I just felt like sharing a few of my favorite Bible verses, specifically those that I see as being related to my profession.
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
-- Psalms 19:1-4 (NIV)
What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
-- Romans 1:19-20 (NIV)
The universe that God has created is a reflection of his glory. Although many people nowadays see science as the opponent of God and religion, I see science as a form of worship. I study this world, and this solar system, and this galaxy and this universe that God has created, because it reminds my day-by-day of the awesome power and majesty of our Creator, and by studying it, I am in essence studying God.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Not all Blocks are Frictionless, nor Springs Massless
I recently was in a situation where I realized my theoretical physics knowledge was subtly working against me, in a real-world situation.
Let me begin by saying I've been having really bad luck with tires recently. Maybe it's because I drive about 2 hours each weekend to visit my fiance, and it adds an unusual amount of wear and tear on my tires, I don't know. What I do know is that in the past year or two, I've been forced to replace a tire 4-5 times. It was only a few weeks ago, when I got a flat and had to replace the most recent 2 tires that it was apparent enough for the particular repair place I was near to tell me this is NOT due to running over something on the road, etc. In short, the tire was just destroyed from the inside out, probably due to improper pressure in the tires. I had been driving on under-inflated tires, probably for quite some time.
Under-inflated? I didn't get it. Aren't tires air-tight? Where would the air go, if it's a closed system. Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a car idiot. My mechanic knowledge goes about as far as adding oil, adding gas, and replacing a flat tire with a spare (I've gotten REALLY good at that part in recent years, in fact). So when I asked the mechanic how often I should be checking the pressure of my tires, myself, he suggested once a month.
Once a month. So slightly more often than "check the pressure, how do you do that?"
Needless to say, I bought a pressure reader display thingy and as soon as I got home from the mechanic, I checked the pressure on my tires. The two they replaced were exactly what the label on the tire said it should be, 44 PSI. One of the back tires was at 35 PSI. The other back tire was at something like 22 PSI, nearly HALF deflated. I very promptly went to the nearest gas station and filled them with air to the correct pressure.
So apparently, tires are not a PERFECT, ideal system. Air can, in fact, leak out over time, so that a perfect 44 PSI tire today might not stay that way indefinitely.
Welcome to the world of masses with friction, springs with mass, and objects that are not perfect spheres. It's a scary place.
Let me begin by saying I've been having really bad luck with tires recently. Maybe it's because I drive about 2 hours each weekend to visit my fiance, and it adds an unusual amount of wear and tear on my tires, I don't know. What I do know is that in the past year or two, I've been forced to replace a tire 4-5 times. It was only a few weeks ago, when I got a flat and had to replace the most recent 2 tires that it was apparent enough for the particular repair place I was near to tell me this is NOT due to running over something on the road, etc. In short, the tire was just destroyed from the inside out, probably due to improper pressure in the tires. I had been driving on under-inflated tires, probably for quite some time.
Under-inflated? I didn't get it. Aren't tires air-tight? Where would the air go, if it's a closed system. Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a car idiot. My mechanic knowledge goes about as far as adding oil, adding gas, and replacing a flat tire with a spare (I've gotten REALLY good at that part in recent years, in fact). So when I asked the mechanic how often I should be checking the pressure of my tires, myself, he suggested once a month.
Once a month. So slightly more often than "check the pressure, how do you do that?"
Needless to say, I bought a pressure reader display thingy and as soon as I got home from the mechanic, I checked the pressure on my tires. The two they replaced were exactly what the label on the tire said it should be, 44 PSI. One of the back tires was at 35 PSI. The other back tire was at something like 22 PSI, nearly HALF deflated. I very promptly went to the nearest gas station and filled them with air to the correct pressure.
So apparently, tires are not a PERFECT, ideal system. Air can, in fact, leak out over time, so that a perfect 44 PSI tire today might not stay that way indefinitely.
