtue of clinching the division title, already validated their postseason standings.
3. If the Sox beat Cleveland, then will they not have defeated the Yankees by proxy?
Any team can get hot for a spell, and any team can cool down. That's why you have the Royals beating the Yankees some times. Or the Devil Rays beating the Sox some times. And so on.
The postseason is really all about who is hot and who is not for that stretch of time.
Predictions? Too early to tell. The Indians are clicking, and they will be the real postseason test for the Sox. If I had to guess, I'd say Cleveland in five.
Make that six.
Or seven.
Or something.
No sweep, though.
Here's to October.
Monday, October 8, 2007
OK, so that didn't work
The Yankees ended up winning game 3 of their series against Cleveland.
But that may not be such a bad thing. If the teams can string this out the full five games, then who will be more rested when going into the ALCS? The Sox or their opponent. There are some that think a layer of rust may develop over the next 4 days because the ALCS doesn't start til Friday, but, really, isn't that what practice is all about?
Speaking of winning the ALDS, I see the pictures of the Red Sox squirting champagne over each other and the only thing I can think is - act like you been here before boys.
Not that I'm unhappy to see the Sox in the postseason, but is it really necessary to have a champagne party every three games? At least Papelbon wasn't dancing around with a beer box on his head this time.
Seriously, the celebration when they clinched the division title was understood. And they did a fantastic job against the Angels. But I'm thinking that New York or Cleveland would have done just as well. The Angels, for whatever reason, injuries and all, were in a downtrend while the Sox were in an uptrend.
Well, at least the Sox have 4 days to wash the champagne out of their ears and eyes before they face a new (old?) opponent in their quest for the AL Pennant.
Luck to you and yours.
But that may not be such a bad thing. If the teams can string this out the full five games, then who will be more rested when going into the ALCS? The Sox or their opponent. There are some that think a layer of rust may develop over the next 4 days because the ALCS doesn't start til Friday, but, really, isn't that what practice is all about?
Speaking of winning the ALDS, I see the pictures of the Red Sox squirting champagne over each other and the only thing I can think is - act like you been here before boys.
Not that I'm unhappy to see the Sox in the postseason, but is it really necessary to have a champagne party every three games? At least Papelbon wasn't dancing around with a beer box on his head this time.
Seriously, the celebration when they clinched the division title was understood. And they did a fantastic job against the Angels. But I'm thinking that New York or Cleveland would have done just as well. The Angels, for whatever reason, injuries and all, were in a downtrend while the Sox were in an uptrend.
Well, at least the Sox have 4 days to wash the champagne out of their ears and eyes before they face a new (old?) opponent in their quest for the AL Pennant.
Luck to you and yours.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Congratulations Red Sox
The Red Sox trounced the Angels convincingly with pitching, timely hitting and great defense. Granted the Angels were without the services of Gary Matthews and Garret Anderson (third game), and Vlad Guerrero wasn't up to snuff - in other words, injuries took their toll. Even so, it's not so much what the Angels didn't do, but what the Sox did that was impressive.
Beckett threw a complete game shutout in game one. Manny got his first ever walk-off homerun in post season in game two, and Schilling worked the plate like the old pro he is. It was all very fascinating to watch and hopefully it bodes well for the ALCS.
The NLCS has already been settled. It will be between Colorado and Arizona. Both teams swept their rivals, Philadelphia and Chicago which really has to nettle Major League Baseball. Two major market teams swept out of contention. Gotta wonder what it does for ratings.
As of this writing, Cleveland is two runs ahead of the Yankees in their game three being played at Yankee Stadium. Steinbrenner has stated that if the Yankees lose, Torre's head will be on the block. It's a shame really. I like Torre, think he's a good manager.
I'd like to see the Sox play Cleveland in the ALCS only if for no other reason than I'm sick of seeing the Yankees. Go Cleveland!!
But as per my last post, I predict the Yankees will win tonight. ;-)
Got it?
Beckett threw a complete game shutout in game one. Manny got his first ever walk-off homerun in post season in game two, and Schilling worked the plate like the old pro he is. It was all very fascinating to watch and hopefully it bodes well for the ALCS.
The NLCS has already been settled. It will be between Colorado and Arizona. Both teams swept their rivals, Philadelphia and Chicago which really has to nettle Major League Baseball. Two major market teams swept out of contention. Gotta wonder what it does for ratings.
As of this writing, Cleveland is two runs ahead of the Yankees in their game three being played at Yankee Stadium. Steinbrenner has stated that if the Yankees lose, Torre's head will be on the block. It's a shame really. I like Torre, think he's a good manager.
I'd like to see the Sox play Cleveland in the ALCS only if for no other reason than I'm sick of seeing the Yankees. Go Cleveland!!
But as per my last post, I predict the Yankees will win tonight. ;-)
Got it?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
What He Wrote
I'm not a big fan of Dan Shaughnessy. I'm not even a little fan.
But I have to say that I like what he wrote here:
Head out on the highway
Lookin' for adventure
And whatever comes our way
Yeah Darlin' go make it happen
Take the world in a love embrace
Fire all of your guns at once
And explode into space
Born to Be Wild by Steppenwolf
Words and music by Mars Bonfire
Here is the rest of Shaughnessy's article:
In the season's last week, they need to stay on top of things
But I have to say that I like what he wrote here:
The playoff-bound Red Sox are home tonight to start the final six games of the regular season, and manager Terry Francona continues to straddle the line between playing for the division title (and the best record in the league) and getting his team ready for the postseason.
I say go for it. Beat the Yankees. Win the division. Cop the best record in the American League to give yourself home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Use Jonathan Papelbon the way you'd use him in July and August. Find out if Manny can play before he calcifies at the end of the bench. Tell Eric Gagné to find his mojo on somebody else's watch. Stop babying Clay Buchholz and get the kid ready for playoff action. Play Jacoby Ellsbury until he's no longer hitting .372 or until he gets thrown out stealing one time. Fire all your guns at once and explode into space.
You know where that last sentence comes from dontcha?
Get your motor runnin'Head out on the highway
Lookin' for adventure
And whatever comes our way
Yeah Darlin' go make it happen
Take the world in a love embrace
Fire all of your guns at once
And explode into space
Born to Be Wild by Steppenwolf
Words and music by Mars Bonfire
Here is the rest of Shaughnessy's article:
In the season's last week, they need to stay on top of things
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Since the Prediction....
When I predicted that the Red Sox would cede the division to the Yankees, they were 3-1/2 games ahead of New York. Now they are only 1-1/2 games ahead with series coming up against Tampa Bay, Oakland and Minnesota to end the season.
The Yankees, on the other hand, just swept Baltimore and will face Toronto, Tampa Bay and the Orioles one last time again before October.
With a non-existent offense and a bullpen in disarray, I still think it's a safe bet to reiterate my prediction.
So now, the Red Sox have HAVE to make sure they don't give up the wild card.
Here's to seeing you on the other side.
The Yankees, on the other hand, just swept Baltimore and will face Toronto, Tampa Bay and the Orioles one last time again before October.
With a non-existent offense and a bullpen in disarray, I still think it's a safe bet to reiterate my prediction.
So now, the Red Sox have HAVE to make sure they don't give up the wild card.
Here's to seeing you on the other side.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
My Prediction
Not one to prognosticate (yeah, right!), I have decided to put my prediction in print (sort of) here with regards to the American League East pennant race.
Here is what I think.
Ready?
Really Ready?
OK... let's do it.
I think the Red Sox will cede first place to the Yankees in September. Their offense (the Red Sox) is inconsistent, and except for the first four spots in the order, practically nonexistent. The Yankees, on the other hand, have been productive all the way down through their batting order.
