Mark Phillips's Blog, page 2
September 21, 2015
On the importance of Brainwashing
This post is 100% political today, you've been warned.
Everyone thinks that technology will come to destroy us all, and they're right. It's already happening. Except that the technology that will destroy us isn't vicious cyborgs or self-aware computers, it's cable TV and the Internet.
Cable TV gives us the 24 hour news. Channels like Fox News which serve only to brainwash people. I'm not speaking flippantly, I'm not using an analogy, I'm talking about actual brainwashing.
All Fox News does is spread hateful misinformation to a captive audience in order to reprogram the way they think. People who might otherwise be reasonable are being indoctrinated by the likes of Sean Hannity to believe that Obama is a not only the most leftist president in our history, but also a Muslim sent here to destroy our country from the inside.
This takes conspiracy theory to an insane new level.
The Internet allows these opinions to spread to all corners of humanity and widens the net of the brainwashed. Soon, huge sections of the electorate are so frenzied that they either elect their own loons (the tea party) to government, or their elected officials have to behave like loons to keep their jobs.
What happens is that the only truth recognized is the "truth" that they have been brainwashed with. Facts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter. It becomes an ideology. In many ways it's not much different than radical Islamic fascism.
It's to the point where you can't even talk to these people anymore let alone have a reasoned debate with them. They are the equivalent of a child who covers his ears and shakes his head when he hears something he doesn't want to.
Is Obama a secret Muslim? No. Is he trying to destroy our country? No. Is he a great president? No.
He has a been a mediocre president. His numbers (like jobs created, unemployment, etc...) only make him look better than mediocre because he followed one of the two worst presidents in American history.
But you can't have that debate. You can't argue the merits of policy. Obama must be pure evil and the other side must be pure good. That's the world we live in now. There are no more shades of gray.
Politicians always disagreed, but they were able to compromise. That was because the Democrats were just slightly left of center and the Republicans were just slightly right of center.
Now, the Republican party has moved far to the right and the Democrats (because they lack courage) have moved to the center and even a little to the right of center.
Many of the principles of ObamaCare were proposed by Lincoln Chaffee, Bob Dole and a host of other Republicans in 1993. It was a compromise plan to the plan President Clinton had to reform health care in 1993.
Todays Republicans call it socialism.
Cap and trade was a concept thought of and fought for by Republicans. Democrats hated the idea at first.
Todays Republicans say it will destroy jobs and proves how radical Obama is.
The Republicans today argue that Obama is negotiating with terrorists because of the Iran deal.
Yet Ronald Reagan gave Iran arms in exchange for hostages.
Except Todays Republicans believe that never happened, because it doesn't fit into the brainwashing. Only certain information is allowed to get in.
Most of the best ideas come from a moderate position. A position in the middle. And we used to be able to get there. Republicans would suggest a plan slightly right of center, the democrats would offer one slightly left of center, and they would meet in the middle.
Those days are gone, and our country becomes a little bit worse each day that goes by.
If America's best days are behind us, it's not because Obama is destroying America. It's because the citizens are brainwashed and the politicians are no better than the people.
It will inevitable lead to the downfall of this country and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Everyone thinks that technology will come to destroy us all, and they're right. It's already happening. Except that the technology that will destroy us isn't vicious cyborgs or self-aware computers, it's cable TV and the Internet.
Cable TV gives us the 24 hour news. Channels like Fox News which serve only to brainwash people. I'm not speaking flippantly, I'm not using an analogy, I'm talking about actual brainwashing.
All Fox News does is spread hateful misinformation to a captive audience in order to reprogram the way they think. People who might otherwise be reasonable are being indoctrinated by the likes of Sean Hannity to believe that Obama is a not only the most leftist president in our history, but also a Muslim sent here to destroy our country from the inside.
This takes conspiracy theory to an insane new level.
The Internet allows these opinions to spread to all corners of humanity and widens the net of the brainwashed. Soon, huge sections of the electorate are so frenzied that they either elect their own loons (the tea party) to government, or their elected officials have to behave like loons to keep their jobs.
What happens is that the only truth recognized is the "truth" that they have been brainwashed with. Facts don't matter, evidence doesn't matter. It becomes an ideology. In many ways it's not much different than radical Islamic fascism.
It's to the point where you can't even talk to these people anymore let alone have a reasoned debate with them. They are the equivalent of a child who covers his ears and shakes his head when he hears something he doesn't want to.
Is Obama a secret Muslim? No. Is he trying to destroy our country? No. Is he a great president? No.
He has a been a mediocre president. His numbers (like jobs created, unemployment, etc...) only make him look better than mediocre because he followed one of the two worst presidents in American history.
But you can't have that debate. You can't argue the merits of policy. Obama must be pure evil and the other side must be pure good. That's the world we live in now. There are no more shades of gray.
Politicians always disagreed, but they were able to compromise. That was because the Democrats were just slightly left of center and the Republicans were just slightly right of center.
Now, the Republican party has moved far to the right and the Democrats (because they lack courage) have moved to the center and even a little to the right of center.
Many of the principles of ObamaCare were proposed by Lincoln Chaffee, Bob Dole and a host of other Republicans in 1993. It was a compromise plan to the plan President Clinton had to reform health care in 1993.
Todays Republicans call it socialism.
Cap and trade was a concept thought of and fought for by Republicans. Democrats hated the idea at first.
Todays Republicans say it will destroy jobs and proves how radical Obama is.
The Republicans today argue that Obama is negotiating with terrorists because of the Iran deal.
Yet Ronald Reagan gave Iran arms in exchange for hostages.
Except Todays Republicans believe that never happened, because it doesn't fit into the brainwashing. Only certain information is allowed to get in.