Welcome to the world of masses with friction, springs with mass, and objects that are not perfect spheres. It's a scary place.
Two More Papers Brings the Total to 3.
It's been several months since my last post, but I assure you, my non-existent reader(s), that I am still alive and kicking. My girlfriend of several years is now my fiance. We've had the promise dinner thingy, and our families have met, and it all went very well. We are planning to get married after we get our respective degrees, sometime in summer '09. I'm still doing research at UCI steady as always. And in two weeks, I'm heading back to a family vacation in Yosemite which should be fun.
Speaking of research, in the past month or so, I've had two more papers come out onto astro-ph, the online journal cite that pretty much the entire astronomy community posts to.
Berrier et al 2008 (papers with > 3 authors are generally referred to by the first author's name "et al" and the year) can be found here. I'm the 2nd author on this paper, and it's been a long time coming. The 1-sentence summary is that galaxies residing today in big clusters of galaxies tend to fall in to the cluster alone, not in small groups of a few galaxies at a time.
Cooke et al 2008 can be found here. I'm 4th author on this one, because mostly I just provided some theoretical comparison that the first author used in 1-2 paragraphs of the paper. This paper has actually gotten a bit of more mainstream media attention, because the main result can be "packaged" in a layman-friendly way. In this paper, we discovered a cluster of galaxies in a very early part of its formation, roughly 11.4 billion light years away, which is the farthest away scientists have ever discovered a merging group of galaxies (instead of just a single bright galaxy. It's very hard to distinguish a source into components so far away.) A press release from sciencedaily.com can be found here.
Does it seem somewhat depressing that after 4 months of no posts, this is all the news I really have? I suppose some might consider my life boring, but I like it. It's not so much boring as it is... consistent. Now if I had a "McJob" that required me to stand around and do nothing all day, THAT would be boring, but my life involves a lot of brainpower. Unless I'm watching TV or something. Because sometimes you gotta give your brain a break now and then.
Speaking of research, in the past month or so, I've had two more papers come out onto astro-ph, the online journal cite that pretty much the entire astronomy community posts to.
Berrier et al 2008 (papers with > 3 authors are generally referred to by the first author's name "et al" and the year) can be found here. I'm the 2nd author on this paper, and it's been a long time coming. The 1-sentence summary is that galaxies residing today in big clusters of galaxies tend to fall in to the cluster alone, not in small groups of a few galaxies at a time.
Cooke et al 2008 can be found here. I'm 4th author on this one, because mostly I just provided some theoretical comparison that the first author used in 1-2 paragraphs of the paper. This paper has actually gotten a bit of more mainstream media attention, because the main result can be "packaged" in a layman-friendly way. In this paper, we discovered a cluster of galaxies in a very early part of its formation, roughly 11.4 billion light years away, which is the farthest away scientists have ever discovered a merging group of galaxies (instead of just a single bright galaxy. It's very hard to distinguish a source into components so far away.) A press release from sciencedaily.com can be found here.
Does it seem somewhat depressing that after 4 months of no posts, this is all the news I really have? I suppose some might consider my life boring, but I like it. It's not so much boring as it is... consistent. Now if I had a "McJob" that required me to stand around and do nothing all day, THAT would be boring, but my life involves a lot of brainpower. Unless I'm watching TV or something. Because sometimes you gotta give your brain a break now and then.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
The Golden Compass
I'm choosing to boycott the new movie "The Golden Compass" despite the fact that it looks quite entertaining and well-made (based on previews) and despite the fact that I love the fantasy genre in all shapes and forms (TV, movie, book, video game, etc).
Before I go into the details of why I'm choosing to boycott this movie, here is an email that has been going around on the subject:
[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]
There will be a new Children's movie out in December called THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It is written by Phillip Pullman, a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies. He hates C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side. The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please. Nicole Kidman stars in the movie so it will probably be advertised a lot. This is just a friendly warning that you sure won't hear on the regular TV.
