My aunt, uncle, and two of my cousins are deaf on my mom's side of the family. In preparing the DVD of The Lionshare, I realized it would become necessary to create a subtitle track so that they would be able to watch it.
A quick google search revealed to me all the ins and outs of subtitling in DVD Studio Pro. I decided to play around a bit and see how it might work out. It was then that I realized that there are a million issues at play here.
Firstly, the obvious (or maybe not-so-obvious) stuff. As someone who has seen plenty of foreign films subtitled I thought I knew the basics. Text should appear in a sans-serif typeface with a black outline to stand out against the picture. When characters speak the text should appear relative to their location on screen. It occurred to me that maybe there are some kind of standardized rules for use of italics, dashes to denote different character dialog, etc. I decided to look it up. Not only do I want to do a good job for the benefit of my extended family, but now I was interested.
In the US and Canada there is a distinction between subtitles and closed captions. Closed captions assume the viewer is hard of hearing. Subtitles assume the viewer can hear but does not understand the language of the program. So closed captions would not bother translating, say, the text of a sign. Subtitles would, because the sign (presumably) is in another language. Closed captions make note of sound effects and music cues; subtitles do not, because there's no language barrier there. Interesting stuff.
Another technical difference between closed captions and subtitles is, traditionally, closed captions refer specifically to a sub-signal of text broadcast concurrently with programming. You used to need a special box to decode the signal for captions, but today all TVs have it built in. Also, the 'closed' part of closed captions refers to the option to opt-in or out of the captioning. IE, it's a closed system. So, technically, that means the subtitle track on a DVD is also 'closed'.
For my purposes, I am going to combine characteristics of both for my subtitles. I am going to include text for sound effects and music, because I assume that if you turn on the english subtitles for an english language program, it means you are deaf or hard of hearing. Come to think of it, that's probably the norm. But I don't really know.
I was looking for some kind of guide for caption/subtitle etiquette. In other words, is there a standard usage for italics? If there is, my deaf family would be familiar with that, and I don't want to confuse them. Turns out there really doesn't seem to be a definitive approach. One guy says you should only use italics for off-screen dialog, such as narration, and nothing else. But I'm pretty sure I've seen it used to indicate the speech of a second character. I was also confused about the use of dashes to denote different character speech in the same shot. There doesn't seem to be a ruling on this. There seem to be some strong opinions about what is 'right' and 'wrong', but it seems like no matter what I do, it'll break somebody's rules.
But here's where things get really interesting. In transcribing my own movie, I have the opportunity to recontextualize it. I can subtly alter the language of the dialog. I can place more emphasis on certain points or phrases. This is almost unconscious. I can choose to indicate certain sounds and not others. This is not as straightforward as you might think. Because of the loose style of the movie, there is a lot of overlapping dialog, colloquialisms, grunting/muttering, etc. Stuff that doesn't really have consequence. But shouldn't I include it not matter what? I mean, it's there, and I want my deaf family to have as close to the same experience as hearing people do as possible. But there are instances when I feel including certain 'non-dialog-dialog' in the captioning would give it weight it wasn't meant to have. It's just there because it sounds natural, but when it appears in text, it's given more importance and changes the meaning. So it's not so clear-cut.
Strange things come up, like whether to spell 'cum' like the porn sites do it or like 'come' that seems to me like some strangely sanitized explicitness. Is it equally as shocking to read 'come' as it is 'cum'? But do I want it to be shocking? There's a lot of control in that subtle difference.
Plus there's the issue of sound quality overall. Because this was a production with extremely limited resources, some of the sound recording isn't the best. Some dialog has a different quality than in other scenes. Some lines aren't as loud or clean as I'd like. But for my deaf family this is a non-issue. The lines will appear as clearly as everything else. Sound, which is what separates the men from the boys in film production, is a non-issue for them. It will not weigh into their reading of the film at all.
Basically, there's a lot more at play here when you start getting down to it. I'm sure deaf people are caption-saavy, and they know how to interpret the different conventions in use in captions and subtitles. So I'll just do my best and trust that their smarts will make up for my deficiencies as a transcriber.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tables are Inconsequential
I am having a hell of time trying to make a new website for my movie, The Lionshare. I want it to be simple. The way I taught myself how to design a layout for a website, all those years ago, was through HTML tables. This is verboten. Tables were not meant for layouts. In fact, tables killed the web.