So, the Sox will make it into the playoffs as a wild card team, but not as a division winner.
That's my prediction.
Let's see what happens.
Here is what I think.
Ready?
Really Ready?
OK... let's do it.
I think the Red Sox will cede first place to the Yankees in September. Their offense (the Red Sox) is inconsistent, and except for the first four spots in the order, practically nonexistent. The Yankees, on the other hand, have been productive all the way down through their batting order.
So, the Sox will make it into the playoffs as a wild card team, but not as a division winner.
That's my prediction.
Let's see what happens.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Belichick's Bungle
So Bill Belichick got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
So what?
In principle and practice it was wrong. It was cheating - stealing signs. Trying to gain leverage over another team with 'inside' knowledge.
Professional and college sports teams (should I mention high school?) all do it. No one is clean.
That doesn't make it less wrong. But it is common practice.
And again, I say,
So what?
It doesn't affect me. Nor does it really affect you or anyone else. We still get our mortgages paid, taxes paid, try to raise our kids to be upright, moral citizens.
I hope.
So what it's done is taken down the glamour or mystique of a team and its leader - that which was trying to be taken down regularly anyway by those who are jealous of the Patriots' success.
That's really what naysaying a successful team is all about.
Jealousy.
So again I say,
So what?
I am not training my kids to revere sports people. After all, they only exist for their entertainment value. And what's entertainment ultimately based on anyway? Nothing real important.
Unfortunately, celebrity is raised to godhood status as a normal part of our culture, and I think that is the saddest statement I take from all this.
Not that a sports figure was caught cheating.
After all, so what?
What else is new?
So what?
In principle and practice it was wrong. It was cheating - stealing signs. Trying to gain leverage over another team with 'inside' knowledge.
Professional and college sports teams (should I mention high school?) all do it. No one is clean.
That doesn't make it less wrong. But it is common practice.
And again, I say,
So what?
It doesn't affect me. Nor does it really affect you or anyone else. We still get our mortgages paid, taxes paid, try to raise our kids to be upright, moral citizens.
I hope.
So what it's done is taken down the glamour or mystique of a team and its leader - that which was trying to be taken down regularly anyway by those who are jealous of the Patriots' success.
That's really what naysaying a successful team is all about.
Jealousy.
So again I say,
So what?
I am not training my kids to revere sports people. After all, they only exist for their entertainment value. And what's entertainment ultimately based on anyway? Nothing real important.
Unfortunately, celebrity is raised to godhood status as a normal part of our culture, and I think that is the saddest statement I take from all this.
Not that a sports figure was caught cheating.
After all, so what?
What else is new?
Saturday, September 8, 2007
So Predictable, They're Boring....
These news headlines are so predictable, they beg the question of whether they are really news at all:
De Palma wins Director Honors for Anti-Iraq Film
MTV to Debut Bisexual Dating Show
Researchers find Kids Smarter than Chimps
GIULIANI: Illegal immigration not a crime, should not be a crime
Republicans dig up crude humor from Al Franken's past
'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
'HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL' STAR CONFIRMS ONLINE NUDE
De Palma wins Director Honors for Anti-Iraq Film
MTV to Debut Bisexual Dating Show
Researchers find Kids Smarter than Chimps
GIULIANI: Illegal immigration not a crime, should not be a crime
Republicans dig up crude humor from Al Franken's past
'GREEN' GORE GOES GULFSTREAM: VIDEO CATCHES ECO-WARRIOR ON LUXURY PRIVATE JET
'HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL' STAR CONFIRMS ONLINE NUDE
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Atheists of America, Unite!
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made it fashionable again to be an atheist. No longer do you have to hide in Atheist Anonymous meetings. Instead you can bring your mantra to the fore with full voice, "There is NO God, and I hope I don't meet Him!"
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Train - a short story
Jason is riding a train. He thinks it's taking him into the city. Little does he realize he's actually going on the ride of his life!
The Train is an Amazon short story, available only through Amazon.com. It comes as a downloadable pdf file or read it right through your browser. It's only 49¢ - a very cheap way to check out upcoming writers.
Get yours now: Click here for more information
The Train is an Amazon short story, available only through Amazon.com. It comes as a downloadable pdf file or read it right through your browser. It's only 49¢ - a very cheap way to check out upcoming writers.
Get yours now: Click here for more information
Saturday, June 9, 2007
So You Want to be Published (pt. 4)
You've decided to publish your book, 1001 Uses for a Dead Cat, through an online publisher. You finally see the book showing up in searches on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Books a Million and other book retailers' websites. What happens next?
If you do nothing....
Nothing happens.
Why?
Remember the business model I described for PublishAmerica in an earlier post? They have sent out a mailing to the list you provided, and that is the FULL EXTENT of their promotional commitment. The rest is up to you.
So what do you do?
It's not enough to merely have a product listed on a website on Amazon if no one 1. knows you and your work, and 2. likes your work enough to buy it. People purchase what they want, that which interests them. You need to develop interest in what you've written.
Howie Carr, a conservative radio talk show host from the Boston area, wrote a book called "The Brothers Bulger." It is about Boston gangster Whitey Bulger and the Winter Hill gang. Howie has used his talk show extensively to promote the book. He is well known in Massachusetts as a columnist for the Boston Herald, and he makes occasional appearances on television news and talk shows. He has the venues from which to promote - venues unavailable to the rest of us.
Christopher Paolini is a self-published author. You may have heard of his book-became-a-movie called Eragon. He started writing Eragon when he was around 15 years old. His parents read it, and decided to self-publish. Then they spent a year touring the country and promoting the novel.
"Paolini and his family gave over 135 talks at bookshops, libraries and schools. Many of these events were done with Paolini wearing a " medieval costume of red shirt, billowy black pants, lace-up boots, and a jaunty black cap". In summer 2002 the author Carl Hiaasen brought the attention of Eragon to his publisher Alfred A. Knopf after his stepson read a copy of the self-published novel. Knopf went on to acquire the rights to the entire trilogy. The novel was once again edited, and a new cover was drawn by John Jude Palencar." (from Wikipedia.com).
So who has the time and money to do what the Paolinis did? That question will always loom to the forefront when taking on this adventure. There are many ways to promote a book you've written, and many ways that can be done creatively, with little to no cost. Here are some suggestions:
1. Donate your book to local libraries and offer to do readings.
2. Contact local newspapers a. to announce your book by sending them a press release, and b. to find out if they are willing to review your book.
3. Seek distribution through independent bookstores. If they are unwilling to purchase the book from the distributor, perhaps you could ask them to display some of your copies with a consignment agreement. Also ask them if you could do a book signing at their store. (This will require some promoting, and you may have to run an ad to announce it - local weekly papers are always less expensive than the dailies).
4. Set up a website for your book. (This is an entire lesson in itself).
5. If you write poetry, look for poetry clubs or literary guilds in your area, and get involved.
6. Again, if you write poetry, there are many poetry websites you can join to post your poetry and start developing a following there. A couple examples are:
poets.com, thepoetstree.com, poetsinkwell.com, worldofpoets.com and so on. They usually cost around $5 a month with discounted prices for longer subscription periods.
7. Have business cards made up and hand them out to everyone.
8. If you do seminars on 1001 Uses for a Dead Cat, you will want to bring your book to the seminars and promote it there.
9. Enter writing contests (make sure you understand copyright implications when you do this - every contest has different requirements. Some are free to enter, some require a reading fee). A good place to check out contests is at winningwriters.com. It is a subscription site.
