Bill Conrad's Blog, page 8
April 24, 2024
The Emotion Thesaurus
My fifth book got a lot of feedback from my editor, and the main suggestion was to enhance my descriptions. He recommend purchasing The Emotion Thesaurus by Angela Ackerman. The book helps writers show emotions as opposed to describing them.
Angela begins with an introduction explaining why it is essential to show the reader a character’s emotions and how to use the book. This part is critical because she explains why readers crave visual descriptions. Angela provided several examples of how a description can be improved, which was eye-opening.
After the introduction, there are several two-page chapters for each emotion. Here is one example: Anxiety. (Note: I am providing a brief part of the chapter because of the copyright.)
The first line is a definition of the word from an emotional perspective. Then, subtitles will show how to describe emotions.
PHYSICAL SIGNALS AND BEHAVIORS:
Rubbing the back of the neck
Crossing the arms, forming a barrier to others
INTERNAL SENSATIONS:
Feeling too hot or too cold
Restless legs
MENTAL RESPONSES:
Thinking about worst-case scenarios
Engaging in self-blame
ACUTE OR LONG-TERM RESPONSES FOR THIS EMOTION:
Excessive sweating
A ragged appearance
SIGNS THAT THIS EMOTION IS BEING SUPPRESSED:
A false smile
Tightness in the eyes
MAY ESCALATE TO:
Fear, Desperation, Paranoia, Panic, Hysteria
MAY DE-ESCALATE TO:
Wariness, Vulnerability, Relief, Gratitude
ASSOCIATED POWER VERBS:
Bother, brood, carve, chase, choke…
The idea behind The Emotion Thesaurus is to provide accessible tools for the writer to show the reader how a character feels. “Bob was anxious.” Should be: “Bob rubbed the back of his neck and knew he was sweating. As Sally approached, he faked his best smile and tried to walk toward her without falling.” Much better.
The Emotion Thesaurus transformed my writing; I wish I had known about it earlier. Now my descriptions read better, and I have more writing confidence. Plus, I think more about what is deep inside my character.
Unfortunately, there are a few issues. This book was intended for writers. We are a select group that expects a high writing standard. (Imagine reading a dictionary with spelling errors.) The introduction and how to use the book section needed work. In addition, I would have expected double the emotional responses. In summary, the book needs more content and a top-notch editor, but despite the flaws, it is an essential tool for every writer.
You’re the best -Bill
April 24, 2024
Angela begins with an introduction explaining why it is essential to show the reader a character’s emotions and how to use the book. This part is critical because she explains why readers crave visual descriptions. Angela provided several examples of how a description can be improved, which was eye-opening.
After the introduction, there are several two-page chapters for each emotion. Here is one example: Anxiety. (Note: I am providing a brief part of the chapter because of the copyright.)
The first line is a definition of the word from an emotional perspective. Then, subtitles will show how to describe emotions.
PHYSICAL SIGNALS AND BEHAVIORS:
Rubbing the back of the neck
Crossing the arms, forming a barrier to others
INTERNAL SENSATIONS:
Feeling too hot or too cold
Restless legs
MENTAL RESPONSES:
Thinking about worst-case scenarios
Engaging in self-blame
ACUTE OR LONG-TERM RESPONSES FOR THIS EMOTION:
Excessive sweating
A ragged appearance
SIGNS THAT THIS EMOTION IS BEING SUPPRESSED:
A false smile
Tightness in the eyes
MAY ESCALATE TO:
Fear, Desperation, Paranoia, Panic, Hysteria
MAY DE-ESCALATE TO:
Wariness, Vulnerability, Relief, Gratitude
ASSOCIATED POWER VERBS:
Bother, brood, carve, chase, choke…
The idea behind The Emotion Thesaurus is to provide accessible tools for the writer to show the reader how a character feels. “Bob was anxious.” Should be: “Bob rubbed the back of his neck and knew he was sweating. As Sally approached, he faked his best smile and tried to walk toward her without falling.” Much better.
The Emotion Thesaurus transformed my writing; I wish I had known about it earlier. Now my descriptions read better, and I have more writing confidence. Plus, I think more about what is deep inside my character.
Unfortunately, there are a few issues. This book was intended for writers. We are a select group that expects a high writing standard. (Imagine reading a dictionary with spelling errors.) The introduction and how to use the book section needed work. In addition, I would have expected double the emotional responses. In summary, the book needs more content and a top-notch editor, but despite the flaws, it is an essential tool for every writer.
You’re the best -Bill
April 24, 2024
April 17, 2024
When In Doubt, Delete
I have been trying to be a successful author since 2016. It is a solitary activity that is as frustrating as it is challenging, rewarding, and educational. Like any worthwhile activity, there is much to learn. During my journey, I have discovered a few techniques that have improved my writing, and I wanted to discuss one I discovered a year ago. When I locate a troublesome sentence, paragraph, or idea that is difficult to fix, I delete it. This method sounds simple, but coming to that mindset (trusting myself) took a giant leap.
My logical personality loves fixing problems, so I have great difficulty leaving something unresolved. For example, if my computer stops working, I will not throw it away. Instead, I would devote time and money to getting it working again, even if this is far more than it is worth. Therefore, it should always be possible to take words that are not working and manipulate them, so they do. Yet, this description is not exactly what I am trying to convey.
My deleting concept resides at a very high level. It is as if the universe is telling me, “Dude, this is not working. Move on.” How can I convey this concept? My first thought was to edit stuff for a week and show you examples of deleted material.
So, I collected ten deletions, but each one “Looked fine to me.” The problem is that a sentence or paragraph means nothing out of context. Another issue is that I was not able to explain my deleting logic. The only thought I could write was, “This did not work.”
Here is an example sentence that I deleted from this very article. “During my journey, I have discovered a few techniques that have improved my writing, and I wanted to discuss one I discovered a year ago. (Yes, it took six years for me to figure this out.)” As you can see, I deleted the sentence within the parenthesis. What was going on? I was trying to be funny, and it did not work. Yet, it read funny. Was there value in this addition? Yes, because the sentence added humor to a dry topic. Does this deletion make a better article? The universe told me, “Humor is not necessary.”
I deleted a short paragraph from my last article: “If you like the Twilight movie, great. I am glad you had a good movie experience. If you have not seen it, it is a very popular movie that many people enjoyed.” That is a less than well written thing, but with some editing, it could be valid. The problem was that the sentences were not within the theme of my article. After the deletion, the article read “smoother.” It was like the universe was telling me, “Readers do not need these details.”
The textbook method is: “When a section is not working, try deleting it. Then check to see if the deletion improves the document.” Another way is: “If a section frustrates the writer, a good first reaction is to try deleting it.” This philosophy is closer to my thoughts, but I have not entirely captured my method.
In the first draft of one of my books, I wrote a detailed ten-paragraph background on the main character’s sister. This section included discussing her racist husband. Writing this section was challenging because I did not wish to offend my readers. I intended to provide a rich history I thought they would enjoy.
I intended to show the main character supported his wife by distancing himself from the racist. This section underwent many changes during editing, and I felt I had conveyed a robust foundation. About six months ago, I was looking it over (not during an edit) and deleted the entire section. Was there any motivation like readability, flow, or character development? Nope. Only one button press.
I was reviewing this book yesterday and thought, “Hey, what happened to that sister’s background? Oh, yeah. I deleted it.” Was my choice correct? For this article, I looked at a backup copy. The segment read well, but I now see why I deleted it. I was forcing something. “I (the main character) am better than my sister because I did not marry a racist.” My gut was telling me, “Dude! Stop being arrogant. Delete this mess.”
Is this minimalist behavior? Meaning I give the readers exactly what they need and no more. I confess that my writing mindset does contain a minimalist attitude and detailed descriptions in my books and other books never read right. Yet, my explanation is still lacking.
After thinking about this topic on a walk, I concluded that this deletion mindset contains a zen attitude. When I get a negative gut feeling about a section, it goes away. Am I proclaiming to be a fantastic writer with so much excessive material that I have the freedom to delete anything? No, my writing ability is quite the opposite. It takes me eons to write down my thoughts, and deleting material limits my meager output.
My conclusion is if you are a writer, permit yourself to delete. How will you know? Mmm… I am still figuring that out.
You’re the best -Bill
April 17, 2024
My logical personality loves fixing problems, so I have great difficulty leaving something unresolved. For example, if my computer stops working, I will not throw it away. Instead, I would devote time and money to getting it working again, even if this is far more than it is worth. Therefore, it should always be possible to take words that are not working and manipulate them, so they do. Yet, this description is not exactly what I am trying to convey.