I understand what they're saying, mostly. CSS is far more efficient for web layouts, in terms of amount of code (though I don't see why that argument holds so much weight in the age of broadband internet). CSS is meant for layout, and the possibilities are great. Tables are meant to display tabulated data, and website layouts using tables are, in actuality, using a very roundabout way to do what it's trying to do and are very limited in doing so.
My problem is this is not how I learned to regard tables. I learned to layout my websites with tables. In fact, I found it quite freeing, back in 1999 through 2003. I get the concept of CSS, but I'm having difficulty retraining my mind to think of design in terms of CSS.
I want a really simple website for right now. I really do. The problem is I feel pressure from the net elite to make my website the 'right' way. But in trying to CSS it I get bogged down and frustrated. I want to concentrate on content.
Maybe I should just take the advice I heard last night: an inconsequential difference is no difference at all. For my purposes, tables vs. CSS is inconsequential.
I understand what they're saying, mostly. CSS is far more efficient for web layouts, in terms of amount of code (though I don't see why that argument holds so much weight in the age of broadband internet). CSS is meant for layout, and the possibilities are great. Tables are meant to display tabulated data, and website layouts using tables are, in actuality, using a very roundabout way to do what it's trying to do and are very limited in doing so.
My problem is this is not how I learned to regard tables. I learned to layout my websites with tables. In fact, I found it quite freeing, back in 1999 through 2003. I get the concept of CSS, but I'm having difficulty retraining my mind to think of design in terms of CSS.
I want a really simple website for right now. I really do. The problem is I feel pressure from the net elite to make my website the 'right' way. But in trying to CSS it I get bogged down and frustrated. I want to concentrate on content.
Maybe I should just take the advice I heard last night: an inconsequential difference is no difference at all. For my purposes, tables vs. CSS is inconsequential.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
phraseology: dead reckoning
If this were a magazine or some kind of legit periodical I would probably call this the start of a new 'column' or 'feature'. I write a lot and I enjoy hearing new and interesting phrases. I kind of collect them, I suppose. For titles of stories or to pepper in conversation or whatever. Never know when you might need a new phrase. I also like finding out their origin, because if I understand it, I'll remember it and know how to use it.
So from time to time I think I'll post new phrases I encounter and find interesting. For my purposes, I'll refer to memes and terms as phrases. In addition, I have a thing for neologisms, which Wikipedia defines as
dead reckoning
Kind of rolls of the tongue and curls up in your ear, doesn't it? It sounds biblical. It sounds, well, serious like death is serious. Might make a good episode title of some future show. Might not. According to Wikipedia, 'dead reckoning' is
It's also the name of a Humphrey Bogart film, two separate bands, and the original title for Land of the Dead.
So from time to time I think I'll post new phrases I encounter and find interesting. For my purposes, I'll refer to memes and terms as phrases. In addition, I have a thing for neologisms, which Wikipedia defines as
a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream languageAnyway, my latest phrase discovery, if you haven't already guessed from the title of this post, is
dead reckoning
Kind of rolls of the tongue and curls up in your ear, doesn't it? It sounds biblical. It sounds, well, serious like death is serious. Might make a good episode title of some future show. Might not. According to Wikipedia, 'dead reckoning' is
the process of estimating one's current position based upon a previously determined position, or fix, and advancing that position based upon known or estimated speeds over elapsed time, and course.Basically, navigating that relies on knowing where and how far you've gone since the last time you knew where you were. Not based on, say, the stars in the sky or somesuch. There are two accounts of where this comes from. One is that it is short for 'deduced reckoning', which is pretty straightforward. The other is that stellar navigation is considered 'live', so not relying on the stars would be 'dead'.
It's also the name of a Humphrey Bogart film, two separate bands, and the original title for Land of the Dead.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
technology fail
I'm having a rare (lately, at least) moment where I'm actually trying to write something. I write almost exclusively in screenplay format. I use a legitmate version of Final Draft, with a legit serial number. IE, one that I paid for. The catch is, because I bought an academic license, I can only have the software 'activated' on one computer at a time. I am using my 10+ year old Powerbook G4. It's only good for word processing and browsing the nets. I cannot open Final Draft because it's not accepting my serial number. You need to deactivate it on another computer before you can activate it to use on another. I did that. It's still not working.
Fucking. Stupid.
This is the kind of stupid bullshit that punishes legitimate users from using products that they paid for in the way that they want to use them. I am pissed.
Fucking. Stupid.
This is the kind of stupid bullshit that punishes legitimate users from using products that they paid for in the way that they want to use them. I am pissed.
Monday, March 23, 2009
what's with all this god in my television?