10. Seek publication through literary journals. Writer's Market is a good resource publication for this. It's a thick book, updated every year. If you don't want to purchase it, you can probably find it in your library.
You can be as creative with your promoting as you want. But remember that it isn't enough to let people know you've written a book. You have to figure out a way to give them a reason to buy it. There are millions of book titles on Amazon.com. When you go to Amazon, is it to purchase every book they have? Of course not.
In the next post, I want to go into internet marketing a bit. It can be daunting and a complete flop.
But there are ways to use it to spread the word around the world, and it can work for you while you are doing something else.
If you do nothing....
Nothing happens.
Why?
Remember the business model I described for PublishAmerica in an earlier post? They have sent out a mailing to the list you provided, and that is the FULL EXTENT of their promotional commitment. The rest is up to you.
So what do you do?
It's not enough to merely have a product listed on a website on Amazon if no one 1. knows you and your work, and 2. likes your work enough to buy it. People purchase what they want, that which interests them. You need to develop interest in what you've written.
Howie Carr, a conservative radio talk show host from the Boston area, wrote a book called "The Brothers Bulger." It is about Boston gangster Whitey Bulger and the Winter Hill gang. Howie has used his talk show extensively to promote the book. He is well known in Massachusetts as a columnist for the Boston Herald, and he makes occasional appearances on television news and talk shows. He has the venues from which to promote - venues unavailable to the rest of us.
Christopher Paolini is a self-published author. You may have heard of his book-became-a-movie called Eragon. He started writing Eragon when he was around 15 years old. His parents read it, and decided to self-publish. Then they spent a year touring the country and promoting the novel.
"Paolini and his family gave over 135 talks at bookshops, libraries and schools. Many of these events were done with Paolini wearing a " medieval costume of red shirt, billowy black pants, lace-up boots, and a jaunty black cap". In summer 2002 the author Carl Hiaasen brought the attention of Eragon to his publisher Alfred A. Knopf after his stepson read a copy of the self-published novel. Knopf went on to acquire the rights to the entire trilogy. The novel was once again edited, and a new cover was drawn by John Jude Palencar." (from Wikipedia.com).
So who has the time and money to do what the Paolinis did? That question will always loom to the forefront when taking on this adventure. There are many ways to promote a book you've written, and many ways that can be done creatively, with little to no cost. Here are some suggestions:
1. Donate your book to local libraries and offer to do readings.
2. Contact local newspapers a. to announce your book by sending them a press release, and b. to find out if they are willing to review your book.
3. Seek distribution through independent bookstores. If they are unwilling to purchase the book from the distributor, perhaps you could ask them to display some of your copies with a consignment agreement. Also ask them if you could do a book signing at their store. (This will require some promoting, and you may have to run an ad to announce it - local weekly papers are always less expensive than the dailies).
4. Set up a website for your book. (This is an entire lesson in itself).
5. If you write poetry, look for poetry clubs or literary guilds in your area, and get involved.
6. Again, if you write poetry, there are many poetry websites you can join to post your poetry and start developing a following there. A couple examples are:
poets.com, thepoetstree.com, poetsinkwell.com, worldofpoets.com and so on. They usually cost around $5 a month with discounted prices for longer subscription periods.
7. Have business cards made up and hand them out to everyone.
8. If you do seminars on 1001 Uses for a Dead Cat, you will want to bring your book to the seminars and promote it there.
9. Enter writing contests (make sure you understand copyright implications when you do this - every contest has different requirements. Some are free to enter, some require a reading fee). A good place to check out contests is at winningwriters.com. It is a subscription site.
10. Seek publication through literary journals. Writer's Market is a good resource publication for this. It's a thick book, updated every year. If you don't want to purchase it, you can probably find it in your library.
You can be as creative with your promoting as you want. But remember that it isn't enough to let people know you've written a book. You have to figure out a way to give them a reason to buy it. There are millions of book titles on Amazon.com. When you go to Amazon, is it to purchase every book they have? Of course not.
In the next post, I want to go into internet marketing a bit. It can be daunting and a complete flop.
But there are ways to use it to spread the word around the world, and it can work for you while you are doing something else.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
So You Want to be Published (pt. 3)
When PublishAmerica rejected my second book, I spent a little time looking around at publishing alternatives. I checked into some well know online publishers such as Xlibris and iUniverse, found them too expensive for my tastes. Some lesser known sites, which I no longer remember, were pricey as well. They had different levels of publishing, the lowest starting around $300-$400.
I had looked at Lulu back when I was seeking a publisher for my first book, found their site to be somewhat ponderous, difficult to navigate and find the information I wanted - at least on the quick. But I decided to go back to it and spend some time trying to figure out what they offered and what it would cost.
This is what I found out:
Lulu will publish a book at no cost to the author... IF the author provides all the files needed to create the book.
Lulu will provide an ISBN and distribution package which will place the book with Bowker Books who, in turn, takes care of placement on the online retailers. This service cost only $100.
Lulu offers different levels of service at various prices based upon what the author needs to produce his/her book.
Where PublishAmerica doesn't allow for color pictures in the books they publish (that's what they told me), Lulu will. However, the more frills the author adds to the book, the more expensive the book becomes. This is only logical. Printing color is always more expensive than black and white.
Lulu requires no signed contracts to fulfill publishing.
After consideration, I decided that Lulu would be my choice for my second book. It took some time to figure out how to use their website - not everything is immediately obvious. But I was able to get through the process with no problems in the end, and I have ordered 20 books for sale and promotion.
Here are the benefits of Lulu over PublishAmerica.
• In my earlier post I said that PA's book layout was only adequate. PA is obviously using a standardized template for poetry anthology layouts which means all poems are left aligned with a 5/8 inch margin. This on a sheet of paper measuring 5-1/2" wide by 8" tall. If a poem's lines are short, there will be a lot of white space to the right of the poem. There is only one poem per page, so if the poem is short, say like a haiku, there will also be a lot of white space below the poem. PA does not include a table of contents, and there is no way to create one until you can see how the poems are gonig to flow from page to page based on their length, font size used, tracking and leading and so on.
With Lulu I laid out the entire book myself using Quark Express. I was able to center the poems in the page and fill the pages to the extent I wanted them filled. I was also able to include my own table of contents and design elements, not to mention an introduction. I also placed some information, such as my website on the title page and a recognition that I designed the cover art as well as the book itself. I am much happier with the end product because I did it myself. I understand that most people won't have that ability, but if you do, you can save some serious money by doing it yourself.
• I knew from the start what the book would cost me as I filled out the specs of what I wanted in the book and Lulu tallied it up. With PA, I had no idea how much the book would cost me until it was all done. (Note: by "cost" in this bullet point, I mean how much it costs me to buy one of my own books). After the author finds out the cost, then he/she can add in the desired royalty payment and determine the retail cost of the book.
• Lulu allows for as many revisions as necessary to satisfy the author prior to making the book publicly available for purchase.
There are other aspects of Lulu I liked over PA, but the biggest, to me, was the ability to create my own book. I would have done the same with PA if they allowed me - perhaps they do, I just never found out.
So that is my experience with PODs and self-publishing.
My next post will talk about what to do with the book once it is finished.
I had looked at Lulu back when I was seeking a publisher for my first book, found their site to be somewhat ponderous, difficult to navigate and find the information I wanted - at least on the quick. But I decided to go back to it and spend some time trying to figure out what they offered and what it would cost.
This is what I found out:
Lulu will publish a book at no cost to the author... IF the author provides all the files needed to create the book.
Lulu will provide an ISBN and distribution package which will place the book with Bowker Books who, in turn, takes care of placement on the online retailers. This service cost only $100.
