The End of the Beginning (Genesis 14 - 50):

Over the last month, I've gotten through Genesis which, while a bit of a feat, isn't nearly as far as I'd like to go. I've also read three other books, though, so it's not like I've been completely falling off the wagon. Anyway, on to my thoughts on the Genesis:

• So in Chapter 16, we get the situation where Sarah, unable to bear Abraham (still called Abram at this point) an heir, has him sleep with her Egyptian slave girl, Hagar, who bears him Ishmael. Hagar conceives, gets haughty, and begins treating Sarah with contempt. No domestic tranquility comes from this surrogate mother situation.
• Sodom & Gomorrah - a lot of craziness in these sections of the Bible (Genesis 18 & 19). First, Angels show up to Abraham to tell him they're going to destroy the evil towns, but Abraham puts forward a good argument in favor of saving the town if there are virtuous people in it. If God can find 10 virtuous people living there, he'll save the towns.
• The angels then show up at Lot's house and the Sodomite townspeople begin banging on the door, wanting to gang rape them. Instead, Lot offers his two daughters (virgins, but they're engaged ... and given what transpires after they escape, I'm wagering they haven't been saving themselves).
• During the escape from Sodom, we're shown once again what a useless putz Lot really is. No one listens to him. He goes to his prospective sons-in-law, telling them to leave the city, and they ignore him. Angels are telling him that the town is being destroyed, and he dallies so long that they finally have to drag him, his daughters, and his wife out of the town. A man of action he is not.
• Once out of town, and his wife having turned to salt (because she looked back at the destruction when told not to), Lot hides in caves with his two daughters ... and we receive an abject lesson in why alcohol is bad. (Worse, even, than Noah passing out naked.) Noah's two daughters proceed to get him drunk, then have sex with him and conceive children ... who will, incidentally, go on to be ancestors to the Moabites and Ammonites, other tribes of the region. It would be like if someone from Indiana told a story of how Kentuckians were all inbred ... oh, wait, they do tell those stories.
• In Chapter 20, once again, Abraham is traveling around and tells Sarah to pretend to be his sister. I understood it back in Chapter 12, but for it to happen again is a bit odd. If this chapter is placed chronologically, Sarah is very old - she's already given up on having children, and was quite old at that point, apparently. Again, though, she's snagged by a nearby ruler - King Abimelech of Gerar. Now, while I've seen some attractive older women in my time, I can't imagine a king snatching up elder matrons right and left. Still, according to Abraham, their standard operating procedure is apparently to pose as brother/sister when traveling, because Abraham is continually worried that someone will kill him for Sarah if they knew they were married. I suppose it's much better to just let various rulers yank her into the royal harem for a few days. (In fairness, it never actually says, or implies, that either Pharoah in Ch 12 nor Abimelech in Ch 20 did anything inappropriate with Sarah ... but if this is a society where Abraham has a serious concern of being killed for his wife, I can't imagine that she's particularly safe herself.)
• Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac in Chapter 22. He doesn't do it, of course, but ... man. I think if God commanded me to sacrifice my son, I'd have to begin turning to pagan gods. Sorry, but that's just how I see things.
• Isaac marries Rebekah, and they have the sons Jacob & Esau. Jacob is cunning and Esau is a bit of a dolt. Jacob convinces Esau to sell his birthright to him for some stew, and then tricks Isaac into giving his dying blessing to him instead of the older Esau.
• In Chapter 25, Isaac goes to Gerar and this time, too, goes through this brother/sister ruse. Again, King Abimelech of Gerar (possibly the son of the former or the same guy - it's unclear, although if Abimelech is still king when Isaac comes by, then he was likely a fairly young man when he decided to yank the older Sarah into his household. Maybe he had a thing for cougars.) Abimelech finds out the truth and chastizes Isaac, indicating that someone could have laid with Rebekah thinking she was single and "brought guilt upon us." Overall, this brother/sister plan seems to have played itself out and I think this is the last time we see it in the Bible.
• Jacob has some serious relationship troubles ... talk about Big Love. When he asks permission to marry Rachel, her father, Laban, convinces him to stay and work for him for 7 years. He then sends Leah in to the marital tent at night, and Jacob does his husbandly duty ... only to realize the next morning that he married the wrong sister. When he confronts Laban, he is lamely told that the firstborn (Leah) had to get married off first. (That would have been nice to know when they entered this arrangement 7 years earlier - he would have had 7 years to have found a guy for Leah, and Shakespeare might have set Taming of the Shrew in the Biblical era.) Since Jacob wants to marry Rachel, he agrees to 7 more years of servitude. After a week with Leah, he marries Rachel as well.
• Rachel is loved, but barren. Leah is unloved, but fertile. Very fertile, in fact. She in fact has 4 sons for Jacob (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, & Judah), which implies that she wasn't that "unloved" by Jacob and he clearly wasn't particularly put out by having been tricked into marrying her. Rachel, wanting children too, tells him to marry her maid, Bilhah, who bears two more sons (Dan & Naphtali). Not to be outdone, Leah has him marry her maid, Zilpah, who bore Gad & Asher.
• Rachel wants some of Reuben's mandrakes, so she strikes a deal with Leah that she can sleep with Jacob again in exchange for them. Leah cashes in her IOU and conceives Issachar. Then later (through means not particularly described) she has Zebulun. And finally, a daughter, Dinah. Again, Jacob doesn't seem particularly upset about being married to Leah.
• Finally, God "opens Rachel's womb" and she conceives Joseph. She later has another son, Benjamin.
• In Genesis 32, we get the famous "Jacob wrestles with an angel" passage ... and I've got to say that I'm distinctly underwhelmed. First of all, there's nothing overtly supernatural in the passage at all. Here is what it says "Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak." The man wants released at daybreak, but Jacob won't let him go until he gets a blessing. The man blesses him and gives him the name Israel. Jacob says, "Please tell me your name" and the man replies "Why is it that you ask my name?" So clearly the artistic renditions of this are way off, because he is described throughout the passage as a "man" and not an "angel." No wings or anything. In fact, it probably isn't even an angel, because Jacob says "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved." So he didn't wrestle an angel, but according ot the passage wrestled God himself (to a standstill, apparently, although I think one can assume that God was probably holding back).
• The rape of Dinah - this is just weird. It's described well by David Plotz in Good Book, because it's the passage that inspires his reading of the entire Old Testament. I have to agree with his analysis - tricking people into converting to your religion just so you can slay them when they're weak from circumcision seems a bit like a dirty trick. I normally don't defend rapists, but in this odd case the rapist appears to have fallen in love with Dinah, begged for her hand in marriage, and supplicated himself to convert to her family's religion ... and appears to have done so with sincerity.
• Now we get to the story of Joseph (whose coat is not many colored, but "a long robe with sleeves," according to my translation). I know the story of his brothers selling him off to slavery, but what I didn't know is that they originally wanted to kill him, but Reuben talked them out of it. Instead, they dropped him in a pit in the wilderness. Reuben had the plan of coming back later to rescue him. Unfortunately, once the brothers trap him in the pit, they decide to sell him into slavery ... and do so before Reuben can rescue him.
• Joseph ends up in Egypt, where he (after a convoluted series of events) becomes Pharoah's lead advisor, essentially in charge of the entire food supply for the nation. His brothers come during famine for help, and he sets up a situation to see if they've changed ... and they succeed. Ultimately, he forgives his brothers, but only after having seen that they have redeemed themselves by choosing right actions. A good message, and a great one on which to end Genesis.