Most of the best ideas come from a moderate position. A position in the middle. And we used to be able to get there. Republicans would suggest a plan slightly right of center, the democrats would offer one slightly left of center, and they would meet in the middle.
Those days are gone, and our country becomes a little bit worse each day that goes by.
If America's best days are behind us, it's not because Obama is destroying America. It's because the citizens are brainwashed and the politicians are no better than the people.
It will inevitable lead to the downfall of this country and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
August 31, 2015
On the importance of Pornography
A brief note before we get started. In case some of you have noted my recent long absence (and judging by my email inbox you have) I should explain that my family was going through a bit of a transition phase. We moved to a new home and had to deal with all that comes with that. I am glad to be writing to you again, however, and I'm glad that so many of you seemed to genuinely care that I continue to do so.
Wes Craven died yesterday after a battle with brain cancer. Most of you know Mr. Craven as the director of A Nightmare on Elm Street or the scream movies. I fondly remember him as the director of a film called Shocker, which was a universally panned film.
Shocker is important to me though because it was one of the first horror films I was allowed to see in the theater, on the big screen.
My cousin, Eddie, would come pick me up on Saturdays and take me to the movies when I was a kid. This always meant the world to me because my parents were always at work and my siblings were always too busy.
I had gotten hooked on horror from a very early age. I used to watch the Saturday morning horror double feature on channel 20. Friday the 13th, or one of its sequels, was popular on that telecast. As was A Nightmare on Elm Street.
When my cousin told me we were going to see a movie by the same guy that did A Nightmare on Elm Street, I was excited.
The movie did not disappoint me.
Oh sure, I could look back on it now and see all of its glaring flaws, but to a ten-year-old kid seeing the horror spread across a big screen it was glorious.
I think that horror is made for the big screen. The size draws you into that world so that it really feels as if you're the one stumbling through the woods, you're the one panting and out of breath, you're the one in danger.
Now many of you may be asking right about that, "what does this have to do with pornography?"
Well, while many of you know Wes Craven for his horror films, how many of you know that he got his start in pornographic films?
Wes Craven started off as a professor at college before moving on to the porn industry. He did many jobs behind the camera. Mostly writing and editing.
However, we will never know how much work he did exactly because he used various pseudonyms and he didn't talk about it much.
Many people have speculated that he directed more than a few pornographic films before finding success with The Last House on the Left.
Wes Craven was clearly passionate about horror films and the genre as a whole, but I doubt he shared the same passion about pornography.
So why is it important? Because Craven's other passion was directing. Really the entire process of making films and it was that passion (and money, I'm sure) that led him into the porn industry. And it was there that he learned many valuable lessons about his craft.
I can only speculate but I'm going to guess that Craven wasn't particularly proud to be doing porn. I'm sure that wasn't his highest ambition. Yet he found a love for what he was doing because it helped him achieve what he really wanted, and that it was an easy thing to do.
So for you, who slug through the rigors of some mundane job that you hate. Try to find in it the seed of something that might help you be better at whatever it is you ultimately want to do. Allow it to enrich your life in the same way that Wes Craven allowed his early work to enrich his.
It's not easy, but it's so rewarding.
Wes Craven died yesterday after a battle with brain cancer. Most of you know Mr. Craven as the director of A Nightmare on Elm Street or the scream movies. I fondly remember him as the director of a film called Shocker, which was a universally panned film.
Shocker is important to me though because it was one of the first horror films I was allowed to see in the theater, on the big screen.
My cousin, Eddie, would come pick me up on Saturdays and take me to the movies when I was a kid. This always meant the world to me because my parents were always at work and my siblings were always too busy.
I had gotten hooked on horror from a very early age. I used to watch the Saturday morning horror double feature on channel 20. Friday the 13th, or one of its sequels, was popular on that telecast. As was A Nightmare on Elm Street.
When my cousin told me we were going to see a movie by the same guy that did A Nightmare on Elm Street, I was excited.
The movie did not disappoint me.
Oh sure, I could look back on it now and see all of its glaring flaws, but to a ten-year-old kid seeing the horror spread across a big screen it was glorious.
I think that horror is made for the big screen. The size draws you into that world so that it really feels as if you're the one stumbling through the woods, you're the one panting and out of breath, you're the one in danger.
Now many of you may be asking right about that, "what does this have to do with pornography?"
Well, while many of you know Wes Craven for his horror films, how many of you know that he got his start in pornographic films?
Wes Craven started off as a professor at college before moving on to the porn industry. He did many jobs behind the camera. Mostly writing and editing.
However, we will never know how much work he did exactly because he used various pseudonyms and he didn't talk about it much.
Many people have speculated that he directed more than a few pornographic films before finding success with The Last House on the Left.
Wes Craven was clearly passionate about horror films and the genre as a whole, but I doubt he shared the same passion about pornography.
So why is it important? Because Craven's other passion was directing. Really the entire process of making films and it was that passion (and money, I'm sure) that led him into the porn industry. And it was there that he learned many valuable lessons about his craft.
I can only speculate but I'm going to guess that Craven wasn't particularly proud to be doing porn. I'm sure that wasn't his highest ambition. Yet he found a love for what he was doing because it helped him achieve what he really wanted, and that it was an easy thing to do.
So for you, who slug through the rigors of some mundane job that you hate. Try to find in it the seed of something that might help you be better at whatever it is you ultimately want to do. Allow it to enrich your life in the same way that Wes Craven allowed his early work to enrich his.
It's not easy, but it's so rewarding.
March 17, 2015
On the importance of Luck
It's St. Patrick's Day today and people are hoping for the luck of the Irish. Or maybe they're just hoping for the luck not to vomit tonight.