[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]
I don't just generally dismiss a movie or book just because someone 'says' it's meant to be something else...but this is worth knowing if you plan to see it (or plan to take your kids).
"Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.
He's an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.
They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.
If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision.
----------------------------------------------------
I want to preface the rest of this post by saying I have not read any of the books in question. I have, however, had online discussions in a writer's forum with those who have read the books. The generalizations I will make about the trilogy's plot are based on 2nd hand knowledge -- based on the descriptions given by people who have, indeed, read the trilogy.
We live in a free country, and a writer has the right to detail any kind of story he wants. The fact that this series of books deals with a church very obviously resembling the Christian church is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the heroes of the story are setting out to destroy/dethrone this establishment is also perfectly acceptable. This is the author's world. The allusions to actual figures in history, or actual religions is his prerogative, although I personally prefer fantasy religions to be, more or less, fabrications, so that I can be assured the author isn't using his novel to try to "preach at me" one way or another.
One of the things that disturbs me, though, is that later on in the series, in book 2 or 3, the main characters are no longer battling corrupt officials of the world's religion (and, indeed, there are apparently "parallel worlds" in this series, so that at least one of them is fully intended to be our own world, and not a fantasy one, or so I've been informed). No, eventually, the true villain behind it all turns out to be God himself, and God's angels. Essentially the series portrays God, the creator of the various parallel worlds, as a being who essentially just likes to order people around and make them miserable, and it is up to the heroes of the story to stop this God so that people be free to do whatever they want.
Nevertheless, this is still a fictional world. So far, nothing I have said would make me bother posting about this series as I have done. Nothing so far would make me forward a chain email (I hate most chain emails). Even the fact that each of the three books gets progressively more blatant in its anti-Christianity theme wouldn't be enough to get me "riled up" as I am--"hooking" readers with a fantastic story with book 1, then slowly building the anti-religion theme and introducing God as the main villain later. But until now I haven't mentioned that the main heroes of this story are children. Indeed, the books are intended as a fantasy series for children, much like the Chronicles of Narnia.
But wait, you might say. I'm not allowed to go on some kind of "protect our children from outside influences" speech without disavowing the Chronicles of Narnia as well. After all, some atheists out there might be horrified if their children read the Narnia books and begin to believe in God--just like some Christians will be mortified if their children read this book series and cast aside their religious beliefs as a result, adopting an anti-religious skepticism. (I haven't read the Narnia books either, actually, so I'm only presuming that the Christian religious overtones are very strong in them, as I've been told as much.)
But even if the Narnia books heavily encouraged religious thought and Christian morals in particular, it didn't set out to bash any other beliefs. These books seem to be all about how organized religion--and Christianity in particular--is evil, oppressive, and all just a big sham. That's not the same as a fantasy series promoting atheism, or any other world-view. Besides, in the end, this IS a free country, and if I don't like the morals this series is trying to teach, even if that standpoint is completely valid, then I have the freedom to boycott this movie, and put my money where my heart is. Anyone opposed to the Narnia series can boycott those movies as well.
----------------------------------------------------
Pullman, the author denies that anti-Christianity in general was his intention, nor that "pro-atheism" was his intention. In his own words:
"My point is that religion is at its best — it does most good — when it is farthest away from political power, and that when it gets hold of the power to (for example) send armies to war or to condemn people to death, or to rule every aspect of our lives, it rapidly goes bad. Sometimes people think that if something is done in the name of faith or religion, it must be good. Unfortunately, that isn’t true; some things done in the name of religion are very bad. That was what I was trying to describe in my story."
Now what he actually says here is something I full-heartedly agree with. Blind faith--to the point of following religious "orders" that contradict the very NATURE of your religion, is bad. If the pope ordered all Catholics to murder all non-Christians, no one should obey him: it goes against the foundation of love, acceptance, and forgiveness taught by Christ, Himself. And if these are the true morals of the series, I would be tempted to read them, and probably even support them... if they weren't aimed at children.