My deleting concept resides at a very high level. It is as if the universe is telling me, “Dude, this is not working. Move on.” How can I convey this concept? My first thought was to edit stuff for a week and show you examples of deleted material.
So, I collected ten deletions, but each one “Looked fine to me.” The problem is that a sentence or paragraph means nothing out of context. Another issue is that I was not able to explain my deleting logic. The only thought I could write was, “This did not work.”
Here is an example sentence that I deleted from this very article. “During my journey, I have discovered a few techniques that have improved my writing, and I wanted to discuss one I discovered a year ago. (Yes, it took six years for me to figure this out.)” As you can see, I deleted the sentence within the parenthesis. What was going on? I was trying to be funny, and it did not work. Yet, it read funny. Was there value in this addition? Yes, because the sentence added humor to a dry topic. Does this deletion make a better article? The universe told me, “Humor is not necessary.”
I deleted a short paragraph from my last article: “If you like the Twilight movie, great. I am glad you had a good movie experience. If you have not seen it, it is a very popular movie that many people enjoyed.” That is a less than well written thing, but with some editing, it could be valid. The problem was that the sentences were not within the theme of my article. After the deletion, the article read “smoother.” It was like the universe was telling me, “Readers do not need these details.”
The textbook method is: “When a section is not working, try deleting it. Then check to see if the deletion improves the document.” Another way is: “If a section frustrates the writer, a good first reaction is to try deleting it.” This philosophy is closer to my thoughts, but I have not entirely captured my method.
In the first draft of one of my books, I wrote a detailed ten-paragraph background on the main character’s sister. This section included discussing her racist husband. Writing this section was challenging because I did not wish to offend my readers. I intended to provide a rich history I thought they would enjoy.
I intended to show the main character supported his wife by distancing himself from the racist. This section underwent many changes during editing, and I felt I had conveyed a robust foundation. About six months ago, I was looking it over (not during an edit) and deleted the entire section. Was there any motivation like readability, flow, or character development? Nope. Only one button press.
I was reviewing this book yesterday and thought, “Hey, what happened to that sister’s background? Oh, yeah. I deleted it.” Was my choice correct? For this article, I looked at a backup copy. The segment read well, but I now see why I deleted it. I was forcing something. “I (the main character) am better than my sister because I did not marry a racist.” My gut was telling me, “Dude! Stop being arrogant. Delete this mess.”
Is this minimalist behavior? Meaning I give the readers exactly what they need and no more. I confess that my writing mindset does contain a minimalist attitude and detailed descriptions in my books and other books never read right. Yet, my explanation is still lacking.
After thinking about this topic on a walk, I concluded that this deletion mindset contains a zen attitude. When I get a negative gut feeling about a section, it goes away. Am I proclaiming to be a fantastic writer with so much excessive material that I have the freedom to delete anything? No, my writing ability is quite the opposite. It takes me eons to write down my thoughts, and deleting material limits my meager output.
My conclusion is if you are a writer, permit yourself to delete. How will you know? Mmm… I am still figuring that out.
You’re the best -Bill
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
Overrated
“Overrated” is a technical term applied to mechanical or electrical devices. For example, when a shelf rated for ten pounds breaks when one pound is applied, we would declare this shelf overrated. That usage makes perfect sense, but I dislike it when the word describes something non-technical. For example, I found an article defending Rick and Morty from people calling it overrated.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Rick-and-Mor...
I agree with the article, but let’s take a step back. The animation is subpar, and the main character is ultra-arrogant. Perhaps the most arrogant character in television history. Those are two big blows, and it should be permissible for a person to say, “I know you like the show, but you are ignoring these major flaws.” We live in an open society and should be encouraged to point out flaws. Sometimes, we must be vocal to get our point across. That is how we learn, evolve, and change.
What is the psychology behind this word? It is a word that helps people convince others to agree with them. Another way of stating this is that we wish to soften a disapproval slam. “In the upcoming election, don’t vote for X. They are overrated.” Meaning: I do not like X, and neither should you.
Am I guilty of using this term? One famous movie that comes to mind is Twilight. I watched it in the theater and was disappointed. What about all the fans who cherish their beloved movie? It is tempting to say, “For each, his own.” Yet, that would be me falsely claiming to be the better person. If I honestly listed the flaws, would my summary not include the word overrated? After all, my tear-down would directly contradict the millions of fans who cherished the movie.
After thinking about my question and re-writing this article several times, I realized that this word applies to my thoughts. Dang, my admission is upsetting. This article aimed to explain why this word should only be used for technical applications. Reading it is a red flag identifying someone not open to new ideas, fresh perspectives, other people’s feelings, or how difficult it is to create something. I want to say that these people have a pre-determined opinion that overrides their common sense and courtesy.
Yet… Here I am. The word applies to the movie Twilight. Reading that sentence boils my blood, and I want to delete it. It is like I am going up to every movie fan and insulting them. That is not me! But somehow, it is. Well? What does this all mean? This article was supposed to be a simple lighthearted discussion but it has turned into one of the most difficult ones I have ever written. I cannot convince myself that my altruistic argument is correct, and there can only be one conclusion. I am overrated. In my wildest dreams, I would never have anticipated applying that word to myself.
You’re the best -Bill
April 10, 2024
https://www.quora.com/Is-Rick-and-Mor...
I agree with the article, but let’s take a step back. The animation is subpar, and the main character is ultra-arrogant. Perhaps the most arrogant character in television history. Those are two big blows, and it should be permissible for a person to say, “I know you like the show, but you are ignoring these major flaws.” We live in an open society and should be encouraged to point out flaws. Sometimes, we must be vocal to get our point across. That is how we learn, evolve, and change.
What is the psychology behind this word? It is a word that helps people convince others to agree with them. Another way of stating this is that we wish to soften a disapproval slam. “In the upcoming election, don’t vote for X. They are overrated.” Meaning: I do not like X, and neither should you.
Am I guilty of using this term? One famous movie that comes to mind is Twilight. I watched it in the theater and was disappointed. What about all the fans who cherish their beloved movie? It is tempting to say, “For each, his own.” Yet, that would be me falsely claiming to be the better person. If I honestly listed the flaws, would my summary not include the word overrated? After all, my tear-down would directly contradict the millions of fans who cherished the movie.
After thinking about my question and re-writing this article several times, I realized that this word applies to my thoughts. Dang, my admission is upsetting. This article aimed to explain why this word should only be used for technical applications. Reading it is a red flag identifying someone not open to new ideas, fresh perspectives, other people’s feelings, or how difficult it is to create something. I want to say that these people have a pre-determined opinion that overrides their common sense and courtesy.
Yet… Here I am. The word applies to the movie Twilight. Reading that sentence boils my blood, and I want to delete it. It is like I am going up to every movie fan and insulting them. That is not me! But somehow, it is. Well? What does this all mean? This article was supposed to be a simple lighthearted discussion but it has turned into one of the most difficult ones I have ever written. I cannot convince myself that my altruistic argument is correct, and there can only be one conclusion. I am overrated. In my wildest dreams, I would never have anticipated applying that word to myself.
You’re the best -Bill
April 10, 2024
April 3, 2024
The French Paradox
Every day, we humans add to our vast knowledge, experience, and abilities. For example, we can see a single atom with a microscope, use our cell phones to watch the latest music video or plan our day according to a super accurate weather forecast. We even know all about black holes. What are those? They are massive objects in space that scientists cannot see, but we know (somehow???) they have unusual properties.
I wanted to explore one aspect of modern life that has been thoroughly studied since the first caveman’s girlfriend said, “You’re fat. I’m going to find a tinner caveman to date.”
Today, we have food pyramids, diet books, calorie counters, phone dieting apps, smart scales, nutrition consultants, diet coaches, diet foods, Paleo diets, dash diets, gluten-free foods, intermittent fasting, vegetarian options, spin classes, w3atches that count how many steps we have taken, and fitness clubs. It is all right there. Follow plan X to have a fit, thin, and healthy life. GUARNTEED or your money back. Yay!
What is plan X? Eat low-fat foods, avoid carbohydrates, add vegetables, thoroughly chew your food, exercise daily, eat lots of vitamins, see your doctor, hire a fitness coach, avoid meat, and stay far away from gluten. Yes, plan X works 100% of the time! No exceptions.
Well, there is one tiny exception. By the known standards of modern medicine, having a French lifestyle and eating French food is a sure plan for a dreadful life and an early grave. What do the French eat? Cheese, wine, butter, sausage, fats, heavy sauces, and gluten-packed bread. Their lifestyle? They exercise, but not to excess.