Luck plays an important part of your writing career. Everyone thinks it can happen to them because they have talent, and a good idea and an army of friends to help them, but that's not enough.
Everyone has heard of Stephen King and James Patterson and J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer. Who out there has heard of John Flint or Martha Stoneham or Rich Pilot. Okay, those are made-up names but you get the point. They could be the names of failed novelists. The point is, we never hear of them because they failed. And there are millions of them. Far more than the few that dominate the field of literature. That means that you have a much greater chance of becoming one of the nameless masses than one of the remembered few.
You could write one of the best novels ever written and still fail. You could have over a thousand friends and maybe they won't read the book, or talk to others about it, or maybe they will and no one will care what they have to say. You could be a marketing genius and never sell more than a handful of copies.
Writing is hard work, there's no question. The actual writing of the book is probably the easiest thing about it. It's the most fun; I know that. Then there's the editing and the editing and the editing. And the marketing and marketing and marketing. All of that is far harder than writing a novel and it takes up a lot of your time. You stump for weeks and see no results and you have to find the strength to carry on.
And still, so much of it comes down to luck. Did your book get see by the right people and did they like it? Did they talk about it to others and did those others like it? And so on. Did you book hit a new, hot market?
Skill is important. Those who don't work hard and don't write a great book will never have a chance even if the opportunities come their way. But even if you do everything right it doesn't mean those opportunities will ever show up.
Success in writing is a confluence of hard work and luck.
This is nothing that hasn't been said before, but there is an overall point to it.
Don't give up.
I know as well as anyone can how this industry can beat you down. Maybe you have some flashes of success only to come crashing back down. Maybe you never experience any success at all. Maybe your friends read the book and don't like it (even though they'll tell you they do) maybe they never read it.
Maybe you fell all alone. Loneliness is a feeling that writers get accustomed to. Maybe you feel like no one else cares.
Maybe they don't.
None of that matters really. What matters is that you care. What matters is that you have a story inside of you that must come out. To not tell it would not only hurt you as a person, but it would be a crime, because if you don't tell a story then it dies with you, and stories are meant to be told. That's the purpose of their existence.
Maybe you'll never get lucky. Maybe you'll never be successful, maybe only a handful of people will ever read your books.
Maybe it doesn't matter.
All the matters is that you are out there. You are spitting into the wind and hoping against hope that someone will hear you. That's the bravest thing you can do. To follow your dreams against every obstacle that's thrown up at you.
So, on this St. Patrick's Day maybe you will have a little luck. Barring that, try to make it to the bathroom if you're going to throw up.
Enjoy the holiday everyone.
Luck plays an important part of your writing career. Everyone thinks it can happen to them because they have talent, and a good idea and an army of friends to help them, but that's not enough.
Everyone has heard of Stephen King and James Patterson and J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer. Who out there has heard of John Flint or Martha Stoneham or Rich Pilot. Okay, those are made-up names but you get the point. They could be the names of failed novelists. The point is, we never hear of them because they failed. And there are millions of them. Far more than the few that dominate the field of literature. That means that you have a much greater chance of becoming one of the nameless masses than one of the remembered few.
You could write one of the best novels ever written and still fail. You could have over a thousand friends and maybe they won't read the book, or talk to others about it, or maybe they will and no one will care what they have to say. You could be a marketing genius and never sell more than a handful of copies.
Writing is hard work, there's no question. The actual writing of the book is probably the easiest thing about it. It's the most fun; I know that. Then there's the editing and the editing and the editing. And the marketing and marketing and marketing. All of that is far harder than writing a novel and it takes up a lot of your time. You stump for weeks and see no results and you have to find the strength to carry on.
And still, so much of it comes down to luck. Did your book get see by the right people and did they like it? Did they talk about it to others and did those others like it? And so on. Did you book hit a new, hot market?
Skill is important. Those who don't work hard and don't write a great book will never have a chance even if the opportunities come their way. But even if you do everything right it doesn't mean those opportunities will ever show up.
Success in writing is a confluence of hard work and luck.
This is nothing that hasn't been said before, but there is an overall point to it.
Don't give up.
I know as well as anyone can how this industry can beat you down. Maybe you have some flashes of success only to come crashing back down. Maybe you never experience any success at all. Maybe your friends read the book and don't like it (even though they'll tell you they do) maybe they never read it.
Maybe you fell all alone. Loneliness is a feeling that writers get accustomed to. Maybe you feel like no one else cares.
Maybe they don't.
None of that matters really. What matters is that you care. What matters is that you have a story inside of you that must come out. To not tell it would not only hurt you as a person, but it would be a crime, because if you don't tell a story then it dies with you, and stories are meant to be told. That's the purpose of their existence.
Maybe you'll never get lucky. Maybe you'll never be successful, maybe only a handful of people will ever read your books.
Maybe it doesn't matter.
All the matters is that you are out there. You are spitting into the wind and hoping against hope that someone will hear you. That's the bravest thing you can do. To follow your dreams against every obstacle that's thrown up at you.
So, on this St. Patrick's Day maybe you will have a little luck. Barring that, try to make it to the bathroom if you're going to throw up.
Enjoy the holiday everyone.
February 27, 2015
On the importance of Spock
A rare Friday edition, but this news is too important to not comment on.
As most of you know, Leonard Nimoy, known to many as Captain Spock, died today at the age of 83.
Nimoy did more than any other actor in advancing the popularity of science fiction in television and movies.
When he got the role of Spock in the original Star Trek series he could have approached it with disdain. After all, Nimoy was a classically trained actor who had appeared in several "series" movies and television programs before Star Trek. He could have played his role in an over-the-top manner. He could have phoned it in.
