Patti O'Shea's Blog, page 106
March 13, 2016
Daylight Saving Time
This is a repeat from last year, but too good not to replay.
March 10, 2016
Theme Songs
I used to pick theme songs for my stories. This wasn't something I'd ever planned to do, but one day (as I was driving home from work) Devo's Girl U Want started to play and the lyrics made it perfect for my first book, Ravyn's Flight. The book officially had a theme song.
Nothing popped out at me like that for The Power of Two, but I chose Corey Hart's Never Surrender because that was Cai's attitude.
I never was happy with the theme song for Through a Crimson Veil. The title kind of fit, but the rest of the Travis Tritt song really didn't work for Mika. But Eternal Nights did fit perfectly with INXS's Never Tear Us Apart and every time I hear it, I still think of Kendall and Wyatt.
Because it sometimes helped with the writing, I even tried to choose theme songs for my Works In Progress (WIP), but it's very time consuming to find the right song and as time became harder to come by, I've pretty much given it up. Part of me misses having a song come on the radio and getting all excited because it belonged to one of my books, but on the other hand, a lot of my characters ended up with theme music that I picked just because I was tired of looking for something. Those tunes evoke nothing in me.
I think what I've decided to do is to pick a theme song only if one jumps out as being perfect for the story. That means most of my stories won't have anything, but I think it's better than trying to force something to fit.
Nothing popped out at me like that for The Power of Two, but I chose Corey Hart's Never Surrender because that was Cai's attitude.
I never was happy with the theme song for Through a Crimson Veil. The title kind of fit, but the rest of the Travis Tritt song really didn't work for Mika. But Eternal Nights did fit perfectly with INXS's Never Tear Us Apart and every time I hear it, I still think of Kendall and Wyatt.
Because it sometimes helped with the writing, I even tried to choose theme songs for my Works In Progress (WIP), but it's very time consuming to find the right song and as time became harder to come by, I've pretty much given it up. Part of me misses having a song come on the radio and getting all excited because it belonged to one of my books, but on the other hand, a lot of my characters ended up with theme music that I picked just because I was tired of looking for something. Those tunes evoke nothing in me.
I think what I've decided to do is to pick a theme song only if one jumps out as being perfect for the story. That means most of my stories won't have anything, but I think it's better than trying to force something to fit.
March 8, 2016
Organization Tech
It's no secret that I love taking online classes. I'm always ready to learn something new, and since I'm a geek, who loves to make technology work for me, a lot of the classes I've signed up for are related to some computer program or another.
One of the programs I really would like to learn is Microsoft Access, but it's not an intuitive program at all. For years, it's sat--unused--on my hard drive. I found a class, though, that claims it can teach me Access by comparing it with Excel and I do know Excel kind of well because of my day job. And since this class was on sale, I signed up.
I've hardly gone through any of the lectures yet, so I can't review how well the class is working for me, but I did see the overview of what Access can do, and it could potentially be a great tool for writing. I'd love to create a form for my characters--not only the hero and heroine, but all the secondary characters too. Then I could punch in what book they're from, what their general appearance is, other details I need to remember, and best of all, it would be quickly searchable when I needed the information.
Or how about creating a form to record my book collection? I have more than a 1000 books all listed in a spreadsheet, but once upon a time, I had a form in Microsoft Works that was so slick. I'd love to have that back again. Music collection, movie collection, the possibilities are endless.
But first I actually have to take the class, something I'm notoriously slow about doing even when I'm enthusiastic about one of them. :-/
One of the programs I really would like to learn is Microsoft Access, but it's not an intuitive program at all. For years, it's sat--unused--on my hard drive. I found a class, though, that claims it can teach me Access by comparing it with Excel and I do know Excel kind of well because of my day job. And since this class was on sale, I signed up.
I've hardly gone through any of the lectures yet, so I can't review how well the class is working for me, but I did see the overview of what Access can do, and it could potentially be a great tool for writing. I'd love to create a form for my characters--not only the hero and heroine, but all the secondary characters too. Then I could punch in what book they're from, what their general appearance is, other details I need to remember, and best of all, it would be quickly searchable when I needed the information.