My Good Book Experience - Genesis 1-13:

I finally started reading the Bible, planning to go from the beginning to the end, both Old and New Testaments. I've been wanting to do this for a while and became even more motivated through my recent readings, most notably Good Book: The Bizarre, Hilarious, Disturbing, Marvelous, and Inspiring Things I Learned When I Read Every Single Word of the Bible by David Plotz. Also, going to church on a regular basis with Amber, and having one child with another on the way, I've decided it's time to actually read this book and figure out what I think about what it has to say, as opposed to just whipping out some interesting tidbits here and there from my readings about the Bible.

So here I am, 13 chapters into Genesis. The version I'm using is The Green Bible, a version of the New Revised Standard Version that has verses related to God's law about how to deal with creation (i.e. eco-verses) in a green typeface. It also comes with a number of essays in the beginning by various religious thinkers about Creation Theology (i.e. eco-Christianity). (By complete coincidence - or possibly divine providence - The Green Bible and Good Book are being sold together for an additional 5% off as a "Best Value" deal on Amazon.com.)

Anyway, on to the reading ... which was not nearly so tedious as one might expect. It flows relatively easily so far. While the verses of lineages may not be particularly thrilling reading, the also go quickly. I read a section (I'm trying for about 5 pages or so a day), and Amber is reading the same sections. We will then discuss them prior to me posting a blog about it, so this is a mesh of our mutual insights and observations. Here are my comments and notes so far, based on the first 13 chapters of Genesis:

1. There are two creation stories, which I already knew. In the first (Genesis 1), the creation of man and woman appears to take place at the same time. In the second (Genesis 2), the more elaborate story of Eve being created from Adam's rib is told.
2. God references himself in plural form a couple of times - "Let us make humankind in our image" (Genesis 1:24) and "the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 2:22). Polytheism or a foreshadowing of the Holy Trinity? (Or both?)
3. Snakes used to have legs! God made them lose their legs because the serpent tempted mankind into eating the fruit (also, no indication it was necessarily an apple). Also, no indication that this was Satan or a demon or anything - just a regular snake.
4. As always, I'm curious about God's behavior when looking for Adam and Eve. Is he pretending that he can't see them, like I play hide and seek with my son? Is he giving them the chance to confess? Or does he genuinely not realize that they've already eaten the fruit? I'm left with two alternatives - either God's not really omniscient, or God chooses to fake us out at times, making any statements of his a bit untrustworthy.
5. Cain negotiates his punishment for killing his brother Abel. (Genesis 4:13-15) Initially, God punishes Cain with banishment and with a curse that he'll be unable to farm, making him a fugitive and wanderer, to which Cain replies, "My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today, you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me." to which God replies "Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance" and then God places a mark on Cain "so that no one who came upon him would kill him." This reads to me like Cain actually points out something which God hadn't initially thought of, and God quickly comes up with a way around the problem. David Plotz makes the point that God frequently seems to get talked out of rash action by a good argument. That's something I can certainly respect ... actually, I respect it a bit more than I respect the idea a perfect, infallible, supreme, all-knowing deity.
6. I knew that Cain miraculously found a wife after being banished, but I didn't realize that there were details on his lineage (Genesis 4:17-24). Cain founds Enoch, a city named after his son, Enoch. Enoch had a son Irad, who had a son Mehujael, who had a son Methushael, who had a son Lamech, who had sons Jabal & Jubal. Another wife had Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah. Lamech, apparently, was a bit of a prick, with the odd proclamation ending the story of Cain's line: "I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold." Not great role models in the Cain family line, although apparently Lamech's kids are ancestors of "those who live in tents and have livestock," "those who play the lyre and pipe," and "made all kinds of bronze and iron tools."
7. Adam's line through his third son, Seth, oddly, ends up with some similarities ... there's another Enoch, this time who has a son Methuselah, who then has a son Lamech. The similarities in names threw me, so I had to go back and make sure there was no way this family could have intermarried back into Cain's line ... which isn't possible, of course, since both lines are traced through fathers to sons. Of course, given the time period, it wasn't like there were a ton of names floating around.
8. Right before the flood, we are introduced to the Nephilim, who "were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown." (Genesis 6:4) and are, from how I read this, the children of angels having mated with human women (Genesis 6:1-2,4). These angels are sometimes viewed as fallen angels, but there's no direct indictment of their behavior within the text itself. It seems to be just a statement of fact. The text abruptly switches to the wickedness of mankind ... but I wonder if the flood wasn't, in part, to get rid of all the Nephilim. Or was God mad at the women for letting the angels sleep with them?
9. In the middle of the Nephilim passage, God declares that humans shall live only 120 years (Genesis 6:3) . Noah, as we will see in some chapters, appears to live 950 years, so has been grandfathered into the over 120 year club.
10. The flood timeline is a bit confusing. There are 40 days, then 150 days, then 40 days again. Here is, I believe, the proper timeline: Flood starts on the 17th day of the second month of Noah's 600th year. Water rises from the earth and falls from the sky for 40 days, then stops, so we're at the start of the fourth month. The waters swelled for 150 days in all, putting it in the middle of the seventh month, when the ark lands on the mountains of Ararat. The mountains are apparently still underwater, though (the bottom of the ark is hung up on them, apparently) until the tenth month, at which time the top of the mountains become exposed. After forty days (early in the eleventh month - although I'm not sure if they had eleven months when this was written, so we might be in the first month of the next year) he lets out a raven, who flies around as the water dries up on the Earth. Then he sends a dove, who can't find a place to set down, so comes back. (Why the raven didn't come back is never explained.) A week later, he sends the dove out again. This time it comes back with an olive leaf. A week later (about the end of the eleventh month), he sends out the dove again, but it doesn't come back. At this point, we're told it's the first day of the first month of Noah's 601st year - so this would kind of mesh if the ancient Hebrew calendar had exactly 11 months. All told, Noah and his family spends an entire year in the ark.
11. God has mood swings. In Genesis 6: 5-7 we are told that God is very angry about "the wickedness of humankind" and "that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." He declares that "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created ... for I am sorry that I have made them." Then, after the flood, he says (Genesis 8:21-22), after Noah provides him with a burnt offering of the "clean" animals and he is pleased by the smell of the offering, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth." Notice that the situation hasn't changed - human thoughts are still evil. But now God seems okay with it, like it's an endearing personality flaw that he'll put up with. If only Noah had ignited a burnt offering before the Flood, it might have been avoided.
12. Noah plants the first vineyard, gets drunk, then passes out naked. When his grandson stumbles upon him, and tells his sons, he curses the grandson to become their slave, because he saw Noah's nakedness. I have no idea how to interpret this. It's just plain weird.
13. The tower of Babel story (Genesis 11:1-9) is much more mundane than I expected. Though it says that humans said "let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens," the tower itself doesn't seem to actually be an attempt to reach divine paradise itself. When God shows up, his complaint isn't even explicitly about their hubris in building the tower. It seems to be almost a complaint about their competence: "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible to them." Then God decides to confuse their language almost just for kicks. It's not really a punishment for anything they've actually done.
14. Once again, God refers to himself in the plural - Genesis 11:7 - "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there..."
15. More descendants. Among them we've got some who are living a couple of hundred years, even though God specifically set a time limit of 120 years back in Genesis 6:3. At least we're out of the 900s now.