Spoilers to follow for the finale of Battlestar Galactica.
I've been a huge fan of Battlestar since the mini, and it only got better and better from there. I met Ronald D. Moore. I gave him scotch and a pack of smokes. My fan credentials are legit.
Overall I thought Friday's finale, "Daybreak," was a fitting end. However, the more I think about it, the less and less satisfied I am with the "god did it" hand-waving explanation for some of the show's long-running mysteries. There was too much emphasis, too many red-herrings, for that to be it. Yes, 'god' has been an element of the show from the beginning, so this is not a case of deus ex machina, no matter how much the fanboys like to scream that. And yes, I realize most any other explanation would probably have been unsatisfying. I can relate. In college, I created a serial for the campus TV station that had an on-going mystery central to the premise of the show, and the longer it went on, the more it got away from me. By the end, after thinking of almost every possible permutation, vague and mystical seemed the way to go. I was never happy with that.
I get a similar impression from Battlestar and where it ultimately ended up. It's clear the 'improvisational' nature of the show left too many dead-ends and loose threads to be tied up in a perfect little bow by the end. Which is fine, I suppose, I was just expecting more. In fact, I think we were led to expect more, which is the real problem.
But ultimately, I was satisfied, because in the end I gave more a shit about the characters than the 'mythology' of the show. But even in that regard, I feel the Starbuck story missed the mark. I can't help but feel cheated by her disappearing act. I really do. And I have tried to rationalize it, but I can't. I feel let down. And that sucks, but what are you gonna do, right? Though, truth be told, I can't really come up with an alternate end for her character that would be that much better.
Looking back, I think all my problems with the show can be traced back to the introduction of the concept of the 'final five' Cylons. That never sat right with me, and in the final analysis, where it took the show wasn't worth it. But you win some, you lose some. The show took many narrative chances that paid off in spades. I can't really fault them for making a gutsy call that didn't pan out completely to my liking.
The other thing that really goads my nad about the finale was the realization that the whole 'god' thing really went against the whole 'naturalistic science-fiction' that the show was supposed to embody. It's just not consistent with the DNA of the show, I think. Though I suppose that all went out the window when Roslin started having visions way back in season one. Who the fuck knows. If anything, this just puts the final nail in certain sci-fi tropes for me. I never want to write anything with prophetic dreams, ancient prophecies, or visions. I think it's all bullshit. Narratively, that is.
Anyway. BSG is over now. That's sad to me. Surprisingly, the new show Kings on NBC has really grabbed me. It's the kind of high-concept series that you'd never expect a network to take a chance on. But NBC is hurting and hurting badly these days, so I guess they're willing to try anything, including something crazy like putting some adult, challenging, ballsy television on their air. From what I've read, the ratings are in the shitter, so they'll probably can it before they finish their 13-episode run. Fuck TV.
What I realized watching the second episode last night is the not-so-subtle divine presence in the world of Kings, striking to me because of the Battlestar finale two nights earlier. Though I suppose it makes more sense for this show, since it's based on the Biblical story of David, so, I mean, what are you going to do. What's with all this god stuff in my TV lately? Are we being primed for His ultimate return?
I've been a huge fan of Battlestar since the mini, and it only got better and better from there. I met Ronald D. Moore. I gave him scotch and a pack of smokes. My fan credentials are legit.
Overall I thought Friday's finale, "Daybreak," was a fitting end. However, the more I think about it, the less and less satisfied I am with the "god did it" hand-waving explanation for some of the show's long-running mysteries. There was too much emphasis, too many red-herrings, for that to be it. Yes, 'god' has been an element of the show from the beginning, so this is not a case of deus ex machina, no matter how much the fanboys like to scream that. And yes, I realize most any other explanation would probably have been unsatisfying. I can relate. In college, I created a serial for the campus TV station that had an on-going mystery central to the premise of the show, and the longer it went on, the more it got away from me. By the end, after thinking of almost every possible permutation, vague and mystical seemed the way to go. I was never happy with that.
I get a similar impression from Battlestar and where it ultimately ended up. It's clear the 'improvisational' nature of the show left too many dead-ends and loose threads to be tied up in a perfect little bow by the end. Which is fine, I suppose, I was just expecting more. In fact, I think we were led to expect more, which is the real problem.
But ultimately, I was satisfied, because in the end I gave more a shit about the characters than the 'mythology' of the show. But even in that regard, I feel the Starbuck story missed the mark. I can't help but feel cheated by her disappearing act. I really do. And I have tried to rationalize it, but I can't. I feel let down. And that sucks, but what are you gonna do, right? Though, truth be told, I can't really come up with an alternate end for her character that would be that much better.