Or how about creating a form to record my book collection? I have more than a 1000 books all listed in a spreadsheet, but once upon a time, I had a form in Microsoft Works that was so slick. I'd love to have that back again. Music collection, movie collection, the possibilities are endless.
But first I actually have to take the class, something I'm notoriously slow about doing even when I'm enthusiastic about one of them. :-/
March 6, 2016
How to Insult Like the British
British Insults
March 3, 2016
Book Versus the Movie
We all know that movies rarely follow the books. Some authors have become hugely upset by this, which I totally understand, but it's my reaction as a reader/movie watcher that I'd like to talk about. The movie/book in question is Angels & Demons by Dan Brown.
***WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS***
I listened to the audio book, and when I was about halfway through, I saw the movie. I'd planned on finishing the book first, but my dad had really liked The Da Vinci Code and wanted to watch the next film.
The setup and beginning are much different than the book in a lot of respects. As a writer, I understood this. First of all, the book has a complex start with the hero being taken via experimental plane to Geneva and CERN. (Interestingly, this book was written long before the atom smasher at CERN came on line, something I checked since Brown's portrayal of the organization was drastically different than what I knew of it.) Once at CERN, there is the body to view, the lab and the underground storage facilities to visit, etc.
A movie would get bogged down trying to duplicate the book's opening, not just in terms of story, but in terms of the time it would take. They couldn't afford to film the beginning as it was written. A viewing audience would lose interest, although in a book, the opening was fine, suspenseful enough to keep me listening. The scriptwriter(s) choice to open as they did worked out well and got the story started much faster than the book did. I was okay with this.
Where I thought the movie became confusing for someone who'd read the book was the head of the Vatican Guard. In the book, there is one head--Olivetti. In the movie, there are like these two guys in charge, Richter and Olivetti. I kept trying to figure out where Richter came from. :-)
The other change that was somewhat large in the first half was with the Robert Langdon character. In the book, he made the mistake of thinking Raphael's tomb was the first stop on the trail of illumination, but we find out he was wrong. In the movie, it was another character who made that assumption, leaving Langdon perfect. I think I prefer Brown's way here, making his hero human and fallible.
It was the second half of the movie which diverged more dramatically from the book. Some of it was because of the streamlining they did at the beginning of the movie. After all, they couldn't have the director of CERN show up to meet with the Camerlengo if we'd never met the CERN director before. But other things had nothing to do with the logic of the plot.
In the book, the fourth cardinal dies in the fountain. In the movie, Langdon rescues him.In the book, the cardinal leading the vote for the new pope has no aspirations to become pope himself. In the movie, he's swayed to seek power by one of his bishops.In the book, it's the second in command of the Vatican Guard who rushes in and is labeled by the Camerlengo as a member of the Illuminati. In the movie, it's the bishop who I mentioned in the previous bullet point.In the book, though he has no papal aspirations, the leader of the conclave becomes pope. In the movie, the fourth, rescued preferiti becomes pontiff.In the book, Langdon is in the helicopter with the Camerlengo and survives by using a tarp when he jumps out of the helicopter. In the movie, the Camerlengo goes up alone.On this last bullet point, I totally understand why the scriptwriter opted to go the way he did. It was very unbelievable that Langdon jumped like that and survived. Also, the piece of information he had that led him to try it was a conversation with the director of CERN, which didn't happen in the film.
Overall, both the film and the book had pluses and minuses. Some things about the book I liked better and some things I liked better in the movie. It's interesting, though, to ponder why the scriptwriter made the choices he did when it came to interpreting the book.
***WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS***
I listened to the audio book, and when I was about halfway through, I saw the movie. I'd planned on finishing the book first, but my dad had really liked The Da Vinci Code and wanted to watch the next film.
