The winner of American Idol this year will be.....
one of the women!
That's the early consensus between me, myself and I.
There are 4 guys who stand out in my opinion. They would be: Chris Sligh, Blake Lewis, Sundance Head and Sanjaya Malakar. I include Sanjaya in this group, but it's not a positive inclusion. Sanjaya probably appeals to all the little groupie girls who watch Idol, not to mention the pedophiles as well. He is effeminate and his stage presence/persona doesn't really project the way it needs to go the long haul. He is like the Bobby (Peter?) Brady look-alike from last year.
Sundance did a good job with Mustang Sally last night, and he is probably the stronger of the two between him and the other pumpkin contestant - Chris Sligh. Both have good voices and seem comfortable with what they do well, but let's be honest. Triple X size singers don't usually make it to the finals.
That leaves Blake Lewis. His beat box/scat portion of the song last night was interesting, added some spice to it. However, if he relies on that throughout the competition, he's gone. The novelty will wear off, and it will all seem silly. What is he without it? That remains to be seen.
I like Phil Stacey, but I'm afraid he's a mite too common.
As for the women, Lakisha Jones, Melinda Doolittle and Sabrina Sloan are the competition. I think the winner will come out of those three.
They all have great voices, energy and passion in their singing, though I have to say I thought Lakisha came across as a bit manic and weird in some of it last week.
It will be interesting to see how they present tonight.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Write it Down
I had an idea for a glob-entry, pardon me, that should say blog. Well.... perhaps... Anyway, I had an idea. It was going to be clever, witty, enlightening - full of wisdom. It was going to rock, put this blog on the map, shake your world and whatever other silly cliches one can come up with.
I had an idea.
Unfortunately, I forgot what it was. I was moving when it struck me. Busy, in motion, trying to go from A to B, etc. No time to flesh it out, no time to pound it onto paper.
I should've jotted a few notes.
That way I could've jostled a few memories the next morning when I had time.
I had an idea. I 've had ideas in the past. They're all gone. You think I would have learned by now.
I had an idea.
Unfortunately, I forgot what it was. I was moving when it struck me. Busy, in motion, trying to go from A to B, etc. No time to flesh it out, no time to pound it onto paper.
I should've jotted a few notes.
That way I could've jostled a few memories the next morning when I had time.
I had an idea. I 've had ideas in the past. They're all gone. You think I would have learned by now.
Monday, February 19, 2007
On Online Poetry Sites
I have belonged to poets.com, bulldogpoetryworkshop.com, thepoetstree.com, and I currently belong to poetsinkwell.com and worldofpoets.com. Even with all this, I don't think I've really scratched the surface of the poetry sites available on the internet.
These sites allow you to post your work for others to read and review. In exchange, you are expected to read and review other people's works. It was an eye-opening process when I first started to do this, now it's mostly just amusing.
The first site I joined was poets.com. It is one of many sites owned by poetry.com which makes its money by publishing anthologies of contest winners (which is virtually everyone who submits) and selling them to the winners at $50 a pop. In other words, it's a vanity press with a twist.
Poets.com is a workshop of sorts where one pays a subscription fee to be a member. You can join for one month, three months or a year with the longer terms being gradually less expensive than the shorter when averaged per month. When I first joined poets.com, it was with the hopes of finding experienced, published poets who would be able to provide me feedback in this endeavor I had started. What a surprise when I went into the site as a paid member to see literally hundreds of Poet Laureates gracing the site.
In fact, I saw too many, which made me suspicious.
But I was willing to accept the possibility that a poetry site with as focused a name as poets.com might have a wealth of poetic knowledge and wisdom at its service, so I started looking at the works of the 'masters' there.
I read some work that I thought was mediocre and accepted the fact that not every piece written is a work of art. But as I plowed through the mediocrity and ran into absolutely hideous 'poetry', I began to realize that these erstwhile Laureates were not, in fact, Laureates at all. They were merely people who had been reviewed enough by others to receive the fairy tale title of Poet Laureate.
I learned the game quickly enough to become a Laureate myself, and a Judge Advocate as well (the reviewer's rank). It was just a matter of running the numbers. Just keep reviewing and getting reviewed and the ranks build up. This was not a game of substance, simply one of ego stroking.
You see, many of the folks that attained ranking on the site actually thought they were the equivalent of true Poet Laureates (not that all of them are that great). I read many a bio that sounded like Academy Award winners giving their acceptance speeches. It was always good for a chuckle.
Be warned, however, that a review leaning toward the negative could bring out the wrath of these people. "How dare you judge my work!", "You don't know anything about poetry!" and so on. That, too, was good for a chuckle as well.
The saving grace of this site was that I was able to find really good writers. They tended to be the quieter ones; there only for the writing and reading and reviewing. They didn't care for the titles or the silliness. I found excellent crafters of thought, metaphor, humor, in many styles, and I was always glad to call them friend. I still have the email addresses of some of them.
I am still involved with sites like this, though I left poets.com after their site redesign. Many from that site left as well, and I've run into them all across the spectrum. What I have concluded from my experiences is this...