Yet, the French population has above-average fitness, happiness, and lifespan levels. What is going on? Despite years of study, scientists, nutritionists, fitness experts, and doctors do not know. Well, it must be one of two things. Either our medical knowledge is wrong, or the entire population of France is fooling the medical experts.
Is the problem really that black and white? This exception is not a rounding error, oversight, or optical illusion. The nation of Frace does not follow the accepted medical guidelines, yet paradoxically, they are mentally and physically healthy. As further proof, I have been to France and witnessed their happy attitudes, fit bodies, and eating habits.
Well, what does this mean? Should we throw away our diet books, exclusively eat French food and adopt a French lifestyle to improve our health? That is where things get interesting. In 1991, Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University, presented a paper that coined the phrase. Since 1991, many studies have defended traditional medicine while attempting to debunk the French Paradox. It seems that the medical establishment is working hard to come out on top of this debate. They feel the French Paradox is an illusion.
Yet… As I have stated, I have been to France and seen their healthy people. So, what do I think is going on? Of course, my opinion differs from that of professionals, scientists, and diet coaches. I live in California, and we are known for our excellent wine and cheese. I have also purchased French wines and cheeses in California. To me, they taste no different. However, the food in France was vastly different.
Every evening, we made a ritual of going to a liquor store to purchase a bottle of wine (chosen only by the label decorations), to the cheese store to buy a selection, and to the bakery to purchase a baguette. This was a heavenly experience, and the food disappeared quickly. During the day, we went to the local restaurants, and while the portion sizes were small, the food was tasty. Wine with dinner? It was less expensive than soda. We walked around Paris and went to the museums for the rest of the day.
France has a reputation for mean people, but I never encountered one. They were all friendly and had a relaxed lifestyle. Yet there was more to them. It was as if they had figured out something that the rest of the world had missed. Their take on life was more evolved, open-minded, and centered.
Our trip ended with us feeling great and a little thinner. I recommend you go to France and experience their exceptional food and culture. Yet, I have not explained my theory. In engineering, there is what we call an onion problem. The idea is that multiple interacting issues are causing a failure, and the engineer must isolate each one. I think the French Paradox is this exact type of issue.
Why is the wine, cheese, and bread better in France? California law and shopping preference require preservatives to maintain shelf life and save us from something… Preservatives adversely affect flavor and hinder our health. France does not have high preservative levels, so the food tastes better and is healthier.
My theory is that people like good-tasting and healthy food. When our bodies get quality food, they do not have to gorge on junk food. I rarely saw them eating fast/junk food as we traveled.
The second part of my theory is that a positive attitude affects fitness, health, and diet. A nervous person is more likely to eat and have poor health. In France, they let things slide. Plus, a small amount of red wine calms nerves.
Also, the attitude of a nation is not a trait that comes from diet, exercise, psychology, or medical books. Therefore, the pleasant French outlook is big to study, categorize, or appreciate. French paradox is an extensive interconnecting set of parameters that cannot be categorized or replicated outside their borders.
Yet, there is a big problem with my explanation. The French population has low cholesterol levels. Cheese, bread, butter, and heavy sauces contribute to high cholesterol. So, what is going on? Is it the wine? Maybe, but probably not. So, please ignore my entire theory.
And this is my point. Even with all the information available, I do not know what is happening, nor does everybody else. I use the French Paradox to remind myself that I do not know everything. The paradox rattles around in my bonkers mind to keep me grounded, asking questions and acting less arrogant. But… I wish thinking about the French Paradox could help eliminate my gut.
You’re the best -Bill
April 04, 2024
I wanted to explore one aspect of modern life that has been thoroughly studied since the first caveman’s girlfriend said, “You’re fat. I’m going to find a tinner caveman to date.”
Today, we have food pyramids, diet books, calorie counters, phone dieting apps, smart scales, nutrition consultants, diet coaches, diet foods, Paleo diets, dash diets, gluten-free foods, intermittent fasting, vegetarian options, spin classes, w3atches that count how many steps we have taken, and fitness clubs. It is all right there. Follow plan X to have a fit, thin, and healthy life. GUARNTEED or your money back. Yay!
What is plan X? Eat low-fat foods, avoid carbohydrates, add vegetables, thoroughly chew your food, exercise daily, eat lots of vitamins, see your doctor, hire a fitness coach, avoid meat, and stay far away from gluten. Yes, plan X works 100% of the time! No exceptions.
Well, there is one tiny exception. By the known standards of modern medicine, having a French lifestyle and eating French food is a sure plan for a dreadful life and an early grave. What do the French eat? Cheese, wine, butter, sausage, fats, heavy sauces, and gluten-packed bread. Their lifestyle? They exercise, but not to excess.
Yet, the French population has above-average fitness, happiness, and lifespan levels. What is going on? Despite years of study, scientists, nutritionists, fitness experts, and doctors do not know. Well, it must be one of two things. Either our medical knowledge is wrong, or the entire population of France is fooling the medical experts.
Is the problem really that black and white? This exception is not a rounding error, oversight, or optical illusion. The nation of Frace does not follow the accepted medical guidelines, yet paradoxically, they are mentally and physically healthy. As further proof, I have been to France and witnessed their happy attitudes, fit bodies, and eating habits.
Well, what does this mean? Should we throw away our diet books, exclusively eat French food and adopt a French lifestyle to improve our health? That is where things get interesting. In 1991, Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University, presented a paper that coined the phrase. Since 1991, many studies have defended traditional medicine while attempting to debunk the French Paradox. It seems that the medical establishment is working hard to come out on top of this debate. They feel the French Paradox is an illusion.
Yet… As I have stated, I have been to France and seen their healthy people. So, what do I think is going on? Of course, my opinion differs from that of professionals, scientists, and diet coaches. I live in California, and we are known for our excellent wine and cheese. I have also purchased French wines and cheeses in California. To me, they taste no different. However, the food in France was vastly different.
Every evening, we made a ritual of going to a liquor store to purchase a bottle of wine (chosen only by the label decorations), to the cheese store to buy a selection, and to the bakery to purchase a baguette. This was a heavenly experience, and the food disappeared quickly. During the day, we went to the local restaurants, and while the portion sizes were small, the food was tasty. Wine with dinner? It was less expensive than soda. We walked around Paris and went to the museums for the rest of the day.
France has a reputation for mean people, but I never encountered one. They were all friendly and had a relaxed lifestyle. Yet there was more to them. It was as if they had figured out something that the rest of the world had missed. Their take on life was more evolved, open-minded, and centered.
Our trip ended with us feeling great and a little thinner. I recommend you go to France and experience their exceptional food and culture. Yet, I have not explained my theory. In engineering, there is what we call an onion problem. The idea is that multiple interacting issues are causing a failure, and the engineer must isolate each one. I think the French Paradox is this exact type of issue.
Why is the wine, cheese, and bread better in France? California law and shopping preference require preservatives to maintain shelf life and save us from something… Preservatives adversely affect flavor and hinder our health. France does not have high preservative levels, so the food tastes better and is healthier.
My theory is that people like good-tasting and healthy food. When our bodies get quality food, they do not have to gorge on junk food. I rarely saw them eating fast/junk food as we traveled.
The second part of my theory is that a positive attitude affects fitness, health, and diet. A nervous person is more likely to eat and have poor health. In France, they let things slide. Plus, a small amount of red wine calms nerves.
Also, the attitude of a nation is not a trait that comes from diet, exercise, psychology, or medical books. Therefore, the pleasant French outlook is big to study, categorize, or appreciate. French paradox is an extensive interconnecting set of parameters that cannot be categorized or replicated outside their borders.
Yet, there is a big problem with my explanation. The French population has low cholesterol levels. Cheese, bread, butter, and heavy sauces contribute to high cholesterol. So, what is going on? Is it the wine? Maybe, but probably not. So, please ignore my entire theory.
And this is my point. Even with all the information available, I do not know what is happening, nor does everybody else. I use the French Paradox to remind myself that I do not know everything. The paradox rattles around in my bonkers mind to keep me grounded, asking questions and acting less arrogant. But… I wish thinking about the French Paradox could help eliminate my gut.
You’re the best -Bill
April 04, 2024
March 27, 2024
The Balls of Christmas
In 1990, my parents moved to a larger house. It had a big backyard full of grass, enormous bedrooms, and a giant garage. At that time, I was attending college out of state but went home for Christmas. The new house had a two-story living room, which occupied 25% of the entire house. It was an impressive space for entertainment and the dominant feature of the house. The living room was designed so that people could see the wood beam holding up the roof. It went down the middle and was four by twelve inches, unfinished (rough), and stained black.