The setup and beginning are much different than the book in a lot of respects. As a writer, I understood this. First of all, the book has a complex start with the hero being taken via experimental plane to Geneva and CERN. (Interestingly, this book was written long before the atom smasher at CERN came on line, something I checked since Brown's portrayal of the organization was drastically different than what I knew of it.) Once at CERN, there is the body to view, the lab and the underground storage facilities to visit, etc.
A movie would get bogged down trying to duplicate the book's opening, not just in terms of story, but in terms of the time it would take. They couldn't afford to film the beginning as it was written. A viewing audience would lose interest, although in a book, the opening was fine, suspenseful enough to keep me listening. The scriptwriter(s) choice to open as they did worked out well and got the story started much faster than the book did. I was okay with this.
Where I thought the movie became confusing for someone who'd read the book was the head of the Vatican Guard. In the book, there is one head--Olivetti. In the movie, there are like these two guys in charge, Richter and Olivetti. I kept trying to figure out where Richter came from. :-)
The other change that was somewhat large in the first half was with the Robert Langdon character. In the book, he made the mistake of thinking Raphael's tomb was the first stop on the trail of illumination, but we find out he was wrong. In the movie, it was another character who made that assumption, leaving Langdon perfect. I think I prefer Brown's way here, making his hero human and fallible.
It was the second half of the movie which diverged more dramatically from the book. Some of it was because of the streamlining they did at the beginning of the movie. After all, they couldn't have the director of CERN show up to meet with the Camerlengo if we'd never met the CERN director before. But other things had nothing to do with the logic of the plot.
In the book, the fourth cardinal dies in the fountain. In the movie, Langdon rescues him.In the book, the cardinal leading the vote for the new pope has no aspirations to become pope himself. In the movie, he's swayed to seek power by one of his bishops.In the book, it's the second in command of the Vatican Guard who rushes in and is labeled by the Camerlengo as a member of the Illuminati. In the movie, it's the bishop who I mentioned in the previous bullet point.In the book, though he has no papal aspirations, the leader of the conclave becomes pope. In the movie, the fourth, rescued preferiti becomes pontiff.In the book, Langdon is in the helicopter with the Camerlengo and survives by using a tarp when he jumps out of the helicopter. In the movie, the Camerlengo goes up alone.On this last bullet point, I totally understand why the scriptwriter opted to go the way he did. It was very unbelievable that Langdon jumped like that and survived. Also, the piece of information he had that led him to try it was a conversation with the director of CERN, which didn't happen in the film.
Overall, both the film and the book had pluses and minuses. Some things about the book I liked better and some things I liked better in the movie. It's interesting, though, to ponder why the scriptwriter made the choices he did when it came to interpreting the book.
March 1, 2016
Review: The Da Vinci Code (Film)
***WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS AHEAD***
I have this perverse streak in me--the more popular something becomes, the less likely I am to read it (if it's a book) or watch it (for a movie)--and The Da Vinci Code was huge. This is why it took me nearly ten years to see the movie, and the only reason I watched it now was that it was free to stream for Amazon Prime members and I wanted to watch something that I thought my dad would like, too.
For the ten people out there who don't know what The Da Vinci Code is about when a man is murdered inside the Louvre, he leaves a message that seems to implicate Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks), a professor of symbology at Harvard in his death. This leads Langdon down a dangerous path of murder and intrigue as he tries to clear his name and find out what is happening with the help of a French police officer, Sophie Neveu (played by Audrey Tautou).
I'll confess that I found the first third of the movie or so to be confusing. I actually had to stop playing on the computer and pay attention to the film. My dad kept asking me questions and I'm like: I don't know and stop asking because I'm missing stuff that's happening and getting more lost.
Things became clearer as the story moved along, but my bad habit of doing two things at once and the fact that the film was moving fast and probably skating over stuff that the author the book, Dan Brown, had spent more time on made it hard to keep up. There were also English subtitles for the dialogue that was in French, and because I was looking at the computer instead of the TV, I missed some of it.
Despite my confusion, I quickly found myself riveted by the story. Even my dad, who said he didn't plan to stay up until the end of the film, became involved--and he did stay up until it was over. I'm trying to think of a movie Ron Howard has directed that wasn't good, but can't think of any.