Children, up to a certain age, tend to see the world in black and white. People are good or bad. Actions are good or bad. And these novels, when reduced to black and white, have the very clear message "religion is bad" and more specifically "Christianity is bad." If this were a series aimed at adults, I would applaud the moral ambiguity and complexity, because (IF done well, and even-handedly) it makes any imaginary world seem more real. But aiming this movie at children seems like a low blow, almost like the goal is to secretly indoctrinate children with an clear anti-religious mentality.
In short, since I haven't read the series, I can't honestly say "this is pure evil Christian-bashing." I can't even say for certain what morals are taught by the books. I haven't read them. In the end, my aim isn't even to "create a gathering" to boycott the movie with me, in attempt to oppose it. I just aim to inform those who didn't know better.
So in closing, if you were like me before I saw this chain email, and you just thought "The Golden Compass" was no different than any other fantasy movie out there, I only ask that you go in with your eyes open--especially if you take a child to see it, and most especially if that child would then want to read the books. Some children wouldn't be affected no matter what some silly fantasy books said. I know I was like that, even as a child--I would have found the "let's kill God, cuz he's evil" plot premise outright goofy. But some children are easily swayed. So think twice before you get your child excited about this seemingly harmless fantasy series.
Before I go into the details of why I'm choosing to boycott this movie, here is an email that has been going around on the subject:
[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]
There will be a new Children's movie out in December called THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It is written by Phillip Pullman, a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies. He hates C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side. The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please. Nicole Kidman stars in the movie so it will probably be advertised a lot. This is just a friendly warning that you sure won't hear on the regular TV.
[Collected via e-mail, October 2007]
I don't just generally dismiss a movie or book just because someone 'says' it's meant to be something else...but this is worth knowing if you plan to see it (or plan to take your kids).
"Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.
He's an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.
They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.
If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision.
----------------------------------------------------
I want to preface the rest of this post by saying I have not read any of the books in question. I have, however, had online discussions in a writer's forum with those who have read the books. The generalizations I will make about the trilogy's plot are based on 2nd hand knowledge -- based on the descriptions given by people who have, indeed, read the trilogy.
We live in a free country, and a writer has the right to detail any kind of story he wants. The fact that this series of books deals with a church very obviously resembling the Christian church is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the heroes of the story are setting out to destroy/dethrone this establishment is also perfectly acceptable. This is the author's world. The allusions to actual figures in history, or actual religions is his prerogative, although I personally prefer fantasy religions to be, more or less, fabrications, so that I can be assured the author isn't using his novel to try to "preach at me" one way or another.
One of the things that disturbs me, though, is that later on in the series, in book 2 or 3, the main characters are no longer battling corrupt officials of the world's religion (and, indeed, there are apparently "parallel worlds" in this series, so that at least one of them is fully intended to be our own world, and not a fantasy one, or so I've been informed). No, eventually, the true villain behind it all turns out to be God himself, and God's angels. Essentially the series portrays God, the creator of the various parallel worlds, as a being who essentially just likes to order people around and make them miserable, and it is up to the heroes of the story to stop this God so that people be free to do whatever they want.
Nevertheless, this is still a fictional world. So far, nothing I have said would make me bother posting about this series as I have done. Nothing so far would make me forward a chain email (I hate most chain emails). Even the fact that each of the three books gets progressively more blatant in its anti-Christianity theme wouldn't be enough to get me "riled up" as I am--"hooking" readers with a fantastic story with book 1, then slowly building the anti-religion theme and introducing God as the main villain later. But until now I haven't mentioned that the main heroes of this story are children. Indeed, the books are intended as a fantasy series for children, much like the Chronicles of Narnia.