1. These sites are really online communities, no more, no less. The flickr.com site is similar, only it deals with photographs instead of poems. Youtube is similar, but video-oriented. They are all communities with people meeting each other and interacting. The focus of the community is only a vehicle to draw like minded people together.
2. These sites are community-oriented, but they pander to ego as well, with the ability to build up points, tag favorites, award silly meaningless awards and such. There is a virtual plethora of people with no talent who consider themselves experts because enough people have stroked them for so long for whatever reason. The dynamics of it all are fascinating.
3. In every arena, you can find competence and true artistry. Sometimes it just takes some time and looking.
These sites can be enjoyable if one approaches them with the right attitude. In my opinion, the best way to do it is with a strong sense of humor and a willingness not to take any of it too seriously. Lord knows, too many get sucked into the fantasy of it all, and they feed off it. They should be pitied.
These sites allow you to post your work for others to read and review. In exchange, you are expected to read and review other people's works. It was an eye-opening process when I first started to do this, now it's mostly just amusing.
The first site I joined was poets.com. It is one of many sites owned by poetry.com which makes its money by publishing anthologies of contest winners (which is virtually everyone who submits) and selling them to the winners at $50 a pop. In other words, it's a vanity press with a twist.
Poets.com is a workshop of sorts where one pays a subscription fee to be a member. You can join for one month, three months or a year with the longer terms being gradually less expensive than the shorter when averaged per month. When I first joined poets.com, it was with the hopes of finding experienced, published poets who would be able to provide me feedback in this endeavor I had started. What a surprise when I went into the site as a paid member to see literally hundreds of Poet Laureates gracing the site.
In fact, I saw too many, which made me suspicious.
But I was willing to accept the possibility that a poetry site with as focused a name as poets.com might have a wealth of poetic knowledge and wisdom at its service, so I started looking at the works of the 'masters' there.
I read some work that I thought was mediocre and accepted the fact that not every piece written is a work of art. But as I plowed through the mediocrity and ran into absolutely hideous 'poetry', I began to realize that these erstwhile Laureates were not, in fact, Laureates at all. They were merely people who had been reviewed enough by others to receive the fairy tale title of Poet Laureate.
I learned the game quickly enough to become a Laureate myself, and a Judge Advocate as well (the reviewer's rank). It was just a matter of running the numbers. Just keep reviewing and getting reviewed and the ranks build up. This was not a game of substance, simply one of ego stroking.
You see, many of the folks that attained ranking on the site actually thought they were the equivalent of true Poet Laureates (not that all of them are that great). I read many a bio that sounded like Academy Award winners giving their acceptance speeches. It was always good for a chuckle.
Be warned, however, that a review leaning toward the negative could bring out the wrath of these people. "How dare you judge my work!", "You don't know anything about poetry!" and so on. That, too, was good for a chuckle as well.
The saving grace of this site was that I was able to find really good writers. They tended to be the quieter ones; there only for the writing and reading and reviewing. They didn't care for the titles or the silliness. I found excellent crafters of thought, metaphor, humor, in many styles, and I was always glad to call them friend. I still have the email addresses of some of them.
I am still involved with sites like this, though I left poets.com after their site redesign. Many from that site left as well, and I've run into them all across the spectrum. What I have concluded from my experiences is this...
1. These sites are really online communities, no more, no less. The flickr.com site is similar, only it deals with photographs instead of poems. Youtube is similar, but video-oriented. They are all communities with people meeting each other and interacting. The focus of the community is only a vehicle to draw like minded people together.
2. These sites are community-oriented, but they pander to ego as well, with the ability to build up points, tag favorites, award silly meaningless awards and such. There is a virtual plethora of people with no talent who consider themselves experts because enough people have stroked them for so long for whatever reason. The dynamics of it all are fascinating.
3. In every arena, you can find competence and true artistry. Sometimes it just takes some time and looking.
These sites can be enjoyable if one approaches them with the right attitude. In my opinion, the best way to do it is with a strong sense of humor and a willingness not to take any of it too seriously. Lord knows, too many get sucked into the fantasy of it all, and they feed off it. They should be pitied.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Dixie Twits
First, I'd like to say that I'm not a country music fan. With the exception of a limited few of the artists, I really can't stand the genre. So I have no consumer dog in this quarrel.
Second, I'd like to say that the reluctance or refusal of a radio station to play any of their music is not running afoul of the first amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. When and if Congress does that, that becomes censorship which is clearly unConstitutional.
The right of any person to say whatever they want does not by law or implication obligate 1. anyone to listen to that person, or 2. anyone to agree with that person. Nor does it require the recipient of the free speech to idly stand by without having the ability or option of practicing their right to protest whatever the speaker said in the first place. Make sense?
If a radio station, or TV station, or website refuses to allow content on their medium based upon any views or philosophies they or their market deems to be unacceptable, they have that right. The media has purchased the license to broadcast or publish the material they want.