In 1991, my mother came up with a great idea. She purchased ten hand-blown, clear glass balls eight inches in diameter. She wanted me to hammer small nails into the beam and hang them.
I told her this was a BAD idea, but she insisted. We had an aluminum extension ladder (you pull on a rope, and the ladder extends up), but my dad’s car damaged the lower three feet. (My father stored it high in the garage. One day, the rope broke, and when he drove into it. This crash bent the lower three feet to the side, making a hockey stick-like shape.) We bent it back, but it was not sturdy.
I relented and brought the ladder to the living room. The bottom end went on the carpet, and the top rested on the beam. The problem was that the top rested against four inches (not the full height) of the wooden beam because of the angles. The ladder swayed (reducing length) when weight was applied, and the carpet did not provide a solid base for the rubber pads. If the ladder moved just a bit, the user (me!) would come crashing down two stories (about 20 feet).
After I set it up, I again protested, “This is not safe.” My mother insisted, and I went up with a hammer. It was a scary climb, and as I hammered, the ladder shifted. I had to climb down to get a ball but managed to hang all ten. Now, I must come clean. The balls looked fantastic, but the impressive sight was not worth the tremendous risk. Side note: Did the black rubber ladder feet leave marks on the carpet? Yes. Was this my fault? According to my mother, yes. Did I mention this probable outcome to my mother beforehand? I think you know the answer.
Over the Christmas break, my father paid a gardener to trim a pepper tree. He did not have a ladder, so he borrowed ours. Because of the uneven ground, it got bent even more. I do not know why the gardener trusted that shaky ladder or how he managed not to fall. As a result, the ladder now wobbled on every step.
Side story: The gardener did not have a chainsaw. Instead, he used my father’s old circular saw with a dull blade. It was not the proper tool and the blade bound on every cut. Did the sight of a man two stories up on a wobbling ladder using the wrong tool with a long extension cord worry me? “He will fall and sue you for every dime you have!” I protested over and over to two pairs of unconcerned ears.
Before returning to college, the balls had to come down, and I refused. This action infuriated my mother, and she called me a wimp for not having risen to the challenge. Her insult was supposed to be a guilt trip trump card. Instead, I laughed and told her I would never take one step on that ladder as long as I lived. This was one of the few times I stood up to her in my early childhood.
So, she screamed she would climb the ladder to prove it could be done. Being the brat I was, I thought it would be fun to watch her climb up ten feet, see how dangerous it was, and immediately climb down.
I set the ladder up and got out of the way. “Why aren’t you holding it?” “I don’t want to get hurt when you come crashing down,” was my answer. More threats and insults. To my surprise, she bravely climbed the ladder. It nearly slipped off the beam and wildly shook. Fear replaced my amusement as I realized I was about to be without a mother. I yelled for her to stop. She foolishly continued, but I refused to hold the ladder. Why? I logically concluded that I would have to drive her to the hospital.
After removing one ball, she climbed down and proudly proclaimed it was safe. Then she demanded I remove the remaining balls. I was relieved she was alive but refused. So, I moved the ladder to the next ball and stood with my arms crossed. More angry words. She relented and retrieved all the balls. I collapsed the ladder while she yelled more angry words.
It was time for my trump card, and I pointed to the beam with a big grin. Because the ladder wobbled around, the tips left deep marks on the stained black surface. She was beyond furious and blamed me for not holding the ladder.
The Balls of Christmas came out every year I was in college. After college, I moved to a rented home with three friends for a year (the balls were not hung that year) and then had to move back home for two years because I was unemployed (oh, yes, the balls came out those years). I recall four times when the ladder came within a fraction of an inch of falling.
I am sure my loyal readers have also had ongoing family arguments, but there was a special ingredient in mine. My mother was a high school art teacher until she gave birth to me. Then, she became a stay-at-home mom until 1985, when she returned to teaching as a fourth-grade teacher in a bad part of town.
The problem was that she was a great teacher who could communicate and command children. Her technique began with a guilt trip, which transitioned to stern commends. Kids are susceptible to guilt trips, and she became a master at applying them. Plus, what kid would not refuse the order of a teacher? Side note: From a very young age, guilt trips did not work on me unless I saw evidence proving the reason behind the guilt trip.
By 1990, I was no longer a child; these techniques ranged from annoying to verbal battles. The Balls of Christmas was just one. So, being the brat I was, I began using it as a tagline to foil her technique. “Oh, giving me the Balls of Christmas treatment.”
I have a clear memory of a 1995 Balls of Christmas moment. My mother wanted me to bring soda from the garage to the refrigerator during a dinner party. (I was now employed and living in an apartment, but I still attended.) The guests were heartbroken and dying of thirst. I owed them drinks because of their many years of loyalty. Dying? Heartbroken? Did she not understand that I barely knew these people?
After her first guilt trip, I remained silent, and she pivoted to how I was “not living up to my full potential.” Her last guilt shot was a belittling “This is what a man would do.”
My silence infuriated her, and I could see that she hit guilt trip bedrock. I knew threats were about to be blasted, so I said (in earshot of all the guests), “Mom, you do not have to bring out the Balls of Christmas for every request. Why don’t you say, ‘Bill, please get some soda for our guests.’ It is a simple task I am happy to do.”
My mother stared at me wide-eyed while my comment brought a dead stop to every guest conversation. I genuinely believe this kind of basic request tactic had ever occurred to her. Then they turned to her to see what she would do. After a LONG pause, something clicked. “Bill, please get some soda for our guests.” “Sure, mom.”
I retrieved the soda, and every guest wanted to know about the Balls of Christmas. So, I explained the yearly guilt tradition and showed them the beam with all the marks on it from years of ladder abuse.
Everybody commented, “If you put up a ladder, it would slide on the carpet, and you would die.” “I know. Let me show you the ladder.” “The whole bottom is broken! You should throw that piece of junk away!”
After the confrontation (I think some guests talked to her), my mother got a little better, but the change happened when she retired. The lack of child interaction mellowed her out, and guilt trips were not the first line of defense during a basic request.
Now, my mother only applies guilt trip/threat barrage for special occasions (when she really wants something). The last one was over a printer. In her world, a computer-savvy person like myself should be able to make an old, worn out, malfunctioning, cheap, plastic inkjet printer function after years of abuse. “Buy a new one!” This argument spun out of control, which alienated us for six months.
By about 2000, my parents had to retire that broken ladder, and they purchased a good one. Now, they live in a new house with plenty of high places for giant glass globes. Plus, slick tile floors with throw rugs everybody trips on. Hopefully, she is not inspired to bring those darn things out of storage.
You’re the best -Bill
March 27, 2024
In 1991, my mother came up with a great idea. She purchased ten hand-blown, clear glass balls eight inches in diameter. She wanted me to hammer small nails into the beam and hang them.
I told her this was a BAD idea, but she insisted. We had an aluminum extension ladder (you pull on a rope, and the ladder extends up), but my dad’s car damaged the lower three feet. (My father stored it high in the garage. One day, the rope broke, and when he drove into it. This crash bent the lower three feet to the side, making a hockey stick-like shape.) We bent it back, but it was not sturdy.
I relented and brought the ladder to the living room. The bottom end went on the carpet, and the top rested on the beam. The problem was that the top rested against four inches (not the full height) of the wooden beam because of the angles. The ladder swayed (reducing length) when weight was applied, and the carpet did not provide a solid base for the rubber pads. If the ladder moved just a bit, the user (me!) would come crashing down two stories (about 20 feet).
After I set it up, I again protested, “This is not safe.” My mother insisted, and I went up with a hammer. It was a scary climb, and as I hammered, the ladder shifted. I had to climb down to get a ball but managed to hang all ten. Now, I must come clean. The balls looked fantastic, but the impressive sight was not worth the tremendous risk. Side note: Did the black rubber ladder feet leave marks on the carpet? Yes. Was this my fault? According to my mother, yes. Did I mention this probable outcome to my mother beforehand? I think you know the answer.
Over the Christmas break, my father paid a gardener to trim a pepper tree. He did not have a ladder, so he borrowed ours. Because of the uneven ground, it got bent even more. I do not know why the gardener trusted that shaky ladder or how he managed not to fall. As a result, the ladder now wobbled on every step.