But wait, you might say. I'm not allowed to go on some kind of "protect our children from outside influences" speech without disavowing the Chronicles of Narnia as well. After all, some atheists out there might be horrified if their children read the Narnia books and begin to believe in God--just like some Christians will be mortified if their children read this book series and cast aside their religious beliefs as a result, adopting an anti-religious skepticism. (I haven't read the Narnia books either, actually, so I'm only presuming that the Christian religious overtones are very strong in them, as I've been told as much.)
But even if the Narnia books heavily encouraged religious thought and Christian morals in particular, it didn't set out to bash any other beliefs. These books seem to be all about how organized religion--and Christianity in particular--is evil, oppressive, and all just a big sham. That's not the same as a fantasy series promoting atheism, or any other world-view. Besides, in the end, this IS a free country, and if I don't like the morals this series is trying to teach, even if that standpoint is completely valid, then I have the freedom to boycott this movie, and put my money where my heart is. Anyone opposed to the Narnia series can boycott those movies as well.
----------------------------------------------------
Pullman, the author denies that anti-Christianity in general was his intention, nor that "pro-atheism" was his intention. In his own words:
"My point is that religion is at its best — it does most good — when it is farthest away from political power, and that when it gets hold of the power to (for example) send armies to war or to condemn people to death, or to rule every aspect of our lives, it rapidly goes bad. Sometimes people think that if something is done in the name of faith or religion, it must be good. Unfortunately, that isn’t true; some things done in the name of religion are very bad. That was what I was trying to describe in my story."
Now what he actually says here is something I full-heartedly agree with. Blind faith--to the point of following religious "orders" that contradict the very NATURE of your religion, is bad. If the pope ordered all Catholics to murder all non-Christians, no one should obey him: it goes against the foundation of love, acceptance, and forgiveness taught by Christ, Himself. And if these are the true morals of the series, I would be tempted to read them, and probably even support them... if they weren't aimed at children.
Children, up to a certain age, tend to see the world in black and white. People are good or bad. Actions are good or bad. And these novels, when reduced to black and white, have the very clear message "religion is bad" and more specifically "Christianity is bad." If this were a series aimed at adults, I would applaud the moral ambiguity and complexity, because (IF done well, and even-handedly) it makes any imaginary world seem more real. But aiming this movie at children seems like a low blow, almost like the goal is to secretly indoctrinate children with an clear anti-religious mentality.
In short, since I haven't read the series, I can't honestly say "this is pure evil Christian-bashing." I can't even say for certain what morals are taught by the books. I haven't read them. In the end, my aim isn't even to "create a gathering" to boycott the movie with me, in attempt to oppose it. I just aim to inform those who didn't know better.
So in closing, if you were like me before I saw this chain email, and you just thought "The Golden Compass" was no different than any other fantasy movie out there, I only ask that you go in with your eyes open--especially if you take a child to see it, and most especially if that child would then want to read the books. Some children wouldn't be affected no matter what some silly fantasy books said. I know I was like that, even as a child--I would have found the "let's kill God, cuz he's evil" plot premise outright goofy. But some children are easily swayed. So think twice before you get your child excited about this seemingly harmless fantasy series.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Stewart et. al. 2007
My first major paper in my career in astrophysics has now been made public to the scientific community, and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for consideration. It is the first paper to appear in the community with my name attached as an author, but even more important, it is also my first FIRST author paper. That means this paper is essentially "mine" insomuch as any paper with mulitple authors can belong to a single author.
I believe it also represents a very interesting and important topic of research, regarding our current understanding of galaxy formation in a LCDM universe (current best-guess of nature of the universe).
The abstract, and links to a free pdf download of the paper, can be found here.
This paper began as a short 3-4 page "letter" paper, sometime in March-April earlier this year, so this has been a long time coming, and it feels great to finally have it out there!
I believe it also represents a very interesting and important topic of research, regarding our current understanding of galaxy formation in a LCDM universe (current best-guess of nature of the universe).
The abstract, and links to a free pdf download of the paper, can be found here.