But he didn't.
Instead, Nimoy gave a nuanced and restrained performance that was the perfect counter-balance to Shatner's larger-than-life hero. Nimoy took the work seriously and he took the craft of acting seriously.
If that was his only contribution he would still be loved and celebrated, but the man did so much more.
He directed Star Trek III and Star Trek IV and was essential to the story ideas of both Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI. He directed for television and he also directed Three Men and a Baby.
Nimoy had a vision for science fiction being a vehicle for conversations about our place in the universe and the problems that faced mankind. He was as much of a visionary dreamer as Gene Roddenberry.
More than anything he was an ambassador to millions of fans from all around the world. Donating his time and kindness to the world he attended conventions, signed autographs, talked to fans and embraced his role in the wondrous worlds that these fans loved.
To say that his presence will be missed is an understatement. His place in science fiction will forever be etched in our memories and his influence will live on forever.
As most of you know, Leonard Nimoy, known to many as Captain Spock, died today at the age of 83.
Nimoy did more than any other actor in advancing the popularity of science fiction in television and movies.
When he got the role of Spock in the original Star Trek series he could have approached it with disdain. After all, Nimoy was a classically trained actor who had appeared in several "series" movies and television programs before Star Trek. He could have played his role in an over-the-top manner. He could have phoned it in.
But he didn't.
Instead, Nimoy gave a nuanced and restrained performance that was the perfect counter-balance to Shatner's larger-than-life hero. Nimoy took the work seriously and he took the craft of acting seriously.
If that was his only contribution he would still be loved and celebrated, but the man did so much more.
He directed Star Trek III and Star Trek IV and was essential to the story ideas of both Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI. He directed for television and he also directed Three Men and a Baby.
Nimoy had a vision for science fiction being a vehicle for conversations about our place in the universe and the problems that faced mankind. He was as much of a visionary dreamer as Gene Roddenberry.
More than anything he was an ambassador to millions of fans from all around the world. Donating his time and kindness to the world he attended conventions, signed autographs, talked to fans and embraced his role in the wondrous worlds that these fans loved.
To say that his presence will be missed is an understatement. His place in science fiction will forever be etched in our memories and his influence will live on forever.
February 26, 2015
On the importance of Awards
The Academy Awards recently handed out their little statuettes in a public ceremony. Movies like Birdman and Whiplash (films that didn't receive a lot of press or buzz before they were nominated) were given a huge boost by the exposure.
Literary awards are never as big of a deal as the Oscars. The closest is probably the Pulitzer prize and that's only really a big deal to people in the industry and the academic circles.
However, literary awards can help you boost your sales and your name recognition. But are they really worth it?
Therein lies the question.
I have never entered a literary competition before so I'm speaking as an outsider, but I have noticed that there are dozens of awards out there for independent writers.
Here is a short list:
Indiereader Discovery Awards Entry Fee: $100 Prize: Kindle Paperwhite and possible agent representation
Independent Publisher Book Awards Entry Fee: $95 Prize: Lots of promotion through Publisher's Weekly and a gold seal
eLit Awards Entry Fee: $60 Prize: Unknown
Writer's Digest Self-Published Book Awards Entry Fee: $99 Prize: $8,000 plus several promotions and endorsements
As you can see the entry fees are pretty standard between sixty dollars and one-hundred dollars. The prizes, however, are vastly different.
Writer's Digest seems to have the best prize to me. It's a reputable publication with a long history and they are the only ones that I can find that are offering guaranteed money to the winner.
Awards might bring in more sales. Hell, they might bring in a lot more sales, but eight-grand is eight-grand. You don't have to worry about luck or people being interested in your award winning book. An award winning book that doesn't sell isn't more valuable than any other non-selling book.
My final verdict is that some of these contests (and there a ton more out there) might be worth checking out. Many of them could be a way for people to try and make a quick buck off of writers looking to make a name for themselves.
I'm not calling them scams, because they aren't really that. I'm simply saying that if 1,000 people sign up for a contest that costs 100 dollars then that means the people running the contest just made 100,000 dollars. It certainly doesn't cost that much money to print up some gold stickers and write a good review on a few blogs about a book. If that's all the prize is, you'd be better off making up your own award, printing your own sticker and making yourself the only entrant and only winner.
The key in all of this is to research these things before you decide. A good rule of thumb is to look at the prize compared to the entry fee. A contest that costs $100 to enter and only has a top prize of $200 is not worth your time.
Beware of people just trying to make some money. Do your homework and I think that, maybe, some of these awards could actually provide you a good boost in sales.
Good luck out there.
Literary awards are never as big of a deal as the Oscars. The closest is probably the Pulitzer prize and that's only really a big deal to people in the industry and the academic circles.
However, literary awards can help you boost your sales and your name recognition. But are they really worth it?
Therein lies the question.
I have never entered a literary competition before so I'm speaking as an outsider, but I have noticed that there are dozens of awards out there for independent writers.
Here is a short list:
Indiereader Discovery Awards Entry Fee: $100 Prize: Kindle Paperwhite and possible agent representation
Independent Publisher Book Awards Entry Fee: $95 Prize: Lots of promotion through Publisher's Weekly and a gold seal
eLit Awards Entry Fee: $60 Prize: Unknown
Writer's Digest Self-Published Book Awards Entry Fee: $99 Prize: $8,000 plus several promotions and endorsements
As you can see the entry fees are pretty standard between sixty dollars and one-hundred dollars. The prizes, however, are vastly different.
Writer's Digest seems to have the best prize to me. It's a reputable publication with a long history and they are the only ones that I can find that are offering guaranteed money to the winner.