Lulu offers different levels of service at various prices based upon what the author needs to produce his/her book.
Where PublishAmerica doesn't allow for color pictures in the books they publish (that's what they told me), Lulu will. However, the more frills the author adds to the book, the more expensive the book becomes. This is only logical. Printing color is always more expensive than black and white.
Lulu requires no signed contracts to fulfill publishing.
After consideration, I decided that Lulu would be my choice for my second book. It took some time to figure out how to use their website - not everything is immediately obvious. But I was able to get through the process with no problems in the end, and I have ordered 20 books for sale and promotion.
Here are the benefits of Lulu over PublishAmerica.
• In my earlier post I said that PA's book layout was only adequate. PA is obviously using a standardized template for poetry anthology layouts which means all poems are left aligned with a 5/8 inch margin. This on a sheet of paper measuring 5-1/2" wide by 8" tall. If a poem's lines are short, there will be a lot of white space to the right of the poem. There is only one poem per page, so if the poem is short, say like a haiku, there will also be a lot of white space below the poem. PA does not include a table of contents, and there is no way to create one until you can see how the poems are gonig to flow from page to page based on their length, font size used, tracking and leading and so on.
With Lulu I laid out the entire book myself using Quark Express. I was able to center the poems in the page and fill the pages to the extent I wanted them filled. I was also able to include my own table of contents and design elements, not to mention an introduction. I also placed some information, such as my website on the title page and a recognition that I designed the cover art as well as the book itself. I am much happier with the end product because I did it myself. I understand that most people won't have that ability, but if you do, you can save some serious money by doing it yourself.
• I knew from the start what the book would cost me as I filled out the specs of what I wanted in the book and Lulu tallied it up. With PA, I had no idea how much the book would cost me until it was all done. (Note: by "cost" in this bullet point, I mean how much it costs me to buy one of my own books). After the author finds out the cost, then he/she can add in the desired royalty payment and determine the retail cost of the book.
• Lulu allows for as many revisions as necessary to satisfy the author prior to making the book publicly available for purchase.
There are other aspects of Lulu I liked over PA, but the biggest, to me, was the ability to create my own book. I would have done the same with PA if they allowed me - perhaps they do, I just never found out.
So that is my experience with PODs and self-publishing.
My next post will talk about what to do with the book once it is finished.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
So You Want to be Published (pt. 2)
Traditional publishers/print houses could never print just one book or a small run of books as it would make the per unit cost incredibly expensive. I have been in advertising and/or printing since 1986, and I've specced out a lot of jobs. The majority of production costs are up front, and when the presses are running finished copy, the cost then becomes merely materials for the press run.
The digital age changed all that.
I have published two books. Two books that probably wouldn't be looked at by a traditional publisher. Why?
Because they are poetry anthologies, and the market for those is rather small. This doesn't mean that the writing is bad; it just means that demand is limited. But I wanted to get some books done to 1. go through the experience and 2. have a body of work in the pipeline for the time I get my novel finished. Additionally, I wanted to officially copyright the work in order to protect it.
I published my first book through PublishAmerica. I emailed them the manuscript, and they approved it. Upon approval, they sent me a contract to sign, which I did and returned to them. Then I edited the manuscript myself for typographical and punctuation errors, and switched out a couple of poems I wanted to replace. I also created the cover artwork, which they used.
PublishAmerica took care of the ISBN registration and distribution through major online channels - note: they do not do placement in brick and mortar locations. They sent me two author's copies, and the whole process cost me nothing.
PublishAmerica will edit the book for you; it adds more time to the process if you are wiling to wait. They will also design the cover for you if you have no experience in doing it yourself. They send out files for you to approve, pdfs for your review. The whole process took about 2-3 months before I saw my book up on Amazon for the first time.
There are a lot of advantages to using a service like PublishAmerica. The biggest is the most obvious - no cost to the author. I didn't pay PA a dime for the publishing. I did purchase 25 books from them when the project was complete for sale to friends (signed copies) and for promotional use, but that was it for expense.
Unfortunately, there's a flip side to all these great advantages.
1. PA does not promote your book for you - you have to do that.
2. PA will do a mailing to a list of contacts you give them, but that's it.
3. PA's acceptance standards aren't the highest in the business.
4. PA's book prices are high - my 180-page poetry anthology, From Here to Never, costs $19.95 on Amazon and at PA.
5. PA's contract requires a 7-year commitment to them. At the end of the 7-year period, if you don't notify them that you want to end the relationship, they will extend it another 7 years automatically.
6. PA's royalty structure could be better.
7. Bookstores don't like to stock books from publishers like PA due to the lack of a buyback agreement. (PA says that this has changed on their site, and they now offer the agreement). The other reason is the high cost of the book which lowers margins for the store, plus the lack of promotional support from PA.
8. PA's book layout is merely adequate (more on that later).
The business model of PublishAmerica is to publish as many people as they can who will provide them with a mailing list of friends and family to try and promote the books to. It's that simple. Do you see the inherent problems with that model? I did early on, but I overlooked them and tried to publish my second book through them as well. Why? Refer to paragraph 4.
Well, I submitted my second book to PA. It was several weeks before I heard from them again. Their email to me was short and direct. It basically stated that because my first book hadn't sold in sufficient numbers, they were unwilling to publish a second book for me.
I wasn't surprised. I wasn't even disappointed.
Instead, I decided to check out Lulu.com.
I will cover that in my next blog entry.
The digital age changed all that.
I have published two books. Two books that probably wouldn't be looked at by a traditional publisher. Why?
Because they are poetry anthologies, and the market for those is rather small. This doesn't mean that the writing is bad; it just means that demand is limited. But I wanted to get some books done to 1. go through the experience and 2. have a body of work in the pipeline for the time I get my novel finished. Additionally, I wanted to officially copyright the work in order to protect it.
I published my first book through PublishAmerica. I emailed them the manuscript, and they approved it. Upon approval, they sent me a contract to sign, which I did and returned to them. Then I edited the manuscript myself for typographical and punctuation errors, and switched out a couple of poems I wanted to replace. I also created the cover artwork, which they used.
PublishAmerica took care of the ISBN registration and distribution through major online channels - note: they do not do placement in brick and mortar locations. They sent me two author's copies, and the whole process cost me nothing.
PublishAmerica will edit the book for you; it adds more time to the process if you are wiling to wait. They will also design the cover for you if you have no experience in doing it yourself. They send out files for you to approve, pdfs for your review. The whole process took about 2-3 months before I saw my book up on Amazon for the first time.
There are a lot of advantages to using a service like PublishAmerica. The biggest is the most obvious - no cost to the author. I didn't pay PA a dime for the publishing. I did purchase 25 books from them when the project was complete for sale to friends (signed copies) and for promotional use, but that was it for expense.
Unfortunately, there's a flip side to all these great advantages.
1. PA does not promote your book for you - you have to do that.
2. PA will do a mailing to a list of contacts you give them, but that's it.
3. PA's acceptance standards aren't the highest in the business.
4. PA's book prices are high - my 180-page poetry anthology, From Here to Never, costs $19.95 on Amazon and at PA.
5. PA's contract requires a 7-year commitment to them. At the end of the 7-year period, if you don't notify them that you want to end the relationship, they will extend it another 7 years automatically.
6. PA's royalty structure could be better.
7. Bookstores don't like to stock books from publishers like PA due to the lack of a buyback agreement. (PA says that this has changed on their site, and they now offer the agreement). The other reason is the high cost of the book which lowers margins for the store, plus the lack of promotional support from PA.