Looking back, I think all my problems with the show can be traced back to the introduction of the concept of the 'final five' Cylons. That never sat right with me, and in the final analysis, where it took the show wasn't worth it. But you win some, you lose some. The show took many narrative chances that paid off in spades. I can't really fault them for making a gutsy call that didn't pan out completely to my liking.
The other thing that really goads my nad about the finale was the realization that the whole 'god' thing really went against the whole 'naturalistic science-fiction' that the show was supposed to embody. It's just not consistent with the DNA of the show, I think. Though I suppose that all went out the window when Roslin started having visions way back in season one. Who the fuck knows. If anything, this just puts the final nail in certain sci-fi tropes for me. I never want to write anything with prophetic dreams, ancient prophecies, or visions. I think it's all bullshit. Narratively, that is.
Anyway. BSG is over now. That's sad to me. Surprisingly, the new show Kings on NBC has really grabbed me. It's the kind of high-concept series that you'd never expect a network to take a chance on. But NBC is hurting and hurting badly these days, so I guess they're willing to try anything, including something crazy like putting some adult, challenging, ballsy television on their air. From what I've read, the ratings are in the shitter, so they'll probably can it before they finish their 13-episode run. Fuck TV.
What I realized watching the second episode last night is the not-so-subtle divine presence in the world of Kings, striking to me because of the Battlestar finale two nights earlier. Though I suppose it makes more sense for this show, since it's based on the Biblical story of David, so, I mean, what are you going to do. What's with all this god stuff in my TV lately? Are we being primed for His ultimate return?
Friday, March 20, 2009
dNLd
I walked past my television the other night, and there was a weird thing displayed on the cable box. I realized it was downloading something. That's fine. Back to sleep.
Yesterday I turn on the TV, and my guide has an all new interface. Well, technically, it's the same interface, but they changed the graphics. I don't like it.
It's like when they changed Facebook on me again last week. I'm in the minority camp in support of that one, but I haven't yet acclimated to it. Facebook finds itself in a strange situation where it has become, very rapidly, an integral part of an entire generation's (and then some) daily social activities. I'm sure a good portion of Facebook users check the site multiple times a day, sometimes without even thinking. It's almost second nature. So, when a change is made on the scale of the recent Twitterizing of Facebook, people take it personally. It's like you painted their bedroom a color of your own choosing while they were at work. And then the 'NEW FACEBOOK FUCKING SUCKS' groups pop-up, and everyone's status messages are all aflame with faux-but-not-so-faux outrage. People want the old feed back. Which is funny, because if you'll recall, there was the same kind of WHAT IS THIS NEW FUCKING BULLSHIT reaction when they made that change as well.
I remember that. When they added the 'feed' thing to the home screen, and all of a sudden you saw what everyone else was up to. Nobody liked it. I didn't like it. I didn't want to happen upon pictures of my ex-girlfriend drunk at some party making out with dudes, or catch douchebag guys posting on my ex-girlfriend's wall, or being reminded in any way that my ex-girlfriend was alive and doing anything other than hating herself for breaking up with me. Back in the halcyon days of my freshman year, the equivalent was compulsively checking your ex's away message on AIM. Back then, AIM was Facebook, basically. But now Facebook was putting that shit in your face. It may seem a small difference, but it was a big change.
But then I realized something after reading an interview with Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook wouldn't work without the feed. Before that change, the only way you knew what someone was up to would be to actively check out their profile page. You didn't check everyone's page every time you visited, nor would you want to. This made Facebook something only slightly more than a dynamically updated yearbook. The addition of the feed turned Facebook into a real social tool, poised to become an integral part of social interaction for the netgen. ('Netgen'--did I just make that up? Either way, it's a neologism, something I've been meaning to write a post about on its own.)
Anyway, the point is, I'm not totally on board with the new, Twittery Facebook. I had just perfected the art of the Josh is... status message, even though they no longer required the 'is' and even now you can still type in the 'is', but you're forcing it. But I'll get used to it, and everyone else will, and it's not your website, there's a reason for the change, if it really sucks that bad they'll change it to something else, so shut the fuck up.
This thing with my cable box turned into a weird Facebook rant. Getting back to that for a second: not only did the GUI change, but I swear to god that some of my old DVR'd recordings that I had deleted came back. Is that possible? Does that mean that there's some kind of record and/or back-up of my box's hard disk? What the fuck.