Awards might bring in more sales. Hell, they might bring in a lot more sales, but eight-grand is eight-grand. You don't have to worry about luck or people being interested in your award winning book. An award winning book that doesn't sell isn't more valuable than any other non-selling book.
My final verdict is that some of these contests (and there a ton more out there) might be worth checking out. Many of them could be a way for people to try and make a quick buck off of writers looking to make a name for themselves.
I'm not calling them scams, because they aren't really that. I'm simply saying that if 1,000 people sign up for a contest that costs 100 dollars then that means the people running the contest just made 100,000 dollars. It certainly doesn't cost that much money to print up some gold stickers and write a good review on a few blogs about a book. If that's all the prize is, you'd be better off making up your own award, printing your own sticker and making yourself the only entrant and only winner.
The key in all of this is to research these things before you decide. A good rule of thumb is to look at the prize compared to the entry fee. A contest that costs $100 to enter and only has a top prize of $200 is not worth your time.
Beware of people just trying to make some money. Do your homework and I think that, maybe, some of these awards could actually provide you a good boost in sales.
Good luck out there.
February 19, 2015
On the importance of Adversity
Let's face it, life has a way of beating us down.
That can be especially true if you're a struggling writer. If you're attempting to go the traditional route then you have to deal with piles of rejection slips. If you're an independent author adversity can strike through stagnating sales or bad reviews.
Yet, there are a myriad of other ways that adversity affects us. Illness, injury, problems with money, arguments, car trouble. There are so many more.
Recently, I experienced a few of these. The most of important of which is this: my mother died of lung cancer.
Watching her slowly deteriorate was one of the most painful things I've ever had to go through.
When something like that happens to you it affects the way you look at life. Which means that it affects the way you look at writing.
I don't pity myself. I understand that there are people (many of them, unfortunately) who have it far worse than I do. It's been a particularly cold winter and there are people out there living on the streets. Many of them dying from the cold, I'm sure. But adversity is a very personal thing. You can't measure your problems against other people's because your worst problem is the worst thing that's ever happened to you. It elicits the same emotion as the worst thing that ever happened to someone else.
In times of adversity how to react tells a lot about our character. You can either let your troubles define your life or you can define your own life.
Will you quit when you get that first rejection slip? How about when you get the tenth, or the hundredth? Will you quit when you have a few days of small sales? Will you quit when you can't pay your rent or the car gets a flat or your family drives you crazy?
You must not.
In chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters. The first means danger, the second opportunity.
Don't succumb to the dangers, take the opportunities as they come. In the words of Commander Taggart: never give up, never surrender.
That can be especially true if you're a struggling writer. If you're attempting to go the traditional route then you have to deal with piles of rejection slips. If you're an independent author adversity can strike through stagnating sales or bad reviews.
Yet, there are a myriad of other ways that adversity affects us. Illness, injury, problems with money, arguments, car trouble. There are so many more.
Recently, I experienced a few of these. The most of important of which is this: my mother died of lung cancer.
Watching her slowly deteriorate was one of the most painful things I've ever had to go through.
When something like that happens to you it affects the way you look at life. Which means that it affects the way you look at writing.
I don't pity myself. I understand that there are people (many of them, unfortunately) who have it far worse than I do. It's been a particularly cold winter and there are people out there living on the streets. Many of them dying from the cold, I'm sure. But adversity is a very personal thing. You can't measure your problems against other people's because your worst problem is the worst thing that's ever happened to you. It elicits the same emotion as the worst thing that ever happened to someone else.
In times of adversity how to react tells a lot about our character. You can either let your troubles define your life or you can define your own life.
Will you quit when you get that first rejection slip? How about when you get the tenth, or the hundredth? Will you quit when you have a few days of small sales? Will you quit when you can't pay your rent or the car gets a flat or your family drives you crazy?
You must not.
In chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters. The first means danger, the second opportunity.
Don't succumb to the dangers, take the opportunities as they come. In the words of Commander Taggart: never give up, never surrender.
February 11, 2015
On the importance of Jon Stewart
In 1999 Jon Stewart became the second host in The Daily Show's short run (Craig Kilborn was host from 1996-1998) and I wasn't happy about it.
I enjoyed The Daily Show and its weird mix of local news/entertainment show satire. I especially liked Beth Littleford's Barbara Walters/Oprah style weepy interviews.
When Kilborn announced that he would be leaving the show to host The Late Late Show on CBS (there were also rumors of backstage drama) I was disappointed.
After all, I had never heard of this Jon Stewart character. He had hosted a couple of shows on MTV that didn't last long and had been a bit part in a few movies. I thought the show was doomed.
I have never been so happy to be so wrong.
For the next sixteen years Stewart transformed The Daily Show from a silly little bit of comedy fluff into an institution. They aimed their satire laser on politics and the news and became the voice for a group of people disenfranchised by the system.
Jon Stewart helped launch the careers of Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell, John Oliver and Larry Wilmore. He introduced angry comic Lewis Black to a whole new audience.
He had a memorable appearance on Crossfire ("stop hurting America") he gave one of the most poignant addresses after the September 11th attacks, he became a talking point on other "legitimate" news programs. He influenced news media in a way few others have.
The Daily Show was often described as a fake news show, but that's not really accurate. The news was real and the absurdity of both the politicians and the news anchors was real. Jon Stewart just had the good sense and talent to point it all out in as funny a way as possible.
The Daily Show was the equivalent of the kid sitting in the back of the class, shouting out insults. If, that is, the kid was the smartest man in the room, and if every comment was some salient point.
Now The Daily Show will be searching for its third host. Jon Stewart announced that his sixteen-year run will end later this year, and once again I find myself saddened.