Side story: The gardener did not have a chainsaw. Instead, he used my father’s old circular saw with a dull blade. It was not the proper tool and the blade bound on every cut. Did the sight of a man two stories up on a wobbling ladder using the wrong tool with a long extension cord worry me? “He will fall and sue you for every dime you have!” I protested over and over to two pairs of unconcerned ears.
Before returning to college, the balls had to come down, and I refused. This action infuriated my mother, and she called me a wimp for not having risen to the challenge. Her insult was supposed to be a guilt trip trump card. Instead, I laughed and told her I would never take one step on that ladder as long as I lived. This was one of the few times I stood up to her in my early childhood.
So, she screamed she would climb the ladder to prove it could be done. Being the brat I was, I thought it would be fun to watch her climb up ten feet, see how dangerous it was, and immediately climb down.
I set the ladder up and got out of the way. “Why aren’t you holding it?” “I don’t want to get hurt when you come crashing down,” was my answer. More threats and insults. To my surprise, she bravely climbed the ladder. It nearly slipped off the beam and wildly shook. Fear replaced my amusement as I realized I was about to be without a mother. I yelled for her to stop. She foolishly continued, but I refused to hold the ladder. Why? I logically concluded that I would have to drive her to the hospital.
After removing one ball, she climbed down and proudly proclaimed it was safe. Then she demanded I remove the remaining balls. I was relieved she was alive but refused. So, I moved the ladder to the next ball and stood with my arms crossed. More angry words. She relented and retrieved all the balls. I collapsed the ladder while she yelled more angry words.
It was time for my trump card, and I pointed to the beam with a big grin. Because the ladder wobbled around, the tips left deep marks on the stained black surface. She was beyond furious and blamed me for not holding the ladder.
The Balls of Christmas came out every year I was in college. After college, I moved to a rented home with three friends for a year (the balls were not hung that year) and then had to move back home for two years because I was unemployed (oh, yes, the balls came out those years). I recall four times when the ladder came within a fraction of an inch of falling.
I am sure my loyal readers have also had ongoing family arguments, but there was a special ingredient in mine. My mother was a high school art teacher until she gave birth to me. Then, she became a stay-at-home mom until 1985, when she returned to teaching as a fourth-grade teacher in a bad part of town.
The problem was that she was a great teacher who could communicate and command children. Her technique began with a guilt trip, which transitioned to stern commends. Kids are susceptible to guilt trips, and she became a master at applying them. Plus, what kid would not refuse the order of a teacher? Side note: From a very young age, guilt trips did not work on me unless I saw evidence proving the reason behind the guilt trip.
By 1990, I was no longer a child; these techniques ranged from annoying to verbal battles. The Balls of Christmas was just one. So, being the brat I was, I began using it as a tagline to foil her technique. “Oh, giving me the Balls of Christmas treatment.”
I have a clear memory of a 1995 Balls of Christmas moment. My mother wanted me to bring soda from the garage to the refrigerator during a dinner party. (I was now employed and living in an apartment, but I still attended.) The guests were heartbroken and dying of thirst. I owed them drinks because of their many years of loyalty. Dying? Heartbroken? Did she not understand that I barely knew these people?
After her first guilt trip, I remained silent, and she pivoted to how I was “not living up to my full potential.” Her last guilt shot was a belittling “This is what a man would do.”
My silence infuriated her, and I could see that she hit guilt trip bedrock. I knew threats were about to be blasted, so I said (in earshot of all the guests), “Mom, you do not have to bring out the Balls of Christmas for every request. Why don’t you say, ‘Bill, please get some soda for our guests.’ It is a simple task I am happy to do.”
My mother stared at me wide-eyed while my comment brought a dead stop to every guest conversation. I genuinely believe this kind of basic request tactic had ever occurred to her. Then they turned to her to see what she would do. After a LONG pause, something clicked. “Bill, please get some soda for our guests.” “Sure, mom.”
I retrieved the soda, and every guest wanted to know about the Balls of Christmas. So, I explained the yearly guilt tradition and showed them the beam with all the marks on it from years of ladder abuse.
Everybody commented, “If you put up a ladder, it would slide on the carpet, and you would die.” “I know. Let me show you the ladder.” “The whole bottom is broken! You should throw that piece of junk away!”
After the confrontation (I think some guests talked to her), my mother got a little better, but the change happened when she retired. The lack of child interaction mellowed her out, and guilt trips were not the first line of defense during a basic request.
Now, my mother only applies guilt trip/threat barrage for special occasions (when she really wants something). The last one was over a printer. In her world, a computer-savvy person like myself should be able to make an old, worn out, malfunctioning, cheap, plastic inkjet printer function after years of abuse. “Buy a new one!” This argument spun out of control, which alienated us for six months.
By about 2000, my parents had to retire that broken ladder, and they purchased a good one. Now, they live in a new house with plenty of high places for giant glass globes. Plus, slick tile floors with throw rugs everybody trips on. Hopefully, she is not inspired to bring those darn things out of storage.
You’re the best -Bill
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
Try Not to Write Like Hemingway
A friend of mine recently told me they wanted to write a fictional book and wanted to pick my bonkers mind for ideas. I answered her questions, and one stuck out, “Should I read a bunch of Ernest Hemingway books to write like him?” I told my friend not to pattern themself after other writers, and I thought it would be interesting to explain my opinion.
Talented authors like Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, and William Shakespeare have a style and storytelling ability that define the literature benchmark. Writers should be well-versed in famous books to learn about character development, descriptions, plot structure, and flow. However, I think it is a huge mistake to copy their writing style.
The problem is twofold. First, readers know these works and copycat books are not appreciated. Second, master authors are called masters for a reason. Only 0.001% of us have that writing ability, and attempting to write like a master is a recipe for failure.
Instead, I recommend reading a variety of books from many authors. This list must include bad authors (we prefer to be called up-and-coming). Their books contain flawed stories, dismal characters, no flow, flimsy descriptions, grammmmar, and awful dialog.
Why? Poorly written books are a tremendous resource because beginning writers can think about solving apparent problems. This book dissection is a fun activity, and it is also reinforcing. “Hey, if I can spot this problem, maybe my writing is alright.”
Let me provide an example. I met a fellow author through Facebook who asked me to critique his first book. It is a spiritual awakening autobiography like The Razor’s Edge. (If you have not seen the 1946 movie, I recommend it. The 1984 remake is so-so.) From the first page, there were many problems.
When I provided feedback, I recall focusing on one sentence, “I gave a speech on the topic.” Ok… Where did this speech take place? How many people were there? What was their reaction? This lack of description was so big that a bus could have driven through it. When reading a book like The Grapes of Wrath, spotting glaring mistakes is impossible.
Yet, I know I have not convinced you, so I want to focus on the Hemingway book, The Old Man and the Sea. “I want to write a book just like that.” Alright, a similar plot is not out of the realm of possibilities. Let’s tweak the base story. A female sheepherder deep in the mountains guards her flock. Suddenly, a wolf attacks, and they battle to the death. The book contains epic scenes, grand descriptions, and powerful emotions. The result would be very similar to The Old Man and the Sea.
What would critics think? “Weak plot, but good writing.” Why? Now, with powerful AI tools, excellent editors, and grammar checkers, the minimum benchmark is a well-written book. Readers now expect bold and unique plots to rise above the latest TikTok cat videos. Does this make The Old Man and the Sea obsolete because the plot is dated? I prefer to consider it a high-quality writing benchmark but concede the base story no longer holds up.
Why? Today, the old man could have called his friends or the Coast Guard over a cell phone or radio to rescue him. Who cares about a silly fishing story? According to YouTube, you can buy fish at the grocery store. This classic has a slow pace, and today’s readers travel at the speed of the internet. But what if the writing goal was a slow-paced book? Such books have a limited market.
Let me attack this from a different angle. A new author is a huge Tom Clancy fan who wants to write a similar novel. The problem is that readers are not static. They want fresh plots that rise above the noise. “I wrote a spy novel exactly like The Hunt for Red October” is not a recommended read. “I wrote a spy novel better than Tom Clancy’s best works” is an annoying boast. “I wrote a spy novel with dragons.” Dragons? Really? I might have to check that out.
You’re the best -Bill
March 20, 2024
Talented authors like Emily Dickinson, Charles Dickens, and William Shakespeare have a style and storytelling ability that define the literature benchmark. Writers should be well-versed in famous books to learn about character development, descriptions, plot structure, and flow. However, I think it is a huge mistake to copy their writing style.
The problem is twofold. First, readers know these works and copycat books are not appreciated. Second, master authors are called masters for a reason. Only 0.001% of us have that writing ability, and attempting to write like a master is a recipe for failure.