Yesterday I turn on the TV, and my guide has an all new interface. Well, technically, it's the same interface, but they changed the graphics. I don't like it.
It's like when they changed Facebook on me again last week. I'm in the minority camp in support of that one, but I haven't yet acclimated to it. Facebook finds itself in a strange situation where it has become, very rapidly, an integral part of an entire generation's (and then some) daily social activities. I'm sure a good portion of Facebook users check the site multiple times a day, sometimes without even thinking. It's almost second nature. So, when a change is made on the scale of the recent Twitterizing of Facebook, people take it personally. It's like you painted their bedroom a color of your own choosing while they were at work. And then the 'NEW FACEBOOK FUCKING SUCKS' groups pop-up, and everyone's status messages are all aflame with faux-but-not-so-faux outrage. People want the old feed back. Which is funny, because if you'll recall, there was the same kind of WHAT IS THIS NEW FUCKING BULLSHIT reaction when they made that change as well.
I remember that. When they added the 'feed' thing to the home screen, and all of a sudden you saw what everyone else was up to. Nobody liked it. I didn't like it. I didn't want to happen upon pictures of my ex-girlfriend drunk at some party making out with dudes, or catch douchebag guys posting on my ex-girlfriend's wall, or being reminded in any way that my ex-girlfriend was alive and doing anything other than hating herself for breaking up with me. Back in the halcyon days of my freshman year, the equivalent was compulsively checking your ex's away message on AIM. Back then, AIM was Facebook, basically. But now Facebook was putting that shit in your face. It may seem a small difference, but it was a big change.
But then I realized something after reading an interview with Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook wouldn't work without the feed. Before that change, the only way you knew what someone was up to would be to actively check out their profile page. You didn't check everyone's page every time you visited, nor would you want to. This made Facebook something only slightly more than a dynamically updated yearbook. The addition of the feed turned Facebook into a real social tool, poised to become an integral part of social interaction for the netgen. ('Netgen'--did I just make that up? Either way, it's a neologism, something I've been meaning to write a post about on its own.)
Anyway, the point is, I'm not totally on board with the new, Twittery Facebook. I had just perfected the art of the Josh is... status message, even though they no longer required the 'is' and even now you can still type in the 'is', but you're forcing it. But I'll get used to it, and everyone else will, and it's not your website, there's a reason for the change, if it really sucks that bad they'll change it to something else, so shut the fuck up.
This thing with my cable box turned into a weird Facebook rant. Getting back to that for a second: not only did the GUI change, but I swear to god that some of my old DVR'd recordings that I had deleted came back. Is that possible? Does that mean that there's some kind of record and/or back-up of my box's hard disk? What the fuck.
high concept
I just read a great definition for the term 'high concept', specifically as it relates to a story/movie:
the premise is the reason it exists.
A movie like Minority Report is high concept because it's about what would happen if you could see crimes that hadn't been committed yet. That's why it exists. Not because it's a movie about a father who has lost his son.
Actually, I may have just complicated that simple, elegant definition by being partially wrong with my example. I don't know.
Food for thought provided by John August.
the premise is the reason it exists.
A movie like Minority Report is high concept because it's about what would happen if you could see crimes that hadn't been committed yet. That's why it exists. Not because it's a movie about a father who has lost his son.
Actually, I may have just complicated that simple, elegant definition by being partially wrong with my example. I don't know.
Food for thought provided by John August.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I am from the Future
You may have heard, but two days ago amazon.com released their Kindle app for the iPhone. I had some time to kill so I downloaded it while waiting for a friend to get out of a meeting.
Immediately I was downloading sample first chapters from the Kindle store. Books that I would never go out and buy, but if they were sitting around, I'd probably pick up and read. I read the first chapter of Malcom Gladwell's Outliers. When I got home, I bought the full book for $9.99. Yesterday, I finished it.
I read an entire book on my iPhone.
amazon.com has made a genius move, if I am any indication. I like the idea of the Kindle, but it's too cost prohibitive. By offering their Kindle app for free, I now have access to their almost 250,000 e-books. And I am actively reading and buying from them. I don't own a Kindle. But now I really want one.
I realized something else from my Kindle/iPhone reading experience. I had no concept of how long the book was. They have some kind of 'position count' thing but it doesn't seem to correspond to page numbers. (But I'm probably just an idiot on that front.) This made me realize that, despite all my years of reading books, I still experience a subconscious intimidation by page count and book thickness. There's still a little voice in the back of my mind, some strange holdover from elementary school when reading an entire book was a daunting prospect, that says "this is a lot to read, you'll never finish it." Weird huh? The point is, this disappeared when reading on the iPhone. I had no concept of how long the book was, and I didn't care. I was just into it and kept on going.