We Are Killer Apes:

I'm currently in the process of listening to the audiobook version of A.J. Jacobs' The Know-It-All, where he outlines his experiences reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. It's a great book. I was especially moved by the following quote, which Jacobs ran across in the Philosophy section of the EB, written by Robert Ardrey:

“But we are born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments? Or our treaties whatever the may be worth; our symphonies however seldom they may be played; our peaceful acres, however frequently they may be converted into battlefields; our dreams however rarely they may be accomplished? The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses.”

- Robert Ardrey

As Jacobs says, a "powerful set of sentences," which is I think a bit of an understatement. In its own way, this cuts to the heart of the beauty of the human condition. We are creatures as low as any others,  but have the capacity for greatness ... and not just occasionally, but consistently, over time, we make the choice to be slightly more creative than we are destructive. We progress, however slowly, toward a better future, when we could regress into a future that is lower than our present state.

Good for Robert Ardrey in realizing it, and good for A.J. Jacobs (and the Encyclopedia Britannica) for passing along the quote.

Star Trek - Reboot Culture at Its Finest:

As I mentioned in my last post, I recently read a book about the "Remix" culture sweeping our society today, but there's yet another aspect of our modern society - the "Reboot" culture. Today I went to watch the new Star Trek film, and was profoundly reminded of the potency of this approach to storytelling.

First and foremost, I should say that the film is great. I won't get into specific plot elements, and in fact I won't even really review the film - there are many great reviews (such as those by science fiction authors Robert J. Sawyer, Orson Scott Card, and Paul Levinson), so I won't actually review the film. The sole thing you need to know about the film to follow the rest of this post is this:

The storyline continuity of the Star Trek universe is no longer continuous.

That is, the film makes fundamental changes to the history of the Star Trek, which means that any future films do not have to conform to the storyline that is familiar from the original Star Trek series, or any of the subsequent series.

This sort of approach to fiction is called a "reboot," based on the idea that the storyline is starting over. Fans of science fiction and comic books will be well aware of this idea, which is probably most clearly illustrated in the mid-80's Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline from DC comics. In Crisis (as it is often abbreviated), DC comics essentially took a set of convoluted (and often contadictory) storylines and brought them together, literally rewrote the history of their universe, resulting in a final product that took material from their entire history and spat out, when all was said and done, a new storyline that was the result of combining and streamlining all of this material (much of which was contradictory) into one single continuity.

Reboots (and their close cousin, the remake) are common now, especially in the science fiction genre. Smallville is essentially a reboot of the Superman mythology (in fact, each incarnation of Superman on television has been a reboot, as is the more recent Superman film). The Batman franchise was rebooted by Tim Burton in the Michael Keaton version, then rebooted again in with Batman Begins starring Christian Bale. The Terminator franchise is about time travel, and each film (and the recent television show) has caused a reboot (which, in part, seems as if it may be part of the new film - John Connor's realization that the future he's experiencing isn't quite what he expected). Transformers has been rebooted numerous times - in comics, in subsequent television shows after the original, and in the recent film. The upcoming G.I. Joe film looks like it'll reboot that franchise, as well.

These reboots are essentially "remixes" or "mash-ups" of elements inherent in the original material, which yields something substantially different as an output. The difference between these and the remix culture spoken of by Lawrence Lessig is that these reboots are performed by the company that own the rights to the original material.

I personally have very mixed feelings about reboots, but thinking about them as remixes gives a different perspective. I used to find them annoying (and still do, as in the case of trying to keep up with what's going on in the Terminator television storyline), but now I do see the way in which they add value. For the franchises that have a long history, this gives them an ability to streamline the continuity to produce new content that makes sense, making it accessible to an entirely new generation.