Instead, I recommend reading a variety of books from many authors. This list must include bad authors (we prefer to be called up-and-coming). Their books contain flawed stories, dismal characters, no flow, flimsy descriptions, grammmmar, and awful dialog.
Why? Poorly written books are a tremendous resource because beginning writers can think about solving apparent problems. This book dissection is a fun activity, and it is also reinforcing. “Hey, if I can spot this problem, maybe my writing is alright.”
Let me provide an example. I met a fellow author through Facebook who asked me to critique his first book. It is a spiritual awakening autobiography like The Razor’s Edge. (If you have not seen the 1946 movie, I recommend it. The 1984 remake is so-so.) From the first page, there were many problems.
When I provided feedback, I recall focusing on one sentence, “I gave a speech on the topic.” Ok… Where did this speech take place? How many people were there? What was their reaction? This lack of description was so big that a bus could have driven through it. When reading a book like The Grapes of Wrath, spotting glaring mistakes is impossible.
Yet, I know I have not convinced you, so I want to focus on the Hemingway book, The Old Man and the Sea. “I want to write a book just like that.” Alright, a similar plot is not out of the realm of possibilities. Let’s tweak the base story. A female sheepherder deep in the mountains guards her flock. Suddenly, a wolf attacks, and they battle to the death. The book contains epic scenes, grand descriptions, and powerful emotions. The result would be very similar to The Old Man and the Sea.
What would critics think? “Weak plot, but good writing.” Why? Now, with powerful AI tools, excellent editors, and grammar checkers, the minimum benchmark is a well-written book. Readers now expect bold and unique plots to rise above the latest TikTok cat videos. Does this make The Old Man and the Sea obsolete because the plot is dated? I prefer to consider it a high-quality writing benchmark but concede the base story no longer holds up.
Why? Today, the old man could have called his friends or the Coast Guard over a cell phone or radio to rescue him. Who cares about a silly fishing story? According to YouTube, you can buy fish at the grocery store. This classic has a slow pace, and today’s readers travel at the speed of the internet. But what if the writing goal was a slow-paced book? Such books have a limited market.
Let me attack this from a different angle. A new author is a huge Tom Clancy fan who wants to write a similar novel. The problem is that readers are not static. They want fresh plots that rise above the noise. “I wrote a spy novel exactly like The Hunt for Red October” is not a recommended read. “I wrote a spy novel better than Tom Clancy’s best works” is an annoying boast. “I wrote a spy novel with dragons.” Dragons? Really? I might have to check that out.
You’re the best -Bill
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
The Great Material Continuum
Writers have created many beautiful concepts to pull readers into their imaginary stories. Harry Potter uses his magic wand, Scooby Doo munches Scooby Snacks, Deadpool cannot die, Neo enters The Matrix, and toys are alive in Toy Story.
I wanted to explore a literary invention developed for Star Trek. Writers created the race, Ferengi, and while initially loathsome, they evolved over several episodes into a quirky, likable, ultra-capitalistic race. In one episode, the writers described a Ferengi religion, which was not based on superior beings but on the economy. The following is a quote from this website:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/...
“The Ferengi saw the universe as having millions of worlds, all with too much of one and not enough of the other, with the Great Material Continuum flowing through them all like a mighty river, from having to want and back again. As such, it was the force that bound the universe together. You had to have your ship navigate the Continuum with entrepreneurial skill and grace to get everything you desire. This meant that material taken from one area had to be replaced or paid for through another means while avoiding obstacles and pitfalls. If one region had a shortage of one type of good but a surfeit of another, while another region had too much of the former good and a shortage of the latter, then the Great Material Continuum would carry the excess of the one region to ease the dearth in the other.”
On the surface, the concept is not too interesting. Still, the more I thought about it, the more I began to understand that The Great Material Continuum might be one of the most creative literary inventions ever. So, let’s dive into my bonkers thoughts.
What kind of religion would a mega-capitalistic society require? A capitalistic one. Yes and no. The Great Material Continuum challenges its followers to go further, try harder, be flexible, be ruthless, learn from failure, embrace victory, and begin again. No superior beings, temples, rules, commandments, holy books, priests, scriptures, or guides exist. The Great Material Continuum at its face and core is the unwavering belief that the perfect deal exists.
I find the level of clarity to be unique. It is a pure belief that endless interacting circles of inventory float through the universe, and if a person believes in The Great Material Continuum, they can become one with the economy. However, the concept is more profound. Profit is the Ferengi’s ultimate desire, yet The Great Material Continuum does not mention the word. It is the passionate vision that a perfect transaction is not only out there, but every Ferengi has it within their being to achieve it.
Let’s examine an earth religion. If you pray to X and do Y, your prayers might get answered. It is up to the followers to see and understand the result. This effort is not necessary for followers of The Great Material Continuum. It provides tangible results you can put in your bank account, translating into logical and instant gratification.
Earth religions require hours of study for their followers to understand passages in the religious books fully. Let’s examine this quote I found on a “top 100” Bible verse site: “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24” And this one from a “top 100” Quran quote site: “There certainly has come to you a messenger from among yourselves (i.e. Prophet Muhammad). He is grieved by your suffering, anxious for your well-being, and gracious and merciful to the believers. — 9:128” We could compare, debate, and discuss these quotes for hours. What is the real meaning? How does this affect me? Which religion is better? You will not find that kind of ambiguousness within The Great Material Continuum. You know the path you have followed when the deal concludes.
Let’s get creative. How about a mathematical (science fiction) society? Their religion is called “the perfect equation.” It proclaims the ultimate proof. (I made a math joke.) That’s the same literary invention as The Great Material Continuum. Right? No, because there is no tangible challenge. Where is the risk or the reward? To do math? Kids hate math but love money because it can buy candy. And there is the hook. Money is universal but elusive.
What does it all mean? Should we put on costumes like the fictional Ferengi’s and become merchants? No. The true meaning behind The Great Material Continuum is that writing and examining the result is fun.
You’re the best -Bill
March 13, 2024
I wanted to explore a literary invention developed for Star Trek. Writers created the race, Ferengi, and while initially loathsome, they evolved over several episodes into a quirky, likable, ultra-capitalistic race. In one episode, the writers described a Ferengi religion, which was not based on superior beings but on the economy. The following is a quote from this website:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/...
“The Ferengi saw the universe as having millions of worlds, all with too much of one and not enough of the other, with the Great Material Continuum flowing through them all like a mighty river, from having to want and back again. As such, it was the force that bound the universe together. You had to have your ship navigate the Continuum with entrepreneurial skill and grace to get everything you desire. This meant that material taken from one area had to be replaced or paid for through another means while avoiding obstacles and pitfalls. If one region had a shortage of one type of good but a surfeit of another, while another region had too much of the former good and a shortage of the latter, then the Great Material Continuum would carry the excess of the one region to ease the dearth in the other.”
On the surface, the concept is not too interesting. Still, the more I thought about it, the more I began to understand that The Great Material Continuum might be one of the most creative literary inventions ever. So, let’s dive into my bonkers thoughts.
What kind of religion would a mega-capitalistic society require? A capitalistic one. Yes and no. The Great Material Continuum challenges its followers to go further, try harder, be flexible, be ruthless, learn from failure, embrace victory, and begin again. No superior beings, temples, rules, commandments, holy books, priests, scriptures, or guides exist. The Great Material Continuum at its face and core is the unwavering belief that the perfect deal exists.
I find the level of clarity to be unique. It is a pure belief that endless interacting circles of inventory float through the universe, and if a person believes in The Great Material Continuum, they can become one with the economy. However, the concept is more profound. Profit is the Ferengi’s ultimate desire, yet The Great Material Continuum does not mention the word. It is the passionate vision that a perfect transaction is not only out there, but every Ferengi has it within their being to achieve it.
Let’s examine an earth religion. If you pray to X and do Y, your prayers might get answered. It is up to the followers to see and understand the result. This effort is not necessary for followers of The Great Material Continuum. It provides tangible results you can put in your bank account, translating into logical and instant gratification.
Earth religions require hours of study for their followers to understand passages in the religious books fully. Let’s examine this quote I found on a “top 100” Bible verse site: “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24” And this one from a “top 100” Quran quote site: “There certainly has come to you a messenger from among yourselves (i.e. Prophet Muhammad). He is grieved by your suffering, anxious for your well-being, and gracious and merciful to the believers. — 9:128” We could compare, debate, and discuss these quotes for hours. What is the real meaning? How does this affect me? Which religion is better? You will not find that kind of ambiguousness within The Great Material Continuum. You know the path you have followed when the deal concludes.