8. PA's book layout is merely adequate (more on that later).
The business model of PublishAmerica is to publish as many people as they can who will provide them with a mailing list of friends and family to try and promote the books to. It's that simple. Do you see the inherent problems with that model? I did early on, but I overlooked them and tried to publish my second book through them as well. Why? Refer to paragraph 4.
Well, I submitted my second book to PA. It was several weeks before I heard from them again. Their email to me was short and direct. It basically stated that because my first book hadn't sold in sufficient numbers, they were unwilling to publish a second book for me.
I wasn't surprised. I wasn't even disappointed.
Instead, I decided to check out Lulu.com.
I will cover that in my next blog entry.
Monday, June 4, 2007
So You Want to be Published (pt. 1)
Publishing, in its own right, is not a big deal. All it means is that you have found someone who has agreed to print your book for you, sometimes with some sort of cost involved.
There was a day when a writer would shop his/her manuscript to publishers in hopes of landing a contract. If that avenue failed, then the writer could still go to a vanity press and pay thousands of dollars for a hundred or so copies of the book. The old paradigms have changed somewhat over the years, as they often do. The large publishing houses are, for the most part, no longer interested in entertaining unknown authors. They are in business to make a lot of money off the Tom Clancys and Danielle Steeles of the world - in other words, the sure things. The low risk things. And they have swallowed up a lot of the smaller presses that used to seek out the up and comers.
That leaves a lot of "micro" publishers, one or two person operations our of a garage or small office somewhere. These folks tend to act more like brokers or agents as they don't have their own staff on hand to edit, print and bind. They also tend to be specialists, like poetic cookbooks of Maine, or something like that. So where does that leave the emerging writer class?
They can continue to send manuscripts out for probable rejection (unless they run across a publisher who is absolutely wowed by them), or they can go the print-on-demand (POD) or self-publish route for little to no cost.
Little to no cost. Yes, that's what I said.
Here is where the paradigm shift in publishing benefits you, the writer.
The traditional publishing model prints up a number of books for distribution through bookstores and promotional events. Let's say that 5000 books are printed for release into 300 bookstores (I don't know what actual numbers would be, this is just an example. For the release of a well-known author, I assume that 5000 times ten several times over is what gets printed). And let's say that those 5000 books cost the printer $2 - $3 per to produce each book. Plus you have distributors' costs, retailers' costs and royalties involved in the cost as well, which brings the book well up into the $7 - $8 range to purchase.
Well that's $10,000 - $15,000 in inventory that the publisher has committed to the process, and it also means shelf space will be required. If the book doesn't sell well, despite the money and effort put into promoting it (that's another cost), then the burden of the costs goes back to the publisher because there is usually a buy back agreement between them and the bookstores.
Enter the digital age. Enter the new paradigm.
Each book is output on high quality inkjets - even 4-color covers - from digital files. This part of the process alone negates the need for negatives, plates, and paginated artwork, not to mention stripping and darkroom work (printing terminology).
Then comes the bindery work - collating, trimming and binding the pages to the cover. This may or may not be automated as well. I don't really know about that part of it. What this new paradigm has done has allowed the publisher to produce as many books as are needed to fulfill orders. In many cases, it may just be one book. But it can all be done in a cost-efficient manner which opens up new doors of opportunity.
This is part of an ongoing series on this blog.
There was a day when a writer would shop his/her manuscript to publishers in hopes of landing a contract. If that avenue failed, then the writer could still go to a vanity press and pay thousands of dollars for a hundred or so copies of the book. The old paradigms have changed somewhat over the years, as they often do. The large publishing houses are, for the most part, no longer interested in entertaining unknown authors. They are in business to make a lot of money off the Tom Clancys and Danielle Steeles of the world - in other words, the sure things. The low risk things. And they have swallowed up a lot of the smaller presses that used to seek out the up and comers.
That leaves a lot of "micro" publishers, one or two person operations our of a garage or small office somewhere. These folks tend to act more like brokers or agents as they don't have their own staff on hand to edit, print and bind. They also tend to be specialists, like poetic cookbooks of Maine, or something like that. So where does that leave the emerging writer class?
They can continue to send manuscripts out for probable rejection (unless they run across a publisher who is absolutely wowed by them), or they can go the print-on-demand (POD) or self-publish route for little to no cost.
Little to no cost. Yes, that's what I said.
Here is where the paradigm shift in publishing benefits you, the writer.
The traditional publishing model prints up a number of books for distribution through bookstores and promotional events. Let's say that 5000 books are printed for release into 300 bookstores (I don't know what actual numbers would be, this is just an example. For the release of a well-known author, I assume that 5000 times ten several times over is what gets printed). And let's say that those 5000 books cost the printer $2 - $3 per to produce each book. Plus you have distributors' costs, retailers' costs and royalties involved in the cost as well, which brings the book well up into the $7 - $8 range to purchase.
Well that's $10,000 - $15,000 in inventory that the publisher has committed to the process, and it also means shelf space will be required. If the book doesn't sell well, despite the money and effort put into promoting it (that's another cost), then the burden of the costs goes back to the publisher because there is usually a buy back agreement between them and the bookstores.
Enter the digital age. Enter the new paradigm.
Each book is output on high quality inkjets - even 4-color covers - from digital files. This part of the process alone negates the need for negatives, plates, and paginated artwork, not to mention stripping and darkroom work (printing terminology).
Then comes the bindery work - collating, trimming and binding the pages to the cover. This may or may not be automated as well. I don't really know about that part of it. What this new paradigm has done has allowed the publisher to produce as many books as are needed to fulfill orders. In many cases, it may just be one book. But it can all be done in a cost-efficient manner which opens up new doors of opportunity.
This is part of an ongoing series on this blog.
Friday, June 1, 2007
This Says It All
Kudos to Peggy Noonan for a concise, perfect look at the White House!
PEGGY NOONAN
Too Bad
President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.
Friday, June 1, 2007 12:00 a.m. EDT
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.
They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!
If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.Saturday, May 19, 2007
Stick a Fork in It
I don't think this article requires any commentary besides FOLLOW THE MONEY. That's the real root of all the Global Warming hype - someone stands to make money from it.
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.
"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
AI Wrap
Back on April 17, I wrote this:
Lakisha. I think her star is falling. I don't know what it is, but where others have grown stronger through the weeks, she seems to be faltering somewhat. She was a tad on the boring side this week. I predict that she will be the surprise elimination maybe not this week, but within the next 3-4.
Here it is, three weeks later and she's gone. But I was wrong about something. It wasn't a surprise elimination - certainly not the way Chris Daughtry was last year at this time. Most people had come to the conclusion that Lakisha's days were numbered, and she probably wouldn't win it all, unlike the general expectations of Daughtry.
In fact, if you look at this season overall, there really haven't been any big surprises. I thought that Sabrina left too early, as probably did Stephanie, but neither were going to make it to the top six, so it's rather irrelevant anyway.
I guess if there was anything that could remotely be labeled surprise-worthy, it would be the longevity of Sanjaya Malakar, Chris Richardson and Blake Lewis. Blake's tenure has to be from picking up the supporters of the former two contestants, you know, the little fawning, crying girls who loved Sanjaya, the myopic young teens who watched Chris and saw JT. They are all in Blake's camp now.
See, Blake isn 't much of a vocalist when you come down to it. He has the ability to arrange music and make funny noises with his mouth, but he can't sing. He can't match the voice of Melinda or Jordin, he isn't even as good a vocalist as Lakisha.