This paper began as a short 3-4 page "letter" paper, sometime in March-April earlier this year, so this has been a long time coming, and it feels great to finally have it out there!
NaNoWriMo (kinda)
So for the second year in a row I've participated in National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) which takes place every November. Essentially, it ia an honor-based, just-for-fun "contest" in which anyone who wants to can create an account and attempt to write a 50,000 word novel (kinda short though, so more like a novelette) in a single month, spanning from 12:00:01 AM November 1st through 11:59:59 November 30th.
Last year, I took the opportunity to get down 60% or so of a rough draft of a fantasy novel. Or should I say, a fantasy sequel, as it is, indeed, a sequel to the fantasy novel I've been tinkering with since high school (and which I've finished, to the extent that I'm now searching for literary agents / publishers / etc in attempt to publish it.)
This year, because I wasn't quite ready to put this task aside and work on another completely new project (and becasue NaNo snuck up on me this year, and I wasn't nearly prepared enough to do it again on a completely new topic) I decided to create my own personal "version" of NaNo. The entire "contest" is just a meaningless fun motivator to get lots of writing done, so I decided that going through my completed rough draft from last year (and I mean VERY rough, even for a first draft) I could reasonably consider every 2 words rewritten as 1 word written anew. In short, I proposed to turn last year's novel into a completely updated 2nd draft (spanning ~100,000 words intead of 50,000).
It's really amazing what you can get done in your spare time when you have a hard deadline to finish. I actually managed to do it. Looking back at the two years, I honestly can't say which is more challenging -- writing 50k words of a rough draft of a novel, when you don't care whatsoever if the words make any sense, so long as you get SOMEthing down on paper -- or REwriting 50k words, refusing to move past any segemnt in the novel until it meets the satisfaction of a relatively clean draft. I was going to rewriting my quantity into quality this time. While I'm sure I'll want to go through and make 3rd, 4th, etc drafts in the future, it was very fun and refreshing to make this much progress in a single month.
Last year, I took the opportunity to get down 60% or so of a rough draft of a fantasy novel. Or should I say, a fantasy sequel, as it is, indeed, a sequel to the fantasy novel I've been tinkering with since high school (and which I've finished, to the extent that I'm now searching for literary agents / publishers / etc in attempt to publish it.)
This year, because I wasn't quite ready to put this task aside and work on another completely new project (and becasue NaNo snuck up on me this year, and I wasn't nearly prepared enough to do it again on a completely new topic) I decided to create my own personal "version" of NaNo. The entire "contest" is just a meaningless fun motivator to get lots of writing done, so I decided that going through my completed rough draft from last year (and I mean VERY rough, even for a first draft) I could reasonably consider every 2 words rewritten as 1 word written anew. In short, I proposed to turn last year's novel into a completely updated 2nd draft (spanning ~100,000 words intead of 50,000).
It's really amazing what you can get done in your spare time when you have a hard deadline to finish. I actually managed to do it. Looking back at the two years, I honestly can't say which is more challenging -- writing 50k words of a rough draft of a novel, when you don't care whatsoever if the words make any sense, so long as you get SOMEthing down on paper -- or REwriting 50k words, refusing to move past any segemnt in the novel until it meets the satisfaction of a relatively clean draft. I was going to rewriting my quantity into quality this time. While I'm sure I'll want to go through and make 3rd, 4th, etc drafts in the future, it was very fun and refreshing to make this much progress in a single month.
Monkey Puppet singing Michael Jackson
Tania introduced me to this video (taken from the talent show "Britain's Got Talent) that is absolutely hilarious. The contestant's name is Damon Scott, and he made it into the finals, though he ultimately lost to Paul Potts, an incredibly talented opera singer (he's on youtube too). I have nothing to really say about it, other than wanting to share it with the world, becasue it puts a smile (usually accompanied with a laugh) on my face every time I see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