There's also the added convenience of carrying multiple books in your pocket on a device that you always have on you. I'm not one of those people that carries a book with them everywhere to read on the train and such--in fact, unless I know I have a good chunk to devote to reading, I won't bother at all. But, again, this changed with the phone. I got in two chapters on the subway. I read a few more pages while my friend was taking a phone call from her mom. I read more before sleep with all the lights out, made possible by the self-illuminated screen.
I don't know, this is just crazy to me. I read a book. On my phone. And I found it a perfectly enjoyable experience. Still, if there was a book that I really wanted to read, I would still buy a hard copy. You know, an actual bound book. I still want there to be real, bound books printed on paper. But I never would have bought Outliers. And even if I did, once I read it, it would be just another over-priced hardcover taking up space on my shelf.
I downloaded sample chapters from books that I had a slight inkling to read but knew I probably never would. One is Nixonland. Let's see if I get into it.
Immediately I was downloading sample first chapters from the Kindle store. Books that I would never go out and buy, but if they were sitting around, I'd probably pick up and read. I read the first chapter of Malcom Gladwell's Outliers. When I got home, I bought the full book for $9.99. Yesterday, I finished it.
I read an entire book on my iPhone.
amazon.com has made a genius move, if I am any indication. I like the idea of the Kindle, but it's too cost prohibitive. By offering their Kindle app for free, I now have access to their almost 250,000 e-books. And I am actively reading and buying from them. I don't own a Kindle. But now I really want one.
I realized something else from my Kindle/iPhone reading experience. I had no concept of how long the book was. They have some kind of 'position count' thing but it doesn't seem to correspond to page numbers. (But I'm probably just an idiot on that front.) This made me realize that, despite all my years of reading books, I still experience a subconscious intimidation by page count and book thickness. There's still a little voice in the back of my mind, some strange holdover from elementary school when reading an entire book was a daunting prospect, that says "this is a lot to read, you'll never finish it." Weird huh? The point is, this disappeared when reading on the iPhone. I had no concept of how long the book was, and I didn't care. I was just into it and kept on going.
There's also the added convenience of carrying multiple books in your pocket on a device that you always have on you. I'm not one of those people that carries a book with them everywhere to read on the train and such--in fact, unless I know I have a good chunk to devote to reading, I won't bother at all. But, again, this changed with the phone. I got in two chapters on the subway. I read a few more pages while my friend was taking a phone call from her mom. I read more before sleep with all the lights out, made possible by the self-illuminated screen.
I don't know, this is just crazy to me. I read a book. On my phone. And I found it a perfectly enjoyable experience. Still, if there was a book that I really wanted to read, I would still buy a hard copy. You know, an actual bound book. I still want there to be real, bound books printed on paper. But I never would have bought Outliers. And even if I did, once I read it, it would be just another over-priced hardcover taking up space on my shelf.
I downloaded sample chapters from books that I had a slight inkling to read but knew I probably never would. One is Nixonland. Let's see if I get into it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
back inaction
My last attempt to maintain a personal blog fizzled, but now I'm back to it for reasons I don't know. Actually, that's not true, it's a combination of things: first, I've been extraordinarily entertained by my good friend Russ's blog for some months now, and it reminded me how fun it is to give voice to random thoughts and observations that would otherwise remain trapped and forgotten in my mindbrain. Second, I want a reason to write something. I've felt the urge to write lately, but for some unhappy reason, that hasn't translated into starting a new screenplay yet. But the desire to write remains. So here we go.
Since my last posting two whole calender years ago, I have done several things. I've quit two jobs. I've moved from my parents' house to Astoria, Queens. I have finished the feature movie I wanted to make. A black man is president.
Lots has happened, lots of good. Some bad too, both personal and macro-economic, but lots of good. I should feel accomplished and happy with what I've done and where I'm at, but I'm not, and that's no good. I'm trying to work on that.
Since my last posting two whole calender years ago, I have done several things. I've quit two jobs. I've moved from my parents' house to Astoria, Queens. I have finished the feature movie I wanted to make. A black man is president.
Lots has happened, lots of good. Some bad too, both personal and macro-economic, but lots of good. I should feel accomplished and happy with what I've done and where I'm at, but I'm not, and that's no good. I'm trying to work on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)