The problem, of course, is that the remakes are never the same as the original ... something which attracts some fans, but will distance others. It is certainly the prerogative of the intellectual property owner (corporations in most of these cases) to change the nature of their intellectual property. 

In the case of the Star Trek film, though, I think more people will be attracted than distanced.

Two Book Overviews - Copyright #1:

Recently, two books about intellectual property came to my attention. A while ago was Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig's book Remix (first learned about when Lessig appeared on The Colbert Report in January) and later (learned about on NPR) was novelist Mark Helprin's Digital Barbarians.

First, some background on the issue of copyright. Copyright is the legal protection, afforded by the government (and mentioned in the Constitution, though not by the name "copyright") that protects the intellectual property as the property of the creator for a set period of years. Until about 1909 (according to Lessig's book), the law didn't protect against making "copies" of work, but rather only protected against someone else stealing an author's work and claiming it as their own. In 1909, the law was changed to prevent "copying" intellectual property owned by another. Until 1976, you had to register a work with the government for it to be covered by copyright - but since then, the mere act of creating the work has instantly initiated copyright on the work, even if it never gets officially registered with the government. And, finally, in recent years the terms have been expanded - copyright currently extends 75 years after the creator's death for individuals (thus, in principle, earning their heirs royalties), and 95 years after the creator's death if the work is owned by a corporation (such as, say, Disney owns Mickey Mouse, and earning the corporations profits).

Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy focuses on the modern issue of how copyright law criminalizes many actions commonly allowed with our modern technology: peer-2-peer file sharing, the ease of editing video & audio together, and so on. Any time a copy of a creative work is made digitally, copyright law is triggered. This is all the time for digital media, because everytime you view something on the computer it is copied between memory locations. This web page, for example, has been copied from the Blogger web server to the memory on your computer, to be interpreted into text by your web browser. If you listen to music on your computer, the MP3 file is copied from the memory location where it's stored into the active memory of Windows Media Player or iTunes. Copies happen all the time digitally, even if you aren't intending to make a distinct copy ... and copyright law doesn't inherently distinguish them.

The first example in the book is a woman who was forced to remove a video of her 18 month-old daughter from YouTube because a Prince song was playing in the background while she made the video, and she didn't have permission from Prince (or the record label) to distribute the song. Other examples include people making "mash-up" songs, which are made from fragments of other songs (owned by other artists) to create something new, or similar "mash-up" videos (which may use copyrighted music as a soundtrack). Our technology allows us to not only "consume" culture, but to take it and rework it, just as (and this is Lessig's example) people used to (prior to phonographs) not just listen to music, but rather to be active participants in music - what he calls Read/Write (RW) culture, instead of Read/Only (RO) culture, taking computer terminology and applying it to culture as a whole.

Lessig's point is that we should modify our existing laws to both support the original creators of music, film, written works, and so on, but also to decriminalize the "remixing" that takes place with our modern technology, and the RW culture that it allows. We should encourage an economy which merges "commercial economy" and the "sharing economy" into a single "hybrid economy," which uses aspects of both. (Think of Amazon.com, where a commercial site benefits greatly from the fact that many people, myself included, share what they think of books to add value to the experience for other users and in turn benefit from that shared experience.)

Digital Barbarism: A Writer's Manifesto, on the other hand, is written with the specific goal of opposing the artistic culture that Lessig is emphasizing as important. To him, the RW culture is not something to be glorified, but instead a rabble of thieves, who seek to steal intellectual property and remove the role of the artist from society. While I'm supportive of the main thrust of Helprin's argument, he utterly fails to make a convincing argument, in part because he makes blanket statements that are nowhere near the truth. To someone who isn't aware of the actual copyright arguments, this book reads like a gross caricature.

Helprin's book came out of a New York Times op-ed piece where he suggested that the duration of copyright be extended for individual authors (it was extended as recently as 1998). And he got absolutely slammed for it, apparently, becoming the center of a massive firestorm of hate mail (some of which is quoted in his book, with the false impression that the hate mail is representative of the entire community of people who want to weaken copyright law). The book focuses on the idea that all of these people are, ultimately, thieves, pirates, and socialists.

Lessig's blog provides a comprehensive response to and critique of Helprin's book, covering most of the major factual flaws in detail, but I'll be focusing in subsequent articles on a couple of the issues in both books that were most evident to me as I was reading the two books:

1. The Nature of Property - Helprin equates intellectual property to physical property, but doesn't seem to satisfactorily address the idea that there are fundamental differences between the two. Also, back to the original Helprin claim - is there any useful purpose in a content creator caring what people use work for more than 75 years after their death? How does this sort of protection relate to other forms of property?
2. Does Size Matter? - Lessig's examples tend to be very popular forms of intellectual property - Harry Potter, Mickey Mouse, Prince's music, Lost, and so on - which could allow some free use of their intellectual property and still make a sizable profit. What about the "little guy" artist for whom there may legitimately be a cost in this new hybrid economy? Can writers, and other artists, make money in the hybrid economy, or will the professional artist (as Helprin suggests) become a thing of the past?

One final note: Lessig offers several of his earlier books for free through a Creative Commons license. If you're interested in learning more on these topics, I would suggest them as a good place to start.

Join in the hunt...

In her debut novel, Spiral Hunt, my high school friend Margaret Ronald takes readers deep into the "undercurrent" of Boston's magical subculture. It's a society that's drenched in ancient Irish traditions and previously ruled by the supernatural equivalent to the Irish mob. This fictional version of Boston is a rich, deeply realized world that is introduced with a compelling main character and a storyline that keeps escalating in tension until the powerful conclusion.

Evie Scelan possesses the natural ability to sniff out (exactly like it sounds) anything ... she can track people or things or magical paths of power, each of which have their own distinct scents. The novel starts with a call from an old boyfriend, who appears to be in trouble, so "the Hound" (as Evie is called) begins to investigate what's happened to him ... and is rapidly drawn even deeper into the world of magic, a world that she normally tries to skirt the edge of.

As Evie (and we) become more involved in this world, the story grows continually richer and the stakes continue to rise, until the reader (and Evie) realize that they are in a war between ancient powers, between weakened gods and powerful magicians. Evie also begins to discover the true nature of her own power, which unveil new levels of potential ... levels which, I suspect, will continue to be demonstrated in future additions to the series. I look forward to accompanying the Hound on her next hunt.