The Daily Show will endure I have no doubt. The machine that Stewart helped create is strong enough to survive with a new host.
But it won't be the same.
What is next for Jon Stewart? No one knows (except maybe Stewart himself) but there is speculation. He recently made his directorial debut with the movie Rosewater. Many think they he may devote his time to future directing efforts.
I have my own theory. It's a little off-the-wall, but I think it has some merit.
With all the turmoil over the Brian Williams situation it looks as though NBC will be looking for a replacement. Could that be Jon Stewart? NBC already courted him for Meet the Press. Is it so outlandish to suggest that Stewart be the new anchor of the NBC Nightly News?
In November Stewart talked to CNN Money and dropped several hints that he might make the leap to a traditional news position.
Maybe NBC placed a call. Maybe they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Only time will tell.
I enjoyed The Daily Show and its weird mix of local news/entertainment show satire. I especially liked Beth Littleford's Barbara Walters/Oprah style weepy interviews.
When Kilborn announced that he would be leaving the show to host The Late Late Show on CBS (there were also rumors of backstage drama) I was disappointed.
After all, I had never heard of this Jon Stewart character. He had hosted a couple of shows on MTV that didn't last long and had been a bit part in a few movies. I thought the show was doomed.
I have never been so happy to be so wrong.
For the next sixteen years Stewart transformed The Daily Show from a silly little bit of comedy fluff into an institution. They aimed their satire laser on politics and the news and became the voice for a group of people disenfranchised by the system.
Jon Stewart helped launch the careers of Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell, John Oliver and Larry Wilmore. He introduced angry comic Lewis Black to a whole new audience.
He had a memorable appearance on Crossfire ("stop hurting America") he gave one of the most poignant addresses after the September 11th attacks, he became a talking point on other "legitimate" news programs. He influenced news media in a way few others have.
The Daily Show was often described as a fake news show, but that's not really accurate. The news was real and the absurdity of both the politicians and the news anchors was real. Jon Stewart just had the good sense and talent to point it all out in as funny a way as possible.
The Daily Show was the equivalent of the kid sitting in the back of the class, shouting out insults. If, that is, the kid was the smartest man in the room, and if every comment was some salient point.
Now The Daily Show will be searching for its third host. Jon Stewart announced that his sixteen-year run will end later this year, and once again I find myself saddened.
The Daily Show will endure I have no doubt. The machine that Stewart helped create is strong enough to survive with a new host.
But it won't be the same.
What is next for Jon Stewart? No one knows (except maybe Stewart himself) but there is speculation. He recently made his directorial debut with the movie Rosewater. Many think they he may devote his time to future directing efforts.
I have my own theory. It's a little off-the-wall, but I think it has some merit.
With all the turmoil over the Brian Williams situation it looks as though NBC will be looking for a replacement. Could that be Jon Stewart? NBC already courted him for Meet the Press. Is it so outlandish to suggest that Stewart be the new anchor of the NBC Nightly News?
In November Stewart talked to CNN Money and dropped several hints that he might make the leap to a traditional news position.
Maybe NBC placed a call. Maybe they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Only time will tell.
February 10, 2015
On the importance of Criticism
I debated for a week if I should write this blog. Whenever you talk about your own critics I think it's very hard to not come off as needy and combative. I will do my best.
First, I would like to say that I have no problem with critics. I enjoy reading emails from fans as well as detractors. I have no problem with someone hating one of my books because you simply aren't going to please everyone, and it's madness to even try. Furthermore, if they took the time to email you then you must have really affected them. Of course, I prefer to affect someone in a positive way rather than a negative one, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Recently, though, I received an email from a critic that I simply have to respond to. In the letter he talked about the gratuitous amount of violence in Beneath the Mask of Sanity and how awful the book was because of it. He then (and this is the impetus of this blog post) compared Beneath the Mask of Sanity to the 1978 film "I Spit on Your Grave".
For those of you who have never seen this film (count yourselves lucky) I can summarize it very quickly for you. The first hour of the film is a woman getting repeatedly raped by several men. Over and over again. The second hour of the movie is the same woman tracking down and murdering each of the men in gruesome ways.
In my opinion, I Spit on Your Grave is one of the worst films ever made. There are no redeeming qualities in the movie whatsoever. The filmmaker tries to shoehorn the message that the idea that "women are asking for it" because they dress provocatively is wrong (and it is) but there is no coherent message at all and it's barely touched upon.
No, the only reason for, I Spit On Your Grave, is to show as many horrible and offensive images as possible in the running time of a motion picture.
I hear some of you saying, "But there's a lot of horrible images in Beneath the Mask of Sanity. Why is that different?"
Well (and again, this is my opinion) I believe that almost nothing is off limits as long as there is a point.
What is the point of Beneath the Mask of Sanity? Well, for one, Bentley Grimes is vicious and sadistic for two reasons. One, because I felt, at the time, that too often in the media fictional (and sometimes real) serial killers were glorified to the point of legend. In fiction they were often treated as the ultimate "bad boy" character. Someone with redeeming qualities that was appealing because of a roguish attitude.
This is not reality. In fact, it can be damaging to think so. Violent killers are not romantic, they are not misunderstood heroes. They are dangerous and psychotic individuals that don't care about anything but themselves. I wanted to write a book with a little more truth in it and a little less romanticism.
The second reason is that I did a lot of research for the book. I poured over case studies of serial killers, I read articles about them, I even read notes that the killers themselves had penned. Some of the things I read about were for more disturbing than my book. For instance, if you enjoy sleeping well, don't look up Albert Fish and the letter he wrote to the parents of one of his victims.