Ian McKellen was brilliant as the grail professor living in France. I worried about his safety and then was shocked when he turned out to be one of the bad guys. I'm still not sure if he was part of Opus Dei or simply after the secret of the grail for himself, but wow. Until a minute or two before he was revealed, I didn't guess his true motives.
I was a few minutes ahead on figuring out who Sophie really was, too. You know, this was pretty cool because usually I know what's going on way, way before it's revealed in whatever film I'm watching. That steals some of the fun from the movie. On the other hand, I liked coming up with the right answers shortly before they were revealed because then it made me feel smart. And after the beginning where I'm sitting there like huh? it was nice to feel like I wasn't an idiot.
Tom Hanks gave an enjoyable performance, but then I generally like him in whatever movie he's in. I also liked Audrey Tautou as his co-star. I thought the film might strike up a love interest between them, but it didn't and that worked, too. As fast-paced as the plot was, there really wasn't room for a romance, too.
When the movie ended, I went to go buy the book--and found out I already owned an ebook version of it. Oops! I decided I wanted to read it to find out what, exactly, was going on in the beginning, but since I'd had it since 2013 and hadn't read it, I picked up the audio book too. I figure I have a better chance of finding time to listen than time to read. Besides, my dad has the ebook reader right now and he's reading The Da Vinci Code.
Overall, I enjoyed the film and the suspense was intense. Recommended.
My rating: 4 Stars.
DISCLAIMER: I received no compensation of any kind for this review or for any site or product mentioned in this review.
I have this perverse streak in me--the more popular something becomes, the less likely I am to read it (if it's a book) or watch it (for a movie)--and The Da Vinci Code was huge. This is why it took me nearly ten years to see the movie, and the only reason I watched it now was that it was free to stream for Amazon Prime members and I wanted to watch something that I thought my dad would like, too.
For the ten people out there who don't know what The Da Vinci Code is about when a man is murdered inside the Louvre, he leaves a message that seems to implicate Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks), a professor of symbology at Harvard in his death. This leads Langdon down a dangerous path of murder and intrigue as he tries to clear his name and find out what is happening with the help of a French police officer, Sophie Neveu (played by Audrey Tautou).
I'll confess that I found the first third of the movie or so to be confusing. I actually had to stop playing on the computer and pay attention to the film. My dad kept asking me questions and I'm like: I don't know and stop asking because I'm missing stuff that's happening and getting more lost.
Things became clearer as the story moved along, but my bad habit of doing two things at once and the fact that the film was moving fast and probably skating over stuff that the author the book, Dan Brown, had spent more time on made it hard to keep up. There were also English subtitles for the dialogue that was in French, and because I was looking at the computer instead of the TV, I missed some of it.
Despite my confusion, I quickly found myself riveted by the story. Even my dad, who said he didn't plan to stay up until the end of the film, became involved--and he did stay up until it was over. I'm trying to think of a movie Ron Howard has directed that wasn't good, but can't think of any.
Ian McKellen was brilliant as the grail professor living in France. I worried about his safety and then was shocked when he turned out to be one of the bad guys. I'm still not sure if he was part of Opus Dei or simply after the secret of the grail for himself, but wow. Until a minute or two before he was revealed, I didn't guess his true motives.
I was a few minutes ahead on figuring out who Sophie really was, too. You know, this was pretty cool because usually I know what's going on way, way before it's revealed in whatever film I'm watching. That steals some of the fun from the movie. On the other hand, I liked coming up with the right answers shortly before they were revealed because then it made me feel smart. And after the beginning where I'm sitting there like huh? it was nice to feel like I wasn't an idiot.
Tom Hanks gave an enjoyable performance, but then I generally like him in whatever movie he's in. I also liked Audrey Tautou as his co-star. I thought the film might strike up a love interest between them, but it didn't and that worked, too. As fast-paced as the plot was, there really wasn't room for a romance, too.