I had an email debate with someone about this recently, and he asked if I thought this was being narrow-minded. It is not narrow-minded. What is narrow-minded is being forced to accept and tolerate any view without the opportunity to provide a counter position. When Hollywood stars, music celebrities or even special interest groups make political statements, it appears that the politically-correct thing to do is embrace those statements as something wonderful and uniquely American. Unfortunately, these attitudes are squelching free speech little by little, making it available only to a select few.
If you like the Dixie Chicks and want to continue to buy their music, go fot it. If you have decided that perhaps their opinion causes you to want to boycott them with your wallet, go for it.
All debates are swiftly becoming too one-sided. The global warming debate is a fine example of that. So is the Dixie Twits issue.
Second, I'd like to say that the reluctance or refusal of a radio station to play any of their music is not running afoul of the first amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. When and if Congress does that, that becomes censorship which is clearly unConstitutional.
The right of any person to say whatever they want does not by law or implication obligate 1. anyone to listen to that person, or 2. anyone to agree with that person. Nor does it require the recipient of the free speech to idly stand by without having the ability or option of practicing their right to protest whatever the speaker said in the first place. Make sense?
If a radio station, or TV station, or website refuses to allow content on their medium based upon any views or philosophies they or their market deems to be unacceptable, they have that right. The media has purchased the license to broadcast or publish the material they want.
I had an email debate with someone about this recently, and he asked if I thought this was being narrow-minded. It is not narrow-minded. What is narrow-minded is being forced to accept and tolerate any view without the opportunity to provide a counter position. When Hollywood stars, music celebrities or even special interest groups make political statements, it appears that the politically-correct thing to do is embrace those statements as something wonderful and uniquely American. Unfortunately, these attitudes are squelching free speech little by little, making it available only to a select few.
If you like the Dixie Chicks and want to continue to buy their music, go fot it. If you have decided that perhaps their opinion causes you to want to boycott them with your wallet, go for it.
All debates are swiftly becoming too one-sided. The global warming debate is a fine example of that. So is the Dixie Twits issue.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A Novel Update
Well, I've broken the 20,000 word barrier, and I'm thinking that this is going far too slow. I recently read an article on the internet about another writer who does 100,000 words in a month. I've never heard of this person, but apparently it's what she does full time. I figure even if I did 1000 words per day, every day, that would only be 30,000 words in a month, and I'd still be looking at a bit over 3 months to get it done.
If you do the math, it will frustrate you no end. But I've always wondered how Tom Clancy and Stephen King managed to crank out book after book after book.
Here's the thing, though. I have over 20,000 words now. But I have no idea if they are GOOD words or not. I think they are, but I'm biased obviously.
The 100K words/month lady also suggested outlining as much of the plot as possible. I can understand that but a lot of my story unfolds as I work it.
Maybe I should stick to my day job, eh?
If you do the math, it will frustrate you no end. But I've always wondered how Tom Clancy and Stephen King managed to crank out book after book after book.
Here's the thing, though. I have over 20,000 words now. But I have no idea if they are GOOD words or not. I think they are, but I'm biased obviously.
The 100K words/month lady also suggested outlining as much of the plot as possible. I can understand that but a lot of my story unfolds as I work it.
Maybe I should stick to my day job, eh?
Friday, February 9, 2007
John Edwards for President? No.
I don't care where John Edwards lives. I don't care what kind of house he owns or car he drives. And I actually think I can agree with him that, yes, there are people who have and people who don't have.
I don't care about any of the things I mentioned because they aren't relevant to me. However, I still find a wonderful irony in it all. It's really no different from those who stump for the environment while driving huge SUVs. Or those rich, celebrated folks who hold parties with little to no food to symbolize the plight of the homeless.
Whenever the haves try to show simpatico with the have nots, they invariably fail. They come across as looking like hypocrites. The only way they are able to pull it off is when they actually start doing something material for their causes (does Gates and Buffet come to mind?) rather than just talking about it in front of a camera.
Is John Edwards doing something for his "cause?" (and I say that with great cynicism). My guess is that he thinks running for President is the material action. But if he was truly smart and wily like a trial lawyer, he would realize that he'll never be elected President. And not because he built a big house.
I don't care about any of the things I mentioned because they aren't relevant to me. However, I still find a wonderful irony in it all. It's really no different from those who stump for the environment while driving huge SUVs. Or those rich, celebrated folks who hold parties with little to no food to symbolize the plight of the homeless.
Whenever the haves try to show simpatico with the have nots, they invariably fail. They come across as looking like hypocrites. The only way they are able to pull it off is when they actually start doing something material for their causes (does Gates and Buffet come to mind?) rather than just talking about it in front of a camera.
Is John Edwards doing something for his "cause?" (and I say that with great cynicism). My guess is that he thinks running for President is the material action. But if he was truly smart and wily like a trial lawyer, he would realize that he'll never be elected President. And not because he built a big house.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
A Sort of Diary Entry
What to do. My book writing has come to a halt, not by choice, but by choices. I have joined a poetry site in an effort to promote my first book. Now I find a good part of my writing time used for that site, and I have actually written a couple poems - something I haven't done in a month. So it would seem to be: work on a book or work on promoting the first book, for with everything else in life that needs to be done there isn't much time for both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)