But Beneath the Mask of Sanity was about more than just showing a truer look at serial killers. It was about how our world looked through the eyes of that serial killer. As an outsider to society, Bentley had a unique perspective on things. He talked about everything from violence in the media to religion. There are a lot of issues in the book and I believe the violent nature of Bentley's crimes all underscore the themes.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I don't mind critics at all. I didn't like my book being compared to a piece of trash like, I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't hate critics or even the man you emailed me.
I am happy that I've gotten so many more emails from people who loved the book, because ultimately I want you to think, but I also want to entertain you. To make you happy for a little while.
But if you read my book and you hated it, that's okay too. You can even write me and I will respond to you. If you have reasons that you didn't like the book I think that's a good thing. One of the best things really. Because it shows you're thinking and I have always been pro-think.
Thank you all for continuing to read and continuing to reach out. I look forward to hearing from more of the you in the future.
First, I would like to say that I have no problem with critics. I enjoy reading emails from fans as well as detractors. I have no problem with someone hating one of my books because you simply aren't going to please everyone, and it's madness to even try. Furthermore, if they took the time to email you then you must have really affected them. Of course, I prefer to affect someone in a positive way rather than a negative one, but I'll take whatever I can get.
Recently, though, I received an email from a critic that I simply have to respond to. In the letter he talked about the gratuitous amount of violence in Beneath the Mask of Sanity and how awful the book was because of it. He then (and this is the impetus of this blog post) compared Beneath the Mask of Sanity to the 1978 film "I Spit on Your Grave".
For those of you who have never seen this film (count yourselves lucky) I can summarize it very quickly for you. The first hour of the film is a woman getting repeatedly raped by several men. Over and over again. The second hour of the movie is the same woman tracking down and murdering each of the men in gruesome ways.
In my opinion, I Spit on Your Grave is one of the worst films ever made. There are no redeeming qualities in the movie whatsoever. The filmmaker tries to shoehorn the message that the idea that "women are asking for it" because they dress provocatively is wrong (and it is) but there is no coherent message at all and it's barely touched upon.
No, the only reason for, I Spit On Your Grave, is to show as many horrible and offensive images as possible in the running time of a motion picture.
I hear some of you saying, "But there's a lot of horrible images in Beneath the Mask of Sanity. Why is that different?"
Well (and again, this is my opinion) I believe that almost nothing is off limits as long as there is a point.
What is the point of Beneath the Mask of Sanity? Well, for one, Bentley Grimes is vicious and sadistic for two reasons. One, because I felt, at the time, that too often in the media fictional (and sometimes real) serial killers were glorified to the point of legend. In fiction they were often treated as the ultimate "bad boy" character. Someone with redeeming qualities that was appealing because of a roguish attitude.
This is not reality. In fact, it can be damaging to think so. Violent killers are not romantic, they are not misunderstood heroes. They are dangerous and psychotic individuals that don't care about anything but themselves. I wanted to write a book with a little more truth in it and a little less romanticism.
The second reason is that I did a lot of research for the book. I poured over case studies of serial killers, I read articles about them, I even read notes that the killers themselves had penned. Some of the things I read about were for more disturbing than my book. For instance, if you enjoy sleeping well, don't look up Albert Fish and the letter he wrote to the parents of one of his victims.
But Beneath the Mask of Sanity was about more than just showing a truer look at serial killers. It was about how our world looked through the eyes of that serial killer. As an outsider to society, Bentley had a unique perspective on things. He talked about everything from violence in the media to religion. There are a lot of issues in the book and I believe the violent nature of Bentley's crimes all underscore the themes.
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I don't mind critics at all. I didn't like my book being compared to a piece of trash like, I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't hate critics or even the man you emailed me.
I am happy that I've gotten so many more emails from people who loved the book, because ultimately I want you to think, but I also want to entertain you. To make you happy for a little while.
But if you read my book and you hated it, that's okay too. You can even write me and I will respond to you. If you have reasons that you didn't like the book I think that's a good thing. One of the best things really. Because it shows you're thinking and I have always been pro-think.
Thank you all for continuing to read and continuing to reach out. I look forward to hearing from more of the you in the future.
February 5, 2015
On the importance of Subscription
I would like to tell you a little story to begin. Don't worry, it's not long.
About fifteen years ago I got my real first apartment. A friend of mine and I rented a little place in a city called Royal Oak. We hadn't been there a full twenty-four hours before I came home to find my roommate talking to a man by the door to our building.
The man had a stack of papers in his hand and as I approached I saw what they were: order forms.
The man was going door-to-door selling magazine subscriptions and my roommate had been caught while trying to get the mail.
Now I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember this, but people selling subscriptions in this way used to be commonplace.
The largest magazines even ran commercials on television to tout the advantages of subscriptions. They would offer big discounts (sixty-percent off the retail price) for calling to order a year subscription. They would throw in special gifts, like a football shaped phone for an order of Sports Illustrated.
This doesn't happen anymore. Magazines are dying on the vine as the internet has made them almost obsolete.
But there is a new trend in the subscription game and it has to do with ebooks.
Sites like Oyster and Scribd have been around for awhile and even Amazon has recently gotten into the practice with their Kindle Unlimited.
These companies know the power of a subscription. Once you have someone it's harder for them to let go. They just continue to send their money in every month (or, more likely, have it directly taken out of their account) regardless as to whether they use it or not.
It's the same principle behind a gym club membership. How many people have signed long-term contacts with a gym only to stop going?
For writers, these services can be a good thing, leading to more discovery, or they can be a bad thing, people downloading your books and never reading them.
Some people think that subscription services like this could be the future of the publishing world. Of course, it could also wither and die away, never to be heard from again. Just like those men and women who once traveled from house to house looking for people to subscribe to their magazines.
