Uncategorized

Glowing Book Reviews to Fit Your Budget

Leave a comment

Two years ago, marketer Todd Rutherford began selling book reviews. Some people complained that reviews could be bought from a service; many others bought reviews from that service. And not just any reviews–gushing, exciting reviews. The NY Times walks us through it:

Consumer reviews are powerful because, unlike old-style advertising and marketing, they offer the illusion of truth. They purport to be testimonials of real people, even though some are bought and sold just like everything else on the commercial Internet.

Mr. Liu (an analyst) estimates that about one-third of all consumer reviews on the Internet are fake. Yet it is all but impossible to tell when reviews were written by the marketers or retailers (or by the authors themselves under pseudonyms), by customers (who might get a deal from a merchant for giving a good score) or by a hired third-party service.

Fiction

How To Be a Spy

Leave a comment

Mulholland Books offers spy technique pointers from Mischa Hiller’s Shake Off, and as a rank amateur who would probably get killed in a fight while trying to be brave, I feel I should counterbalance some of these tips.

  • Know your cover. “If you can believe just a bit of your cover story then you can convince your listener (and even yourself) that it is all true.”
    This a good point. When Mrs. Pollifax went to Mexico, nobody knew she was a spy.
  • Incriminating evidence to ditch? Use the restroom. “It is easier to flush soaked paper than dry.”
    And you can flush select memories by soaking and flushing your head. Actually, money, as in the wad of cash you took from that jeweler, does not dissolve in water, so if you have someone down the sewer line ready to grab it, you can pass a huge number of bills via the toilet. This is not labeled “money laundering”. That requires detergent.
  • Watch your back. “You should always sit at the back of the bus when you get on, because surveillance like to sit at the back to get a good view of you embarking without having to turn around.”
    Be sure to greet the back-seat surveillance when you sit down.
  • Finish the job.
    You’ll have to go to the post to read the explanation on this one about killing someone. I think it’s a bit confused. I know you can shoot someone in the head and not kill them, especially a small caliber weapon, but if you’re holding a gun with “a massive kick” like it says, then you’re probably holding a gun that will take the target down in one or two shots. Four to five shots? Surely that’s excessive, especially at close range. When shooting, you want to aim for the upper body, and if you take him down on the first shot (and before Interpol arrives–they’re still around, right?), then you can run up to him and plug him with your remaining bullets. I mean, what else are you going to do with them?
Uncategorized

Looking to Norway

Leave a comment

The eyes of the world were on Norway today. Not one but two international stories focused on that small country, something that doesn’t happen very often.

It isn’t every blogger who’s up to the job of tying the sentencing of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik together with the opening of a mysterious, 100-year-old package, but I am prepared to take on that challenge.

First of all, there’s the sentencing of the semi-human terrorist, Breivik. Early reporting made it sound as if his 21-year sentence, absurd enough in the eyes of most Americans (and plenty of Norwegians, to judge by my own contacts), might actually end up being only ten years. That doesn’t appear likely. He’ll be evaluated in a sort of parole protocol after ten years, but unless he alters the cut of his jib drastically he’s not likely to be released at that time. He has, after all, made himself hated particularly by his country’s bleeding heart class, and the law-and-order people don’t love him any better. When the 21-year sentence is finished, the authorities have the power to recycle the sentence as many times as it takes, for the rest of his life. Continue reading Looking to Norway →

Uncategorized

I Didn’t Have Time to Write a Short Letter

4 Comments

You have heard it said that Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, or maybe T.S. Eliot once said, “I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.” No, apparently Pascal wrote it somewhere and even he may have gotten it from somewhere else. This is one more bit of evidence to support my reluctance to trust unsourced quote databases.

Fiction, Reviews

Marshal of Medicine Lodge, by Stan Lynde

Leave a comment

There are many stories of American artists, in various disciplines, who have not achieved the public acclaim they deserve. Chief among them, of course, is me. But another is Stan Lynde, best known for a long-running western comic strip called Rick O’Shay. I was vaguely aware of Rick O’Shay when I was a kid, but I had the opportunity to follow it closely toward the end of Lynde’s run with it, when he was turning it away from what the syndicate had asked him for—a gag-a-day strip—to what he’d always wanted it to be—a serious adventure strip with continuing stories. The strip gained new depth (at least in my view) when Lynde experienced a Christian conversion and started working in religious themes.