Let’s get creative. How about a mathematical (science fiction) society? Their religion is called “the perfect equation.” It proclaims the ultimate proof. (I made a math joke.) That’s the same literary invention as The Great Material Continuum. Right? No, because there is no tangible challenge. Where is the risk or the reward? To do math? Kids hate math but love money because it can buy candy. And there is the hook. Money is universal but elusive.
What does it all mean? Should we put on costumes like the fictional Ferengi’s and become merchants? No. The true meaning behind The Great Material Continuum is that writing and examining the result is fun.
You’re the best -Bill
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
Social Media Eliminated Christmas Cards
Society is rapidly changing every day. Newspapers are no longer delivered; bank tellers are ancient history, and supermarket cashiers are being phased out. Remember typewriters? How about the milkman? Designer jeans?
Most changes are positive, like the astounding things we can do on our phones, but I miss past activities like reading the Sunday comics or going to the toy store. I used to ride my dirt bike everywhere without a helmet. That was completely normal. Now, it is rare to see a pedal dirt bike. They are all electric things, with riders using their phones and not looking at the road. These are noticeable changes, but there is a less obvious trend that I want to discuss.
In the ‘70s, when I was growing up, it was essential for families to send out a Christmas card. In our house, the process started in January with the search for the perfect picture. My mother had us pose at every opportunity, and by December, we had at least six family pictures to choose from. In 1974, we took an old-time Western photograph. I still have it hanging on my wall. In 1977, we took a group family vacation to Lake Mead, and the kids found a massive mud hole. We all got covered, and somebody took our family picture. We were on vacation in Germany in 1983, and my mother made some random man take our picture in front of a giant clock. He thought we were crazy, and my father was afraid he would steal our camera.
Besides the photograph, there had to be a letter. It contained all the events during the year, family status, and other news. My mother tried to make them entertaining and funny. This translated into trivializing my accomplishments, and I still have bad memories.
Around 1995, I became an adult and sent out my Christmas cards, which were generic store-bought things. Picture? Letter? No way. My laziness even made me skip a few years. Then I got married, and we proudly continued the tradition. Costco made this super easy. On their website, you can upload a picture that gets turned into tasteful Christmas cards. Order 20, and put them into the included envelopes. Done!
This year, we decided not to send them out. Why? All our friends are on Facebook. Did something happen? Take an excellent picture? Do you have an opinion? Did you see something online? Post it all to Facebook, and bam! My friends instantly know all about our lives, and we know everything about them.
What is going on? “My friends know about me, and sending out a card is redundant.” Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, plus I am saving the environment. But is this progress? In the good/bad category, canceling the tradition is a tie.
You’re the best -Bill
March 06, 2024
Most changes are positive, like the astounding things we can do on our phones, but I miss past activities like reading the Sunday comics or going to the toy store. I used to ride my dirt bike everywhere without a helmet. That was completely normal. Now, it is rare to see a pedal dirt bike. They are all electric things, with riders using their phones and not looking at the road. These are noticeable changes, but there is a less obvious trend that I want to discuss.
In the ‘70s, when I was growing up, it was essential for families to send out a Christmas card. In our house, the process started in January with the search for the perfect picture. My mother had us pose at every opportunity, and by December, we had at least six family pictures to choose from. In 1974, we took an old-time Western photograph. I still have it hanging on my wall. In 1977, we took a group family vacation to Lake Mead, and the kids found a massive mud hole. We all got covered, and somebody took our family picture. We were on vacation in Germany in 1983, and my mother made some random man take our picture in front of a giant clock. He thought we were crazy, and my father was afraid he would steal our camera.
Besides the photograph, there had to be a letter. It contained all the events during the year, family status, and other news. My mother tried to make them entertaining and funny. This translated into trivializing my accomplishments, and I still have bad memories.
Around 1995, I became an adult and sent out my Christmas cards, which were generic store-bought things. Picture? Letter? No way. My laziness even made me skip a few years. Then I got married, and we proudly continued the tradition. Costco made this super easy. On their website, you can upload a picture that gets turned into tasteful Christmas cards. Order 20, and put them into the included envelopes. Done!
This year, we decided not to send them out. Why? All our friends are on Facebook. Did something happen? Take an excellent picture? Do you have an opinion? Did you see something online? Post it all to Facebook, and bam! My friends instantly know all about our lives, and we know everything about them.
What is going on? “My friends know about me, and sending out a card is redundant.” Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, plus I am saving the environment. But is this progress? In the good/bad category, canceling the tradition is a tie.
You’re the best -Bill
March 06, 2024
February 28, 2024
Aquaman’s Explosions
At a young age, my parents explained how dangerous fire is and how water will quickly put it out. I am sure everybody reading this article had the same lesson and fully understands the relationship between fire and water. Yet… Some Hollywood movie makers had parents who skipped that basic message.
In December, I watched Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom. It’s not a fantastic plot, but I mostly enjoyed it. However, there was a glaring problem that angered me. The underwater battle scenes had massive explosions with giant orange fireballs. Umm, what?
It is possible to have an underwater explosion, and the result is a brief flash. Why? A fire requires three elements—fuel, oxygen, and heat. Being underwater rapidly removes all three, leaving smoky gas bubbles. Aquaman viewers saw incredible computer-generated explosions that lit up the screen.
Wait a minute. Movie audiences are supposed to get fooled. Harry Potter’s wand is imaginary, and the Star Wars Death Star cannot destroy a planet. It is all make-believe. There is even a name for it. “Movie Magic”
Yes, I know flaming explosions got added by computer artists to excite audiences, and we are supposed to accept this oversite. Yet, Fire + Water = No Fire That is cave-dweller grade logic. Ignoring such a fundamental law of nature is absurd.
Why did this one aspect of the film upset me? After all, the plot required many leaps. The whole movie was about underwater societies coming together. Then, the king of them all lived in a lighthouse, not the ocean. Somehow, he had a brother that fit into the plot. I bought into that illogical mess, but the massive underwater flames still got to me.
I know the film creators are under pressure to make something visually epic, and their choice to ignore physics should excite audiences. But let us not forget it is possible to create realistic underwater explosions. Filmmakers have been doing this since 1940s submarine movies. Technicians set off small explosives near models and filmed the result. Moviegoers see a yellow flash followed by grey bubbles. Simple, logical, realistic, and effective. Audiences watched those old movies and agreed that was how water and explosives worked.
I’m going to attack the issue from a different angle. Would it be acceptable for Harry Potter to use his wand to create a fire underwater? Could Luke Skywalker use The Force to do the same? What if Deadpool a lit cigarette? When he tossed it into the water, it would go out. Right? Yes, it would! But not Aquaman. No, he got permission to bypass common sense.
Of course, writers can play all kinds of games. Superman flies by, putting his hands up. Michel Knight talks to his car, Kitt. Scooby Doo solves mysteries. A road runner can run through a wall painted like a tunnel, while a coyote cannot. Doc Brown travels through time in a DeLorean. Wolverine had his bones replaced with metal. (How does he get through airport metal detectors?) Tony the Tiger even wants us to purchase his sugar-filled cereal.
So, we should give the filmmakers a break. Go ahead, light up some water. It is in the same category as Superman lifting a train. We all wish we could do that. Good job expanding our minds. Yeah, I am not buying it. Hey Aquaman. You, of all people, should know water extinguishes fire.
You’re the best -Bill
February 28, 2024
In December, I watched Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom. It’s not a fantastic plot, but I mostly enjoyed it. However, there was a glaring problem that angered me. The underwater battle scenes had massive explosions with giant orange fireballs. Umm, what?
It is possible to have an underwater explosion, and the result is a brief flash. Why? A fire requires three elements—fuel, oxygen, and heat. Being underwater rapidly removes all three, leaving smoky gas bubbles. Aquaman viewers saw incredible computer-generated explosions that lit up the screen.
Wait a minute. Movie audiences are supposed to get fooled. Harry Potter’s wand is imaginary, and the Star Wars Death Star cannot destroy a planet. It is all make-believe. There is even a name for it. “Movie Magic”
Yes, I know flaming explosions got added by computer artists to excite audiences, and we are supposed to accept this oversite. Yet, Fire + Water = No Fire That is cave-dweller grade logic. Ignoring such a fundamental law of nature is absurd.
Why did this one aspect of the film upset me? After all, the plot required many leaps. The whole movie was about underwater societies coming together. Then, the king of them all lived in a lighthouse, not the ocean. Somehow, he had a brother that fit into the plot. I bought into that illogical mess, but the massive underwater flames still got to me.