Only time will tell which one bares out.
About fifteen years ago I got my real first apartment. A friend of mine and I rented a little place in a city called Royal Oak. We hadn't been there a full twenty-four hours before I came home to find my roommate talking to a man by the door to our building.
The man had a stack of papers in his hand and as I approached I saw what they were: order forms.
The man was going door-to-door selling magazine subscriptions and my roommate had been caught while trying to get the mail.
Now I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember this, but people selling subscriptions in this way used to be commonplace.
The largest magazines even ran commercials on television to tout the advantages of subscriptions. They would offer big discounts (sixty-percent off the retail price) for calling to order a year subscription. They would throw in special gifts, like a football shaped phone for an order of Sports Illustrated.
This doesn't happen anymore. Magazines are dying on the vine as the internet has made them almost obsolete.
But there is a new trend in the subscription game and it has to do with ebooks.
Sites like Oyster and Scribd have been around for awhile and even Amazon has recently gotten into the practice with their Kindle Unlimited.
These companies know the power of a subscription. Once you have someone it's harder for them to let go. They just continue to send their money in every month (or, more likely, have it directly taken out of their account) regardless as to whether they use it or not.
It's the same principle behind a gym club membership. How many people have signed long-term contacts with a gym only to stop going?
For writers, these services can be a good thing, leading to more discovery, or they can be a bad thing, people downloading your books and never reading them.
Some people think that subscription services like this could be the future of the publishing world. Of course, it could also wither and die away, never to be heard from again. Just like those men and women who once traveled from house to house looking for people to subscribe to their magazines.
Only time will tell which one bares out.
February 1, 2015
On the importance of Bowl Commercials
Today is Sunday. Today is the big game. And while many football fans in Seattle and the New England states are eagerly awaiting the game, millions more are eagerly awaiting the commercials.
This year commercial time during the broadcast is going for over four-million dollars per spot. That's a hefty chunk of change that not many could afford.
Trust me, I would love to get an ad for one of my books on during the game, but that price tag will likely be always beyond my reach.
Companies pay because they know they'll be in front of the largest television audience of the year. And while companies like Budweiser and Coca-cola don't exactly need to spread the word of their existence, they do often compete for the funniest/best commercial.
Talk about all this advertising generates more buzz than the actual game because it appeals to everyone. Women, men, young, old. It doesn't matter, everyone has something to say about those commercials.
Which got me to thinking, would television advertising help indie authors?
If the name of the game is getting noticed (and as an indie author, it most certainly is) then television advertising is a way to spread the word of your book.
The problem, of course, is the cost of the advertisement. Even ads that don't run during the Super Bowl are still costly. A local television spot can run you up to $1500 for a thirty-second spot. And that doesn't count the cost to actually make the spot.
National commercials are a good deal more expensive. The average is around $342,000. That's not feasible for the typical indie author.
Would you see any increase in sales from a television spot? It's difficult to say. Books are rarely marketed on television (I can remember seeing a few from James Patterson, but not any others) and thus there isn't a big sample size to study. I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't make back what it cost.
However, it might lead to other opportunities. Increased awareness and discussion between people.
That is, after all, what the big companies are hoping for with their Super Bowl ads.
The problem is, you would have to create a truly innovative commercial. Something that would cause people to talk. Advertisers get paid very well to do this and it's not as easy as it sounds.
I think that television will always be closed-off to indie authors. There are too many obstacles for it to be worthwhile. But if you have a great idea and some extra cash, maybe you should try it. I hope you prove me wrong.
I hope everyone enjoys the game. I don't have a rooting interest (as a Lions fan I have never had a rooting interest in a Super Bowl) so I'm just hoping for a good game.
Mark Phillips is the author of several novels, including the very popular Bentley series.
This year commercial time during the broadcast is going for over four-million dollars per spot. That's a hefty chunk of change that not many could afford.
Trust me, I would love to get an ad for one of my books on during the game, but that price tag will likely be always beyond my reach.
Companies pay because they know they'll be in front of the largest television audience of the year. And while companies like Budweiser and Coca-cola don't exactly need to spread the word of their existence, they do often compete for the funniest/best commercial.
Talk about all this advertising generates more buzz than the actual game because it appeals to everyone. Women, men, young, old. It doesn't matter, everyone has something to say about those commercials.
Which got me to thinking, would television advertising help indie authors?
If the name of the game is getting noticed (and as an indie author, it most certainly is) then television advertising is a way to spread the word of your book.
The problem, of course, is the cost of the advertisement. Even ads that don't run during the Super Bowl are still costly. A local television spot can run you up to $1500 for a thirty-second spot. And that doesn't count the cost to actually make the spot.
National commercials are a good deal more expensive. The average is around $342,000. That's not feasible for the typical indie author.
Would you see any increase in sales from a television spot? It's difficult to say. Books are rarely marketed on television (I can remember seeing a few from James Patterson, but not any others) and thus there isn't a big sample size to study. I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't make back what it cost.
However, it might lead to other opportunities. Increased awareness and discussion between people.
That is, after all, what the big companies are hoping for with their Super Bowl ads.
The problem is, you would have to create a truly innovative commercial. Something that would cause people to talk. Advertisers get paid very well to do this and it's not as easy as it sounds.
I think that television will always be closed-off to indie authors. There are too many obstacles for it to be worthwhile. But if you have a great idea and some extra cash, maybe you should try it. I hope you prove me wrong.
I hope everyone enjoys the game. I don't have a rooting interest (as a Lions fan I have never had a rooting interest in a Super Bowl) so I'm just hoping for a good game.
Mark Phillips is the author of several novels, including the very popular Bentley series.