But as long as the raging hormones keep the calls coming his way, he'll remain. The big questions now become, who gets Lakisha's supporters, Jordin or Melinda? Or do they just go away, leaving the two little time to build upon the fanbase they already have?
A note about Daughtry: I've listened to selections from his CD.
Home is a decent song; the one AI uses to send the weekly loser home with (I like it far better than You Had a Bad Day from last year). The rest of the CD, however, is rather bland. Chris breaks no musical ground that hasn't already been broken. His sound is formulaic and really uninspired. I know it did well, going platinum, but that really just reflects the lack of defined taste these days.
Based on the first CD, I can't see Chris going far with his music career unless he figures out something that makes him stand out, something that makes him less like, oh say, Nickelback.
Bucky Covington released a new CD recently. I've heard it's doing well. It debuted on the Billboard 200 at #4 and #1 on the Top Country Albums chart. I liked Bucky last year, especially when he was in his element - an element we've seen very little of this year.
Taylor Hicks, however, has not done as well as expected, which just goes to show that being top dog on the show doesn't necessarily translate over to the market.
This is the first year I've watched it every week. I skipped a fair amount last year. The show seems to become rather boring with fewer and fewer people each week and more and more need for filler.
Lakisha. I think her star is falling. I don't know what it is, but where others have grown stronger through the weeks, she seems to be faltering somewhat. She was a tad on the boring side this week. I predict that she will be the surprise elimination maybe not this week, but within the next 3-4.
Here it is, three weeks later and she's gone. But I was wrong about something. It wasn't a surprise elimination - certainly not the way Chris Daughtry was last year at this time. Most people had come to the conclusion that Lakisha's days were numbered, and she probably wouldn't win it all, unlike the general expectations of Daughtry.
In fact, if you look at this season overall, there really haven't been any big surprises. I thought that Sabrina left too early, as probably did Stephanie, but neither were going to make it to the top six, so it's rather irrelevant anyway.
I guess if there was anything that could remotely be labeled surprise-worthy, it would be the longevity of Sanjaya Malakar, Chris Richardson and Blake Lewis. Blake's tenure has to be from picking up the supporters of the former two contestants, you know, the little fawning, crying girls who loved Sanjaya, the myopic young teens who watched Chris and saw JT. They are all in Blake's camp now.
See, Blake isn 't much of a vocalist when you come down to it. He has the ability to arrange music and make funny noises with his mouth, but he can't sing. He can't match the voice of Melinda or Jordin, he isn't even as good a vocalist as Lakisha.
But as long as the raging hormones keep the calls coming his way, he'll remain. The big questions now become, who gets Lakisha's supporters, Jordin or Melinda? Or do they just go away, leaving the two little time to build upon the fanbase they already have?
A note about Daughtry: I've listened to selections from his CD.
Home is a decent song; the one AI uses to send the weekly loser home with (I like it far better than You Had a Bad Day from last year). The rest of the CD, however, is rather bland. Chris breaks no musical ground that hasn't already been broken. His sound is formulaic and really uninspired. I know it did well, going platinum, but that really just reflects the lack of defined taste these days.
Based on the first CD, I can't see Chris going far with his music career unless he figures out something that makes him stand out, something that makes him less like, oh say, Nickelback.
Bucky Covington released a new CD recently. I've heard it's doing well. It debuted on the Billboard 200 at #4 and #1 on the Top Country Albums chart. I liked Bucky last year, especially when he was in his element - an element we've seen very little of this year.
Taylor Hicks, however, has not done as well as expected, which just goes to show that being top dog on the show doesn't necessarily translate over to the market.
This is the first year I've watched it every week. I skipped a fair amount last year. The show seems to become rather boring with fewer and fewer people each week and more and more need for filler.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Jive Singin'
Bee Gees night, and we've seen better. It wasn't the best of nights for the contestants. The Bee Gees, like Queen, are a difficult group to cover. Consider the fact that in the early stages of the show, Chris Sligh, Blake Lewis, Rudy Cardenas and a fourth I can't remember did How Deep Is Your Love, did it very well, but as a group with tight harmonies. That is something that can't be replicated with these soloists. Here's how I heard it all:
Melinda Doolittle sang...
Love You Inside & Out: It was adequate good in her own consistent way. Nothing to bring out the goosebumps with, but that song wouldn't anyway.
How Can You Mend a Broken Heart: I was thinking she might do one of the older, ballad-type pieces - they really seem more her style. I thought maybe Gotta Get a Letter to You, or Massachusetts would have been better choices. This one was actually on the boring side for the first 1/2 to 2/3, then she picked it up into Doolittle land. Paula keeps telling Melinda that she should just let go, let go, and frankly, I have no idea what Paula means by that.
Blake Lewis sang...
You Should Be Dancing: Very weak start. Trying for the Eurotech sound I s'pose; he just came across as a Northwest metrosexual castrato. He really didn't need to put the vocal chitter effects into the chorus, though I could see how they went OK during the interlude.
This is Where I Came In: I found this to be wooden, almost like Blake doing a parody of himself. Barry Gibb was right - this song turned out not to be a hit after all, and Blake ain't gonna make it one either.
If Blake decided to become a porn star, I think he'd go by the name of Star Buck. He's really got to drop the sweater combos he wears.
Lakisha Jones sang...
Stayin' Alive: And she about killed it. Not a disco fan, however, I much preferred the original to whatever it was she did. Simon called Melinda's performance more like that of a background singer - I'd have to say that Lakisha's was even more so.
Run to Me: Dull, dull, dull.
Jordin Sparks sang...
To Love Somebody: It was OK. I kept waiting to be blown away, but it never happened. I didn't much care for her outfit either, though I thought she looked quite cute.
Woman in Love: I don't like Barbara Streisand, but this song takes me back to a very seminal point in my life. For that I hold a place of favored memory of it. I thought Jordin could potentially put it out of the park. She didn't do badly BUT she seemed more like a child on this than previous performances. I mean, her rendition really lacked a certain maturity to make it work the way it should. Not her fault, she should be able to pull it off in 10-15 years.
Jordin's outfits tonight were questionable IMO. I liked her hair and makeup, but her clothes were a little dumfounding.
So Bee Gees night has come and gone, and I don't think we are necessarily the better for it. I think Blake or Lakisha will go - probably Lakisha this week, which would fit into previous statements I've made. You realize, of course, that Phil never would have stood a chance with a Bee Gees song. :-)
Of course, I'll probably be wrong and we'll see Mindy Doo get the boot in a surprise move. That would certainly be a Tragedy, eh?
Melinda Doolittle sang...
Love You Inside & Out: It was adequate good in her own consistent way. Nothing to bring out the goosebumps with, but that song wouldn't anyway.
How Can You Mend a Broken Heart: I was thinking she might do one of the older, ballad-type pieces - they really seem more her style. I thought maybe Gotta Get a Letter to You, or Massachusetts would have been better choices. This one was actually on the boring side for the first 1/2 to 2/3, then she picked it up into Doolittle land. Paula keeps telling Melinda that she should just let go, let go, and frankly, I have no idea what Paula means by that.
Blake Lewis sang...
You Should Be Dancing: Very weak start. Trying for the Eurotech sound I s'pose; he just came across as a Northwest metrosexual castrato. He really didn't need to put the vocal chitter effects into the chorus, though I could see how they went OK during the interlude.
This is Where I Came In: I found this to be wooden, almost like Blake doing a parody of himself. Barry Gibb was right - this song turned out not to be a hit after all, and Blake ain't gonna make it one either.
If Blake decided to become a porn star, I think he'd go by the name of Star Buck. He's really got to drop the sweater combos he wears.