When the movie ended, I went to go buy the book--and found out I already owned an ebook version of it. Oops! I decided I wanted to read it to find out what, exactly, was going on in the beginning, but since I'd had it since 2013 and hadn't read it, I picked up the audio book too. I figure I have a better chance of finding time to listen than time to read. Besides, my dad has the ebook reader right now and he's reading The Da Vinci Code.
Overall, I enjoyed the film and the suspense was intense. Recommended.
My rating: 4 Stars.
DISCLAIMER: I received no compensation of any kind for this review or for any site or product mentioned in this review.
February 28, 2016
February 25, 2016
Review: Barely Lethal
***WARNING: THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD.***
Barely Lethal had a premise that I found interesting: A top secret government program takes orphans and trains them from the time they're small children to be spies/assassins. Our heroine decides she wants a normal life, so she fakes her own death and enrolls as an exchange student in high school.
Cool, I thought, and even though it was geared to teenagers and was supposed to be a comedy, I thought it would be a fun movie to watch. What I got was an awesome premise that was pretty much wasted. It could have been so much better.
Part of my problem might be my own expectations about what Megan's experience in high school might be. I expected someone who was wise in the ways of the world and far beyond the petty ridiculousness of high school. Spies, even teenage spies, I figured would have some savvy and sophistication. Instead, Megan was a total space case, not even advanced as far as her classmates were in a lot of ways. Disappointing.
Her naivety, I guess, was supposed to be the source of the humor, but it fell flat. This film didn't even handle the teenage part of the plot well. You know the one, where the heroine is lusting after the hot guy and friend zone's the geeky AV guy, only to discover that it's really the AV guy she wants after all. This was one of the plots in the movie, but it was clumsy and I didn't feel it was well-executed.
Barely Lethal wasn't all bad--I actually watched the entire movie, something I don't do with horrible pictures. I like the sub-plot with the exchange family's daughter and how she fell for the boy she should have had zero interest in. I also liked the way Samuel L. Jackson's character came back to help the heroine in the end--even after saying he wouldn't--because he really did form attachments for the students he was teaching.
Unfortunately, the good aspects couldn't overcome a poor script. The humor fell flat, the teenage angst stuff was misplayed, there were plot holes galore, the script seemed to meander, without a cohesive central plot to drive the story, and opportunities that could have improved the storyline were either squandered or ignored.
While I can't recommend the movie, it wasn't a horrible way to spend 90 minutes.
My rating: 1 star
Disclaimer: I received no compensation of any kind for this review.
Barely Lethal had a premise that I found interesting: A top secret government program takes orphans and trains them from the time they're small children to be spies/assassins. Our heroine decides she wants a normal life, so she fakes her own death and enrolls as an exchange student in high school.
Cool, I thought, and even though it was geared to teenagers and was supposed to be a comedy, I thought it would be a fun movie to watch. What I got was an awesome premise that was pretty much wasted. It could have been so much better.
Part of my problem might be my own expectations about what Megan's experience in high school might be. I expected someone who was wise in the ways of the world and far beyond the petty ridiculousness of high school. Spies, even teenage spies, I figured would have some savvy and sophistication. Instead, Megan was a total space case, not even advanced as far as her classmates were in a lot of ways. Disappointing.
Her naivety, I guess, was supposed to be the source of the humor, but it fell flat. This film didn't even handle the teenage part of the plot well. You know the one, where the heroine is lusting after the hot guy and friend zone's the geeky AV guy, only to discover that it's really the AV guy she wants after all. This was one of the plots in the movie, but it was clumsy and I didn't feel it was well-executed.
Barely Lethal wasn't all bad--I actually watched the entire movie, something I don't do with horrible pictures. I like the sub-plot with the exchange family's daughter and how she fell for the boy she should have had zero interest in. I also liked the way Samuel L. Jackson's character came back to help the heroine in the end--even after saying he wouldn't--because he really did form attachments for the students he was teaching.