The best thing about the book is also the one aspect that might discourage some readers: Ronald doesn't spoon feed you infodumps about the setting, but instead slowly reveals the world, bit by bit, as the story progresses. A reader who is uncomfortable with being left afloat, given information that doesn't particularly make sense for a few pages or chapters, will feel lost at times. For a first-time novelist, this is daring ... she's built up no credibility for the reader to trust her, so it's even more off-putting to be put in this situation, but in every case she fulfills the author's promise to answer the questions that she has brought up.

Margaret Ronald blogs about her writing (and, since the release of the book, promotional) experiences over at The Magic District. You can also check out her more random, personal, and "sillier" blog over at Wordpress.

My Year of Magical Reading:

Back at the beginning of the year, I devoted some time to the website 43 Things and created my list of 43 things. I've found several things I've done in the past, and since starting the list I've accomplished 5 of my "things" - and assuming I make it 6 more days without a cigarette, I'll have accomplished 6!

Anyway, one of my things, which I completed yesterday, was to "Read 50 Books in 2008." Early in the year, I began to get worried about my prospects, so I began counting audiobooks as well, but I actually ended up making it without audiobooks - I have read 50 actual books this year (not counting books read to my 3-year old).

My point in posting about this is not to brag, although I must admit I'm fairly proud of this accomplishment. Granted, some of the books were very short, but others were very long and complex, so I figure it basically evens out. The point of it all was to expose myself to ideas, and I did that in spades.

I'll post my general "year in review" blog in a few days, but these books - the fact that I took the time out of a busy year to expose myself to diverse topics, to just reflect on my life and the world I live in - has colored everything else. It has made a year that was rich with love also rich with wisdom.

One of the books, Making Your Dreams Come True, is of special interest ... not because it was necessarily the best book, but because it makes you really think about the purpose or your life. My "mission statement" after finishing that book was pretty clear to me:

To teach and to learn

The goal to read 50 books, which I'd come up with months before I read that book, was a reflection of the purpose of my life, and I hadn't even realized it at the time. I worked for Project SEED and strove to be a writer, eventually getting a job as the About.com Physics Guide, based on this purpose ... and all the time, I was completely unaware of it on a conscious level. I went to a liberal arts college to learn physics and philosophy (and some math), and before that to the Indiana Academy ... even back then, I was being guided by a principle that I'd never articulated.

Below is a list of my 50 books and the 22 audiobooks that I've read this year! (The list is basically in the order I read/listened to them. * indicates an audiobook.) Feel free to e-mail me if you would like to know whether any particular book is worth reading.

1. The Faiths of the Founding Fathers David L. Holmes
2. Sky Horizon by David Brin
3. Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Paul J. Steinhardt & Neil Turok
4. Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku
5. Why Science? by James Trefil
6. Multiple Streams of Income* by Robert G. Allen
7. The Physics of Superheroes by James Kakalios
8. Love + Sex with Robots by David Levy
9. Education of an Accidental CEO* by David Novak
10. The Writing Diet by Julia Cameron
11. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
12. Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt* by Aida Donald
13. A Short History of Nearly Everything* by Bill Bryson
14. A Mind at a Time* by Dr. Mel Levine
15. The Myth of Laziness* by Dr. Mel Levine
16. 15 Secrets Every Network Marketer Must Know by Dr. Joe Rubino & John Terhune
17. George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty* by Bill Minutaglio
18. Our Endangered Values* by President Jimmy Carter
19. Five Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner
20. The Appeal* by John Grisham
21. The Gospel According to Science Fiction by Gabriel McKee
22. The One Minute Father by Spencer Johnson, M.D.
23. The 5 Lessons a Millionaire Taught Me by Richard Paul Evans
24. The One Minute Millionaire by Robert G. Allen & Mark Victor Hansen
25. FairTax: The Truth by Neal Boortz, Congressman John Linder, & Rob Woodall
26. Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Your Own and Other People's Minds by Howard Gardner
27. Nothing Down for the 2000's* by Robert G. Allen
28. Gil's All Fright Diner by A. Lee Martinez
29. The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman
30. Creating Wealth* by Robert G. Allen
31. First, Break All the Rules* by Marcus Buckingham & Curt Coffman
32. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Phil Zombardo
33. Think and Grow Rich (21st Century Edition)* by Napoleon Hill
34. The Subtle Knife by Philip Pullman
35. Rich Dad, Poor Dad* by Robert Kiyosaki
36. Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative by Sir Ken Robinson
37. Making Your Dreams Come True by Marcia Weider
38. The Tower by Ricahrd Paul Evans
39. The Spyglass by Richard Paul Evans
40. The Call of the Wild* by Jack London
41. Fablehaven by Brandon Mull
42. Acres of Diamonds by Russel D. Conwell
43. The Christmas Candle by Richard Paul Evans
44. Swordbird by Nancy Yi Fan
45. Creativity, Wisdom, & Trusteeship: Exploring the Role of Education edited by Anna Craft, Howard Gardner, & Guy Claxton
46. The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It by Johnathan Zittrain
47. Me to We: Finding Meaning in a Material World by Craig Keilburger & Marc Keilburger
48. Walden* by Henry David Thoreau
49. The Yiddish Policeman's Union* by Michael Chabon
50. Spider Star by Mike Brotherton
51. Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive by Noah J. Goldstein, Steve J. Martin, & Robert B. Cialdini
52. A Sense of the Mysterious: Science and the Human Spirit by Alan Lightman
53. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman* by Richard P. Feynman
54. What Do You Care What Other People Think?* by Richard P. Feynman (this is the basis of the Matthew Broderick film Infinity, which I also watched this year)
55. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
56. Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions by Lisa Randall
57. Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Fabric of Reality by Brian Greene
58. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind
59. Quantum Physics & Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne
60. Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku
61. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln* by Doris Kearns Goodwin
62. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law by Peter Woit
63. Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior* by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman
64. The Christmas Box by Richard Paul Evans
65. Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School* by John Medina
66. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes by Alex Vilenkin
67. A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking
68. The Power of Mentoring by the McGraw-Hill Companies
69. Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond by Lawrence Krauss
70. Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott
71. Sphereland by Dionys Burger
72. The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics by Leonard Susskind
    
    
    
    NetworkedBlogs

    Blog:

    The Philosopher's Stone

    Topics:

    science, science fiction, futurism

    Follow my blog
    
    

To FairTax or Not To FairTax -

A couple of years ago, I read The Fairtax Book by radio host Neal Boortz, along with John Linder, the Georgia Congressman responsible for proposing the FairTax bill. I'm still not 100% convinced in the FairTax, but I was extremely pleased to see it coming up as a serious issue within the Republican primaries thanks to Mike Huckabee, who made it a major part of his platform.