Lakisha Jones sang...
Stayin' Alive: And she about killed it. Not a disco fan, however, I much preferred the original to whatever it was she did. Simon called Melinda's performance more like that of a background singer - I'd have to say that Lakisha's was even more so.
Run to Me: Dull, dull, dull.
Jordin Sparks sang...
To Love Somebody: It was OK. I kept waiting to be blown away, but it never happened. I didn't much care for her outfit either, though I thought she looked quite cute.
Woman in Love: I don't like Barbara Streisand, but this song takes me back to a very seminal point in my life. For that I hold a place of favored memory of it. I thought Jordin could potentially put it out of the park. She didn't do badly BUT she seemed more like a child on this than previous performances. I mean, her rendition really lacked a certain maturity to make it work the way it should. Not her fault, she should be able to pull it off in 10-15 years.
Jordin's outfits tonight were questionable IMO. I liked her hair and makeup, but her clothes were a little dumfounding.
So Bee Gees night has come and gone, and I don't think we are necessarily the better for it. I think Blake or Lakisha will go - probably Lakisha this week, which would fit into previous statements I've made. You realize, of course, that Phil never would have stood a chance with a Bee Gees song. :-)
Of course, I'll probably be wrong and we'll see Mindy Doo get the boot in a surprise move. That would certainly be a Tragedy, eh?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
It's In the Song
Phil is gone, and I should have seen it coming. Everyone should have seen it coming. In the year when many of the song choices have been seemingly prescient, Phil's choice was right there. Here are some lyrics to Blaze of Glory:
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Take me now but know the truth
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
And he did. And he did.
Perhaps the most touching 'seeya' performance I've seen, Phil managed to hug and kiss almost everyone in the studio. I liked Phil. I'm sad to see him go, but he wasn't going to win. Best wishes to him, his wife and his new baby, who is what - almost 6 months now?
From another piece elsewhere we read: Blake Lewis (5/1 odds), whose best-friends-forever admission while standing alongside Richardson was quite the womanly gesture.
Boyfriends Blake and Chris had to separate, and I can't imagine anyone having said the BFF thing about Chris Daughtry last year. Maybe Taylor Hicks, certainly Clay Aiken, but not Daughtry. I found it a fairly awkward moment, though the metrosexuals Lewis and Richardson seemed to feed from it as did the women (but you always expect stuff like that from women).
Down to the final four, and if Dial Idol is at all near accurate, then Melinda Doolittle may be on the cusp. Shocker, eh? Have a look:
www.dialidol.com
Now I can mail in my Nielsons. What a week!
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Take me now but know the truth
I'm going down in a blaze of glory
And he did. And he did.
Perhaps the most touching 'seeya' performance I've seen, Phil managed to hug and kiss almost everyone in the studio. I liked Phil. I'm sad to see him go, but he wasn't going to win. Best wishes to him, his wife and his new baby, who is what - almost 6 months now?
From another piece elsewhere we read: Blake Lewis (5/1 odds), whose best-friends-forever admission while standing alongside Richardson was quite the womanly gesture.
Boyfriends Blake and Chris had to separate, and I can't imagine anyone having said the BFF thing about Chris Daughtry last year. Maybe Taylor Hicks, certainly Clay Aiken, but not Daughtry. I found it a fairly awkward moment, though the metrosexuals Lewis and Richardson seemed to feed from it as did the women (but you always expect stuff like that from women).
Down to the final four, and if Dial Idol is at all near accurate, then Melinda Doolittle may be on the cusp. Shocker, eh? Have a look:
www.dialidol.com
Now I can mail in my Nielsons. What a week!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Bon Joviality in Idol
Fun night tonight.
I wondered how some of the contestants would pull off the songs by Bon Jovi. Here's how I heard it:
Phil - I disagree with Simon. Phil did a really good job with Blaze of Glory, singing and performance-wise. He did seem a tad awkward with some of the rocker moves, but I wouldn't hold that against him. It was a strong vocal, and the crowd was solidly behind him.
Jordin - Living on a Prayer. Ohhhh, Jordin. Started off weak, hit the big chorus well, then slid back to difficulty in the verse again. She overcompensated somewhat with the chorus, which brought it to almost the level of screeching, as Simon likes to say. Not surprising and very common - hit the stuff you do well hard to try and mask the rest. If her sustainability was based on tonight alone, I'd say she could be going.
Blake - I have been a Blake detractor for a while. I absolutely hated Imagine (don't really like the song anyway; I think it's fatuous), but this week, I was really impressed with Shot Through the Heart. He took the risk of morphing the song and in turn was able to pull off something that was actually quite interesting. The beginning was atmospheric, leading into the mainline, then the rhythms and beat playoff with the drummer. It was a pleasure and I tip my hat to him.
Lakisha - It was good. I don't know if it's enough to keep her going, but it was good. Definitely much better than....
Chris - Dead or Alive. His performance was tedious, boring. I just wanted it to be over. Chris has outlived his ability I think. He should have gone a long time ago, JT notwithstanding. Look, Chris Daughtry did Dead or Alive far better than Chris Richardson, and Daughtry's version still doesn't match up to the original Bon Jovi version.
Melinda - Yeah, I saw the Tina Turner in the performance too. Wondered how she would adapt, or make the song adapt to her. She's a professional, though, and can usually figure something out. I also happen to think that tonight she looked the hottest she ever has on the show.
That's it for the wrapup and my view of it. Who will go? Tough call. Two are leaving, and I don't know if they are taking the lowest vote getter from last week plus the lowest from this week, or combining the vote tallies from both weeks and choosing the lowest two from that.
Do you realize that if they do it the first way... Blake could go, even after his performance tonight? Interesting thought, isn't it?
I wondered how some of the contestants would pull off the songs by Bon Jovi. Here's how I heard it:
Phil - I disagree with Simon. Phil did a really good job with Blaze of Glory, singing and performance-wise. He did seem a tad awkward with some of the rocker moves, but I wouldn't hold that against him. It was a strong vocal, and the crowd was solidly behind him.
Jordin - Living on a Prayer. Ohhhh, Jordin. Started off weak, hit the big chorus well, then slid back to difficulty in the verse again. She overcompensated somewhat with the chorus, which brought it to almost the level of screeching, as Simon likes to say. Not surprising and very common - hit the stuff you do well hard to try and mask the rest. If her sustainability was based on tonight alone, I'd say she could be going.
Blake - I have been a Blake detractor for a while. I absolutely hated Imagine (don't really like the song anyway; I think it's fatuous), but this week, I was really impressed with Shot Through the Heart. He took the risk of morphing the song and in turn was able to pull off something that was actually quite interesting. The beginning was atmospheric, leading into the mainline, then the rhythms and beat playoff with the drummer. It was a pleasure and I tip my hat to him.
Lakisha - It was good. I don't know if it's enough to keep her going, but it was good. Definitely much better than....
Chris - Dead or Alive. His performance was tedious, boring. I just wanted it to be over. Chris has outlived his ability I think. He should have gone a long time ago, JT notwithstanding. Look, Chris Daughtry did Dead or Alive far better than Chris Richardson, and Daughtry's version still doesn't match up to the original Bon Jovi version.
Melinda - Yeah, I saw the Tina Turner in the performance too. Wondered how she would adapt, or make the song adapt to her. She's a professional, though, and can usually figure something out. I also happen to think that tonight she looked the hottest she ever has on the show.
That's it for the wrapup and my view of it. Who will go? Tough call. Two are leaving, and I don't know if they are taking the lowest vote getter from last week plus the lowest from this week, or combining the vote tallies from both weeks and choosing the lowest two from that.