Unfortunately, the good aspects couldn't overcome a poor script. The humor fell flat, the teenage angst stuff was misplayed, there were plot holes galore, the script seemed to meander, without a cohesive central plot to drive the story, and opportunities that could have improved the storyline were either squandered or ignored.
While I can't recommend the movie, it wasn't a horrible way to spend 90 minutes.
My rating: 1 star
Disclaimer: I received no compensation of any kind for this review.
February 23, 2016
I'm Just Browsing
Off and on over the past few weeks, I've browsed for kitchen chairs. I'm not serious yet about buying any, but I want to see what's out there and how much they'd cost. However, because of cookies and overly aggressive marketing, I'm being bombarded with ads for chairs. Not just on websites I visit, but also in my email.
All of the sites where I've looked at chairs are now competing with each other for Facebook ads to display to me. I think they're on rotation right now as I see a different site pretty much every time I check my feed.
Other websites that that personalize ads are also displaying pictures of chairs I viewed on the websites I visited. It's pretty creepy and it puts my back up, making me less inclined to buy anything. When I mentioned this in a tweet to two of the sites which have been really bad about the cyber hard sell, one of them said clear your cookies. Sigh. I have cookies turned off on my laptop, but don't on my iPad. Clearing cookies there means having to login again to all my sites and I don't want to. I also feel I shouldn't have to do this to avoid all this personalized marketing crap.
One of the sites I've looked at has been bombarding me with emails every day highlighting the various chairs I've clicked at to view more closely. This is one avenue where online shopping falls down in comparison with in-store shopping.
In the store, I can tell the sales associate that I'm just browsing and that I'll find them if I need any help. They then leave me alone to check out the chairs in peace. When I walk out of the store after I'm done browsing, they don't follow me and hold up pictures of the chairs. They don't pass me notes warning me that they only have six sets of chairs in style A and that I better buy now. Nope, they let me leave and that's that.
Online... Sigh. Too needy. Too intrusive. Too much nagging, pestering, reminding. I wish they'd figure out an algorithm that would differentiate when someone is seriously looking with intent to buy and when someone is merely browsing. Then the site could target the serious shopper and leave me the hell alone. Gah!
Am I the only one that hates this so much that I'll probably spend my money at the least obnoxious store rather than the site that won't leave me alone? The price would have to be drastically better at the obnoxious site before they'd see a penny of my money.
All of the sites where I've looked at chairs are now competing with each other for Facebook ads to display to me. I think they're on rotation right now as I see a different site pretty much every time I check my feed.
Other websites that that personalize ads are also displaying pictures of chairs I viewed on the websites I visited. It's pretty creepy and it puts my back up, making me less inclined to buy anything. When I mentioned this in a tweet to two of the sites which have been really bad about the cyber hard sell, one of them said clear your cookies. Sigh. I have cookies turned off on my laptop, but don't on my iPad. Clearing cookies there means having to login again to all my sites and I don't want to. I also feel I shouldn't have to do this to avoid all this personalized marketing crap.
One of the sites I've looked at has been bombarding me with emails every day highlighting the various chairs I've clicked at to view more closely. This is one avenue where online shopping falls down in comparison with in-store shopping.
In the store, I can tell the sales associate that I'm just browsing and that I'll find them if I need any help. They then leave me alone to check out the chairs in peace. When I walk out of the store after I'm done browsing, they don't follow me and hold up pictures of the chairs. They don't pass me notes warning me that they only have six sets of chairs in style A and that I better buy now. Nope, they let me leave and that's that.
Online... Sigh. Too needy. Too intrusive. Too much nagging, pestering, reminding. I wish they'd figure out an algorithm that would differentiate when someone is seriously looking with intent to buy and when someone is merely browsing. Then the site could target the serious shopper and leave me the hell alone. Gah!
Am I the only one that hates this so much that I'll probably spend my money at the least obnoxious store rather than the site that won't leave me alone? The price would have to be drastically better at the obnoxious site before they'd see a penny of my money.
February 21, 2016
Irish Myth and Legends
Top 10 Irish Myths and Legends