In this new book, FairTax: The Truth, they return (along with Rob Woodall, Linder's Chief of Staff) to relate further advancements in the FairTax, as well as to deal a bit more directly with some of the criticisms.

For those unfamiliar with the FairTax, the basic reasons for the FairTax are as follows:

1. The current tax code allows politicians to covertly give benefits to one group and penalize other groups by modifications to the elaborate tax code. Ultimately, all of these penalties to corporations and industries trickle down in the cost of goods and services to the individual customers.

2. The current tax code, in the form of both income tax and payroll taxes (Medicare, Social Security, etc.), provide unequal distributions of taxation. Low income earners are burdened with payroll taxes on their earned wages while wealthy individuals are able to virtually avoid payroll taxes entirely since they earn low wages, but gain vast wealth from capital gains and other non-payroll taxed methods.

3. Currently a number of individuals in America do not participate as part of the federal tax basis. Specifically, tourists, illegal immigrants, people paid "off the books," and those involved in illegal activities are able to earn incomes without being any part of the federal taxation system.

The FairTax seeks to remedy this by eliminating the IRS, along with current income, payroll, corporate, capital gains, and estate tax laws. This would be replaced by a 23% inclusive consumption tax on all goods and services sold in the United States, expanding the tax basis considerably. (A 23% inclusive sales tax means that if you buy an item for $100, you just paid $23 in sales tax.)

The portion which makes this tax feasible (not to mention progressive) is that every legal resident of the United States would register the number of people in their household annually. Based upon this number, they would obtain a prebate every month up to the poverty level. In other words, everyone would be exempt from taxation on the necessities. People at the poverty level would have zero federal taxation, while those near it would have virtually none.

There are many nuances to the FairTax bill, although it is only 133 pages long, so it's relatively straightforward as far as legislation goes. The books do an excellent job of illuminating the key points, as does the Americans for Fair Taxation website. Of course, all of these are propaganda in favor of the FairTax. For an alternate account, I would consider the fairly balanced Unspinning the FairTax at FactCheck.org ... although in FairTax: The Truth, they address some of the issues brought up in this article (though not the article specifically ... just the issues in general) and, in my opinion, fairly handily deal with them.

10 Books That Changed My Life -

In the process of catching up on my BookWise training, I listened to a session in which our mentor Robert G. Allen asked "Have you ever read a book that changed your life?" The answer, for me, is a resounding yes.

• Foundation by Isaac Asimov
• Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein
• A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens*
• Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
• Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card*
• Calculating God by Robert J. Sawyer
• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling*
• American Gospel by Jon Meacham
• Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman
  
• Multiple Streams of Income by Robert G. Allen*
  

* - Books indicated with an asterisk are also available through my BookWise bookstore. You can join as a Preferred Customer, completely free, and then search for books at great discounts, some as low as wholesale!

Several of these books touched me on multiple levels, triggering intellectual, professional, and spiritual paths of thought which have ultimately lead me to my current position in the world, of which I'm quite fond.

For example, Stranger in a Strange Land was the first book I read which touched on religious and spiritual themes. Even though I have, in the years since, come to believe that the spirituality Heinlein presents is fundamentally limited (not to mention chauvinistic), it still resonates with me as being the first introduction to a wider sense of spirituality beyond the strict confines of Christianity which, as a participant in American society, it is impossible to avoid.

Calculating God touches on religious themes in a very different way, but that was not its greatest impact on me. No, Calculating God was significant because it introduced me to the work of Robert J. Sawyer and ultimately lead to an opportunity to meet with him in person. He has proved to be something of a role model and mentor to me, and I have learned many lessons about the publishing industry from him. He has also helped to inspire me to continue writing in the face of difficult, disheartening times.

Books have a power to connect us to greater truths, to the deepest components of our own minds which are searching to transform into the next important phase of our lives. All of these books helped motivate and inspire me into a transformative phase of my life. What books have inspired you in this way?

Visions of a Futuristic God -

A couple of months ago, I learned about Gabriel McKee's The Gospel According to Science Fiction: From the Twilight Zone to the Final Frontier from the blog of my friend Robert J. Sawyer, himself something of a legend in the science fiction field whose books frequently address religious topics quite prominently. McKee has a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School and maintains SF Gospel website and blog, so he clearly has the chops for the task.

While I was anticipating the book to be good, I have to admit that I was not quite anticipating the sheer scope of McKee's enterprise. Across 10 chapters and 250 pages, he covers nearly the full range of religious themes, from the institutions and rituals that comprise social religion to the innate logistics of the afterlife and apocalypse, to the very nature and purpose of belief.

Much of the book recounts specific examples from science fiction literature, film, and television ... examples which clearly illuminate the different aspects of religious experience. Some of the discussion are purely in the realm of science fiction, such as the analysis of godlike alien races, but still others go to the very heart of quintessential human experiences such as faith (or lack thereof) and the nature of free will (or lack thereof).

McKee's book is not merely a rehashing of these concepts but, in the terms of Howard Gardner's Five Minds of the Future, presents a true synthesis of them with the most fundamental questions of human existence. For example, consider this passage from the end of the chapter on faith vs. skepticism, entitled "Believing and Knowing":

"Far from being merely 'nonoverlapping magisteria' with nothing to do with one another, science and religious experience can in fact strengthen one another. In faith, the scientist can find a driving factor for exploration, a divine reason to inquire into the world's mysteries. In science, the believer can uncover the secrets of God's majesty, perhaps finding in subatomic particles or distant stars something mystical."