I know the film creators are under pressure to make something visually epic, and their choice to ignore physics should excite audiences. But let us not forget it is possible to create realistic underwater explosions. Filmmakers have been doing this since 1940s submarine movies. Technicians set off small explosives near models and filmed the result. Moviegoers see a yellow flash followed by grey bubbles. Simple, logical, realistic, and effective. Audiences watched those old movies and agreed that was how water and explosives worked.
I’m going to attack the issue from a different angle. Would it be acceptable for Harry Potter to use his wand to create a fire underwater? Could Luke Skywalker use The Force to do the same? What if Deadpool a lit cigarette? When he tossed it into the water, it would go out. Right? Yes, it would! But not Aquaman. No, he got permission to bypass common sense.
Of course, writers can play all kinds of games. Superman flies by, putting his hands up. Michel Knight talks to his car, Kitt. Scooby Doo solves mysteries. A road runner can run through a wall painted like a tunnel, while a coyote cannot. Doc Brown travels through time in a DeLorean. Wolverine had his bones replaced with metal. (How does he get through airport metal detectors?) Tony the Tiger even wants us to purchase his sugar-filled cereal.
So, we should give the filmmakers a break. Go ahead, light up some water. It is in the same category as Superman lifting a train. We all wish we could do that. Good job expanding our minds. Yeah, I am not buying it. Hey Aquaman. You, of all people, should know water extinguishes fire.
You’re the best -Bill
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
Shall
“Shall” used to be like any other word for me. “You shall not pass” was a famous line from the Lord of the Rings movie. “Shall we go?” A legitimate question. No big deal until I worked with legal documents.
The word shall implies assured action. “The contractor shall complete the project by October 8.” There is no room for discussion. A date is set.
If you read a typical contract, you will see the word everywhere, like a gun inserted into every sentence. “The contractor better do what they are supposed to, or I will shoot them. Yeah, take that!”
However, a contract did not introduce me to this word. I used to be employed by a company that produced commercial aircraft parts. At some point, the FAA required careful tracking for the specifications. This process takes some explaining to get a total dose of the madness.
The process begins when an aircraft company produces a set of requirements for the subcontractor. We took these requirements and entered them into an awful program called Doors. We converted the aircraft company requirements into Doors and made a new set of requirements that mirrored the aircraft company requirements. We then linked them to each other. This linking is like opening a door from one room to the next, where the program got its name.
Then, we made a proposed set of specifications (to answer the requirements) linked to the requirements (linked to the aircraft company specifications). When we checked the links, we developed a design plan that met our specifications, which was then linked. Then, we developed a test requirement covering all the specifications linked to everything else. We developed a test plan, recorded the results, and linked everything. I skipped 10+ steps for simplicity, including manufacturing, quality, shal reviews (we actually called them that), and back-linking.
The documentation process took over 3,000 hours for an effort that should have been 100, but this was not the worst part. Because the Doors linking was so tedious, we went out of our way not to change any documents. This translates to knowingly using a poor design because we did not want to change any documentation. Happy flying!
Each Doors statement had a single shall per sentence. For example, “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” We could not combine topics or use other words. “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius, 0 to 80% humidity.” “The radio operating conditions are specified between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” “The radio must work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” While clear to the reader, the FAA did not permit such text. The reviewers were laser-focused on each shall and the surrounding sentence.
There was another enormous problem with this system. The aircraft company set its requirements to meet its performance goals. Yet, the subcontractor had broader requirements to attract more customers. Is it reasonable to use superior parts? Yes, but no.
Using shall statements, let’s link a requirement, specification, test, and test result. “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” “The radio shall work between -20 and 80 degrees Celsius.” “The radio shall be tested working between -25 and 85 degrees Celsius.” “The radio testing results shall state operation between -27 and 88 degrees Celsius.”
Wow, that last sentence was awkward, but that is not the real problem. When looking at the links between specifications, testing, and requirements, they do not match. Most of us understand using a superior part (a radio that works at wider temperatures) is better, but the link reviewers do not accept mismatches. That is the point that the FAA demanded to be addressed. To satisfy the FAA, we made the statements match. “0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” Thus, the aircraft received a part tested to less stringent requirements. Happy flying!
The heart of this process was understanding and linking shall statements. I must have seen 50,000 of them. This intense studying messed me up because when I read something like, “The radio works between -25 and 85 degrees Celsius,” it looks all wrong. And people make claims all the time. “I’m going to the post office around four today.” That sentence is understandable, but there is no shall statement. Thus, no commitment. I do not believe you.
This word indeed messed me up, and I rarely use it. Is it wrong to be afraid of a word? Yeah, it is. I should cowboy up and use it like any other. It SHALL be done!
PS, I know this shall linking mess has led to a genuine safety issue. My former company made a fan controller for the Airbus A380 that was installed under the main fuel tank. It occasionally shorts out because of botched requirements and bad design. This causes burned-up wires. Burning wires under the main fuel tank? Nice! We did not update the controller because of documentation and testing costs. Happy flying!
You’re the best -Bill
February 21, 2024
The word shall implies assured action. “The contractor shall complete the project by October 8.” There is no room for discussion. A date is set.
If you read a typical contract, you will see the word everywhere, like a gun inserted into every sentence. “The contractor better do what they are supposed to, or I will shoot them. Yeah, take that!”
However, a contract did not introduce me to this word. I used to be employed by a company that produced commercial aircraft parts. At some point, the FAA required careful tracking for the specifications. This process takes some explaining to get a total dose of the madness.
The process begins when an aircraft company produces a set of requirements for the subcontractor. We took these requirements and entered them into an awful program called Doors. We converted the aircraft company requirements into Doors and made a new set of requirements that mirrored the aircraft company requirements. We then linked them to each other. This linking is like opening a door from one room to the next, where the program got its name.
Then, we made a proposed set of specifications (to answer the requirements) linked to the requirements (linked to the aircraft company specifications). When we checked the links, we developed a design plan that met our specifications, which was then linked. Then, we developed a test requirement covering all the specifications linked to everything else. We developed a test plan, recorded the results, and linked everything. I skipped 10+ steps for simplicity, including manufacturing, quality, shal reviews (we actually called them that), and back-linking.
The documentation process took over 3,000 hours for an effort that should have been 100, but this was not the worst part. Because the Doors linking was so tedious, we went out of our way not to change any documents. This translates to knowingly using a poor design because we did not want to change any documentation. Happy flying!
Each Doors statement had a single shall per sentence. For example, “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” We could not combine topics or use other words. “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius, 0 to 80% humidity.” “The radio operating conditions are specified between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” “The radio must work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” While clear to the reader, the FAA did not permit such text. The reviewers were laser-focused on each shall and the surrounding sentence.
There was another enormous problem with this system. The aircraft company set its requirements to meet its performance goals. Yet, the subcontractor had broader requirements to attract more customers. Is it reasonable to use superior parts? Yes, but no.
Using shall statements, let’s link a requirement, specification, test, and test result. “The radio shall work between 0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” “The radio shall work between -20 and 80 degrees Celsius.” “The radio shall be tested working between -25 and 85 degrees Celsius.” “The radio testing results shall state operation between -27 and 88 degrees Celsius.”
Wow, that last sentence was awkward, but that is not the real problem. When looking at the links between specifications, testing, and requirements, they do not match. Most of us understand using a superior part (a radio that works at wider temperatures) is better, but the link reviewers do not accept mismatches. That is the point that the FAA demanded to be addressed. To satisfy the FAA, we made the statements match. “0 and 50 degrees Celsius.” Thus, the aircraft received a part tested to less stringent requirements. Happy flying!
The heart of this process was understanding and linking shall statements. I must have seen 50,000 of them. This intense studying messed me up because when I read something like, “The radio works between -25 and 85 degrees Celsius,” it looks all wrong. And people make claims all the time. “I’m going to the post office around four today.” That sentence is understandable, but there is no shall statement. Thus, no commitment. I do not believe you.
This word indeed messed me up, and I rarely use it. Is it wrong to be afraid of a word? Yeah, it is. I should cowboy up and use it like any other. It SHALL be done!
PS, I know this shall linking mess has led to a genuine safety issue. My former company made a fan controller for the Airbus A380 that was installed under the main fuel tank. It occasionally shorts out because of botched requirements and bad design. This causes burned-up wires. Burning wires under the main fuel tank? Nice! We did not update the controller because of documentation and testing costs. Happy flying!
You’re the best -Bill
February 21, 2024