Do you realize that if they do it the first way... Blake could go, even after his performance tonight? Interesting thought, isn't it?
Songs of Bon Jovi
This ought to be good. Tonight's AI mentor is Jon Bon Jovi and the contestants will be performing his songs.
I would love to see Sanjaya do Shot Through the Heart. Seriously.
Too bad it'll never happen.
Hope Phil does I'll Be There for You - could be a good fit for his voice.
Be interesting to see what Melinda chooses, for this is not her style. I can't imagine her choice being Living in Sin.
Maybe Lakisha will do Living on a Prayer Or maybe she SHOULD do it.
Whadaya think? A little Burning for Love for Jordin? I still think she's Born to be My Baby!
Guess the biggest question is, who will be the Last Man Standing?
Chris or Blake?
Cheers, Jeff
I would love to see Sanjaya do Shot Through the Heart. Seriously.
Too bad it'll never happen.
Hope Phil does I'll Be There for You - could be a good fit for his voice.
Be interesting to see what Melinda chooses, for this is not her style. I can't imagine her choice being Living in Sin.
Maybe Lakisha will do Living on a Prayer Or maybe she SHOULD do it.
Whadaya think? A little Burning for Love for Jordin? I still think she's Born to be My Baby!
Guess the biggest question is, who will be the Last Man Standing?
Chris or Blake?
Cheers, Jeff
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Gone, But Not Forgotten - For Now
Let's see.
As of Thursday, April 26...
Scott's gone.
Aubrey's gone.
Phil's gone, and
None of the top 6 are gone.
My son, Scott, has gone to a tournament in Maryland. He'll be back Sunday.
My friend, Aubrey, is gone, heading for Seattle to try out a career in marriage.
Phil left last Friday - tried to kill himself.
Jordin, Melinda, Lakisha, Phil, Chris and Blake are still around, but two will be gone next week.
Every time Scott goes to one of these tournaments, he comes back with a trophy, and they don't hand out "participation awards" at these tournaments. So I expect he will come back with another this year, perhaps the top spot. Go Scott!
I worked with Aubrey for a couple years. His workstation was next to mine, but at a perpendicular angle, so I mostly looked at his back. We work in an advertising office - he did web, I do print. He's the one who got me to start a blog, and I guess I owe him one for it. I haven't decided yet if that "one" is a favor or revenge. :-) Congrats Aubs; best of luck and wishes to you.
I also worked with Phil for a few years - different department though. He went to a Walmart with loaded guns and proceeded to clear the store, so to speak. He shot no one. He didn't steal merchandise. In all appearances, he looked as if he wanted to commit suicide by shootout. Apparently, his wife phoned him at work and told him she was leaving him. About six hours later he was in the empty store with the police talking him down. I don't know what to think of Phil. I can understand the emotional duress behind his action, but when I consider what I would say if I saw him today, the only thing I can think of is: "Are you freakin' stupid??!"
I have read reader's comments to articles about the standoff, and many of them are so typical to the political "debate" which is really no debate at all. "If guns were banned, this wouldn't happen", "Why aren't current laws enforced to keep this from happening?" and so on. There is a lot of anger towards Phil in the posts. Not surprising and well merited. I have fought the temptation to post a comment myself because what I would say would assuage no one. I'll say it here though, "Phil is a decent guy, really he is. He reacted strongly to his wife leaving him and did a dumb thing. He hurt no one, just caused some fear. He actually told people to get out of the store. He took no hostages; he was just doing what he told police he was going to do: "scare some people." This doesn't excuse Phil from his behavior, and he should pay the price. But he's really an OK chap."
I can hear the incredulity already.
If Phil is a real man, he won't claim temporary insanity at his trial.
So American Idol gave back Wednesday night.
$30+ million dollars raised, AND it gave back the top 6 as well. My friend, Micah, told me before the show that he thought no one would be voted off because it was charity night. Guess he was right.
I have to say that for a mainstream show, it was pretty well put together. The production strategy was two-fold: elicit excitement and tears. I think they did both pretty well... maybe even to the point of being overdone. But hey, they only had two hours for this particular telethon. The most prominent thought that hit me last night while watching it was how wonderfully manipulative it was.
Unfortunately, I am too cynical to believe that the entire amount will be used for its described purposes. Maybe only 25%?? 50%?? Don't know. There are some good charities out there who only scalp off a small percentage for administrative costs. They are the ones I prefer to support.
I predict it will become standard yearly fare for the show. jmho.
Last word:
Sanjaya: how can we miss you if you won't go away?
As of Thursday, April 26...
Scott's gone.
Aubrey's gone.
Phil's gone, and
None of the top 6 are gone.
My son, Scott, has gone to a tournament in Maryland. He'll be back Sunday.
My friend, Aubrey, is gone, heading for Seattle to try out a career in marriage.
Phil left last Friday - tried to kill himself.
Jordin, Melinda, Lakisha, Phil, Chris and Blake are still around, but two will be gone next week.
Every time Scott goes to one of these tournaments, he comes back with a trophy, and they don't hand out "participation awards" at these tournaments. So I expect he will come back with another this year, perhaps the top spot. Go Scott!
I worked with Aubrey for a couple years. His workstation was next to mine, but at a perpendicular angle, so I mostly looked at his back. We work in an advertising office - he did web, I do print. He's the one who got me to start a blog, and I guess I owe him one for it. I haven't decided yet if that "one" is a favor or revenge. :-) Congrats Aubs; best of luck and wishes to you.
I also worked with Phil for a few years - different department though. He went to a Walmart with loaded guns and proceeded to clear the store, so to speak. He shot no one. He didn't steal merchandise. In all appearances, he looked as if he wanted to commit suicide by shootout. Apparently, his wife phoned him at work and told him she was leaving him. About six hours later he was in the empty store with the police talking him down. I don't know what to think of Phil. I can understand the emotional duress behind his action, but when I consider what I would say if I saw him today, the only thing I can think of is: "Are you freakin' stupid??!"
I have read reader's comments to articles about the standoff, and many of them are so typical to the political "debate" which is really no debate at all. "If guns were banned, this wouldn't happen", "Why aren't current laws enforced to keep this from happening?" and so on. There is a lot of anger towards Phil in the posts. Not surprising and well merited. I have fought the temptation to post a comment myself because what I would say would assuage no one. I'll say it here though, "Phil is a decent guy, really he is. He reacted strongly to his wife leaving him and did a dumb thing. He hurt no one, just caused some fear. He actually told people to get out of the store. He took no hostages; he was just doing what he told police he was going to do: "scare some people." This doesn't excuse Phil from his behavior, and he should pay the price. But he's really an OK chap."
I can hear the incredulity already.
If Phil is a real man, he won't claim temporary insanity at his trial.
So American Idol gave back Wednesday night.
$30+ million dollars raised, AND it gave back the top 6 as well. My friend, Micah, told me before the show that he thought no one would be voted off because it was charity night. Guess he was right.
I have to say that for a mainstream show, it was pretty well put together. The production strategy was two-fold: elicit excitement and tears. I think they did both pretty well... maybe even to the point of being overdone. But hey, they only had two hours for this particular telethon. The most prominent thought that hit me last night while watching it was how wonderfully manipulative it was.
Unfortunately, I am too cynical to believe that the entire amount will be used for its described purposes. Maybe only 25%?? 50%?? Don't know. There are some good charities out there who only scalp off a small percentage for administrative costs. They are the ones I prefer to support.
I predict it will become standard yearly fare for the show. jmho.
Last word:
Sanjaya: how can we miss you if you won't go away?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)