Though often skeptical of religious institutions and favoring rational explanations over faith-based ones, the literature of science fiction has always been deeply rooted in a search for meaning, for sense out of the seemingly chaotic universe. In this sense, it is the form of literature which most coincides with humanity's deepest spiritual foundation - looking into the heavens and asking "What is out there and what does it mean?"

Twenty-First Century Minds -

In Five Minds for the Future, Harvard psychology Howard Gardner - creator of the "eight intelligence" theory of the mind - describes the five types of mental processes which will prove to be the most crucial in performing well in the twenty-first century.

The first mind presented by Gardner is the disciplined mind, by which he refers to the idea of learning things as a discipline instead of merely as an unconnected series of facts and tasks. Part of the reason for this, to my mind, is that information and technology change so quickly in our age that learning a specific job isn't going to be as useful as learning a discipline. For example, learning the discipline of "information technology" would prove useful, whereas learning specifically how to encode for, say, an Oracle database may have more limited use in 10 years when technologies have radically changed. The keys to this sort of mind are being diligent and focusing on improvement and continuing education throughout your lifetime. If you ever feel like you can stop learning, stop growing, then your mind is not a disciplined man.

The second mind presented is the synthesizing mind, which is adept at drawing diverse information together in a cohesive manner. A synthesizing mind is selective and capable of drawing out the salient details of a topic, presenting them in any of a variety of forms: narrative, taxonomies, lists, rules, aphorisms, concepts, metaphors, images, themes, wordless embodiments (i.e. artistic metaphors, perhaps), theories, etc.

The creative mind extends the knowledge gained and puts a new spin on it, introduces some unique element to the mix that makes it different upon output than it was upon input. Gardner points out, however, that a creative mind that produces no output, that never puts these ideas into the "field" to "make judgements of quality and acceptability" is ultimately a wasted creative mind.

The next couple diverge, in that instead of talking about how a mind deals with information they relate to how minds interact with other minds. The respectful mind is about how to respond to differences among individuals and groups in a sympathetic and constructive manner. These differences will only grow in the future and ultimately we will all have to learn how best to deal with a wide range of diversity in all aspects of our life, even in aspects where the most progressive of us would prefer that things stay the same.

The final mind is the ethical mind, which goes a bit beyond being respectful and begins to deal with the individual's role as a good citizen in general. While the respectful mind focuses on individual interactions, the ethical mind focuses on interactions between an individual and the diverse roles that we assume in society - family roles, work roles, community roles, etc.

This one, of all of the minds presented, is the one that I'm least convinced of. Sure, it's great to be a good citizen and perform "good work" (one of Gardner's buzz phrases), but is this really inherent crucial in the same way the other sorts of minds are? Perhaps it is, though ... and perhaps I'll find out why when I read one of his other books, Good Work.

Fascism & Liberalism: Strange Bedfellows? -

The last month has been hectic, in ways that will shortly become apparent from changes to the site (as if the very re-emergence of the site over the last month hasn't been enough change!), I read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (again, motivated by Goldberg's appearance on The Daily Show). I was a bit disappointed in Stewart on this one, because he really didn't let Goldberg explain the premise of the book and pointedly ignored some fairly reasonable comments. He was talking at Goldberg, instead of to him. I was disappointed ... but I definitely wanted to read that book.

In Liberal Fascism, Goldberg makes the thesis that current liberalism dates back to the "progressive movement" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Okay, no particular problem there. We expect such a historical tradition, right?

But then he proceeds to explain how the progressive movement was actually linked to Italian fascism (which is clearly distinct from Nazism, as he points out). In fact, as Goldberg points out, scholars can't even agree what the term fascist means. But whatever it means, it was not the evil that it has been portrayed in the years since. Italy, until it essentially lost sovereignty to Germany, actually protected Jews from persecution.

His whole point is that liberals are, in general, way too "liberal" about throwing around the word fascist to describe anything they disagree with, all the while not really having any understanding of what the word means. In fact, most liberals would be truly disgusted by some of the actions championed by "progressives" of the past, ranging from eugenics to clear support of corporate interests over individual liberty.

Goldberg is not attacking all liberals as being fascists. Oh, he doesn't like liberal politics, but that's not really his goal here. Instead, he's providing a thoughtful analysis of the historical evolution of liberal policies, and linking current liberal policy initiatives to their historical antecedents.

Perhaps one of the most entertaining aspects of the book, for me, was a very minor little side comment regarding World War I. It seems that, during this time, sauerkraut became temporarily referred to as "Liberty Cabbage" since America was at war with Germany. Granted, we were never at war with France, but it still bears similarities to the silliness regarding recent "Freedom Fries."

Goldberg's book didn't actually change my stance on a single issue, thankfully, but it did open my eyes to some of the historical roots, and possible dangers of extremism, that are inherent in the viewpoints I do hold. I think it's an insightful book, for both liberals and conservatives ... so long as they're willing to actually explore the ideas of the book instead of just embracing their own ideologies.

Electronic Love? -

Lately, a lot of my book choices have come from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. One of these books was David Levy's Love + Sex With Robots. The book is an intriguing analysis and ultimately one which I cannot fault, in general. Basically, Levy argues that the upcoming advances in robotic technologies will result in a certain subset of the population falling in love with robots and having sex with them. It may seem like something out of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer or Battlestar Galactica, but Levy believes that the technology is quickly reaching the stage where it will be a reality.

Levy begins by laying out the research into the various reasons why people fall in love. This can be broken down into ten basic reasons:

• Similarity
• Desirable characteristics
• Reciprocal liking
• Social influences
• Filling needs
• Arousal/Unusualness
• Specific cues
• Readiness for entering a relationship
• Being alone w/ object of love
• Mystery

A quick look at these reasons will make it clear that the majority of them could, in theory, be applied to sufficiently advanced robots. A sophisticated robot could be designed to have any combination of physical traits, to have a personality which matches your own, to portray a reciprocity of emotion, etc. In fact, the largest hurdle is probably the "social influences," but such things change over time and by 2060 or so, who knows what social influences will be at work.

He goes on to discuss situations in which individuals love non-humans ... specifically, the emotional attachment formed with their pets. He also proceeds to discuss the wide range of ways in which people form emotional attachments to electronic devices, and of course love over the internet.

Here's an example of how serious these emotional attachments have already become: The Tamagotchi is a little "virtual pet" from Japan in the shape of a small, flattened egg which contains a video screen. On the video screen is your pet, and through the pushing of buttons you feed it, take it for walks, pet it, etc. If you fail to care for your Tamagotchi, it can actually wither away and die, which is a very sad experience. So sad, in fact, that orthodox Hebrews wanted to care for the Tamagotchi on Saturday, their Sabbath, when they are not even allowed to turn on and off light switches! The sole work that is allowed on Saturday is work in order to sustain a living soul.

So there had to actually be a ruling, from high-ups in the rabbinical organization of orthodox Judaism, about whether or not a Tamagotchi had a living soul!

Their conclusion is (hopefully) obvious, but still, it demonstrates the power of emotional attachments to these electronic beings. Just as you would feed your cat or dog on the Sabbath, many felt that you should equally be able to sustain the "life" of your Tamagotchi. And we know that some people care more for their cat or dog than they do for any other people. Now, imagine that they had a robot who could laugh at their jokes, express wonder at their intellect, and be impressed by the size of their ... well, you get the idea.

Some people, of course, would never allow themselves to see past the illusion, but with all of these factors laid out, it becomes clear that there would certainly be a subset of the population that would very likely fall in love with a robot. The robot would, of course, not love them back, but it would give the illusion that it does ... and maybe that's enough for some people.

Changes Afoot -

Well, though I've let this blog sit defunct for nearly two years, I have not forgotten it. My work as the About.com Guide to Physics has taken up much of that time, as has falling in love and various other matters.

For those who have not heard, I have gotten engaged to my girlfriend of one year, Amber. We are anticipating a wedding in the fall, though still waiting for details to be hashed out, largely related to financial matters. I for one am looking forward tremendously to the marriage ... not quite so much to the wedding itself.

She's quite supportive of my various interests, especially my writing. She's a fan, in other words. Not necessarily a fan of science fiction in general, but a fan of my stuff. This is a plus, in my book, as it indicates that she has excellent taste and obvious refinement. Remember, therefore, that if you want to be cool, you'll read my stuff and like it! You may begin with "Diminished Capacity," which is available at the Abyss & Apex website, or the About Physics site, as your fancy suits you.

For those not interested in science fiction or physics, but still wanting to be cool, I have the entire Philosopher's Stone site and a bit of a MySpace page. In short, I'm all over this crazy World Wide Web like white on rice, my friends! Beware. Be very ware.

So check out the site, check out my writing, and see if anything I say is of any significance. Frequently, probably not. But every once in a while ... very rarely ... I may hit upon some nugget of eternal truth. And I, for one, wouldn't want to miss that!

Things Congress Should Be Doing:

I'm going to be oddly topical today. Congress is dealing with two "major" issues at present: a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman (i.e. outlaw gay marriage federally) and legally ban flag burning. While I realize that these are the top concerns of 3% of the population (according to a survey cited on the Al Franken radio show - take it for what it's worth), I have a few other issues which might be more relevant:

• Tax glamour- (Paris Hilton) and power-mad (that Kennedy rapist cousin) millionaire heirs and heiresses, so that I'm not still paying for the damn Iraq War when I'm 90 years old.
• Catch Osama Bin Laden - seriously, people, he's a 6 foot tall man on dialysis who gets more airtime than Anna Nicole Smith, how hard can this be?
• Tell the Pentagon to put the Geneva Convention rules back in the Military Field Manual - if you hadn't heard of this one, it's true: the new version of the Military Field Manual will not include the Geneva Convention provisions against mistreating and humiliating detained prisoners.
• Actually debate the FAIR Tax, and see what happens. I'm extremely undecided on it, but it's an actual issue which has a bearing on everyone's daily life, which would be a nice change of pace for Congress to deal with.
• Look into the President's rampant use of the "signing statement" - these are (figuratively) little executive post-its that he can stick on bills saying that he interprets them a certain way. He has used them on roughly 10% of the bills he's signed into law, which is more than all previous American Presidents put together, something which is now coming to the attention of the American Bar Association.
• Deal with steroid use in baseball - I'm guessing more Americans care about this than gay marriage or flag burning put together.
• Didn't someone important in the government say something about going to Mars at some point? Maybe you guys should look into that.
• Four words: Leave no child behind
• Cure something! I don't care if it's cancer, HIV, or halitosis, but this would be a better use of your time.
• Annex Mexico and be done with it! Then we can burn their flags, to get it out of our system.

MAJOR UPDATE - FEBRUARY TO APRIL:

Well, it's been three months since my last update, so I guess it's about time for a new one, and boy is there a lot of material to cover:

February was crazy, with me getting a cold that lasted nearly two weeks. In addition, my washing machine went haywire and flooded my basement. As such, very little writing got done in February. In addition, I had to spend a week in Sacramento, California, for work. Here are the stats on story submissions for February:

• Four stories submitted
  
• Six stories rejected
  

March was a recovery month, as I tried to catch up on the various things I'd let slide during February. I had a hand surgery and I sprained my ankle, including an awkward step a week later that caused a re-strain. In addition, a number of work deadlines began to bombard me, so I got very little writing work done. The March stats are:

• Eight stories submitted
  
• Four stories rejected
  
• Notified that I had been selected as a candidate for the position of About.com Physics Guide
  

April, however, was something of a recovery period for me. I began work on the About.com Physics site and got accepted, which focused my attention on writing yet again. I also began to work heavily on "Poor Richard's Fire" and finished it in time to submit it to an alternate history themed magazine just under the deadline. April's stats are much more impressive:

• Training and acceptance as the About.com Physics Guide
  
• Extensive work on the About.com Physics Guidesite
  
• Five stories submitted
  
• Seven stories rejected
  
• Two previously-accepted stories released to find a new market, due to publication difficulties
  
• I received word that there would be no finalists in the Writers of the Future anthology for 2005, which means that my story "Salvage" will not be included and is free to be shopped around to new markets.
• Completed "Poor Richard's Fire," with a total of approximately 7,500 words. I was startlingly impressed by the quality of this piece, as I was really worried about getting the colonial language right, and I think I did a very fair job at it.