But he quarreled with the syndicate, and quit (the strip went on for a while without him) to draw another—a post-Civil War adventure strip called Latigo. Sadly, those were not the times for westerns, and Latigo languished and died.

Today, Stan Lynde writes western novels. As a fan of his comic work I bought one to see how it was, and I’m happy to report it’s very good indeed.

Marshal of Medicine Lodge is one of a continuing series starring Merlin Fanshaw, a Montana deputy US Marshal in the 1880s. He’s a lot like Rick O’Shay—a decent fellow whose instincts are good, though he’s young enough to still need some seasoning. He gets the chance to grow up a lot in this story. Continue reading Marshal of Medicine Lodge, by Stan Lynde →

Blogs, Socials

Karnick on carnage

Leave a comment

Our friend Sam Karnick, of The American Culture (where I blog sometimes, though I’ve been sadly neglecting them) has an article over at PJ Media on violence and sex in the movies. He argues that violent movies are a lot less harmful, and sex in movies a lot more harmful, than it’s fashionable to say.

It seems to me, however, that those who maintain that sex and profanity in the culture should be treated more leniently than violence actually have it exactly wrong: earlier social values, which were lenient toward depictions of violence but were fairly strict about depictions of sex and the use of profanity, had it right, and the modern, more “enlightened” approach is in fact blinkered and wrong. The reason lies precisely in this matter of consequences. When sexual license is depicted without the consequences — broken homes, never-formed families, betrayed loved ones, suicides, disfiguring and deadly venereal diseases, agonizing confusion about one’s sexual role, etc. — all the audience is left with is the lure of erotic pleasure. Bad consequences are either ignored or are seen much later than the choices that led to them, thus greatly weakening any connection the audience may have between the action and any deleterious effects.

I agree entirely. I’ve also argued, in this space, that the big difference between violent movies and sexual movies is not a difference of morals but of appropriateness. Violence is essentially public, while sex is essentially private.

Another point, it seems to me, is that movies have always been about sex as much as about violence. They just weren’t explicit, in either case. Every romantic movie had one object in mind, but we discreetly averted our gazes before that object was consummated. When people were shot, we saw the gun smoke and the bad guy falling down, but we did not observe the bullet hole or the spouting blood.

Nowadays both those taboos are frequently broken.

Uncategorized

Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful

Leave a comment

I don’t have any good blogging ideas today, so I’ll share a frustration, because you’re such a good listener.

There’s this picture I really want to show you, but I can’t get access.

The back story goes like this. Last month at Norway Day in Minneapolis, there was this guy hanging around with a great big camera. I’m no expert on photography, but I know the big ones with all the lenses the size of window sash weights generally indicate somebody who makes enough money taking pictures to afford big cameras with lenses the size of window sash weights

He took some pictures, but I barely paid attention to him.

This past weekend, some of us Vikings gathered at our storage location to sort stuff for the trip to Minot, which is coming sooner than I care to admit to myself.

And one of the guys brings out this photographic print, which had been brought to him by that photographer from Norway Day.

It consisted of three black and white head-to-collarbone portraits. Reading left to right, it was me, a fellow named Ron, and Ragnar.

The other guys’ portraits were good, but mine was unbelievable.

I’m in my mail shirt—you can see the top of it—but my helmet is off. My hair is mussed, and I’m smiling.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a picture of myself smiling before that looked at all good. I go through life with a serious expression for a reason. But in this picture, my smile looked great. I look like a guy who just won the battle of Maldon (by cheating), and feels pretty good about himself.

In other words, I didn’t look a lot like me, which is excellent.

I took down the photographer’s e-mail address, and contacted him as soon as I got home, hoping for a print at least, and possibly usage rights for promotional purposes.

He has not responded.

I can only assume that he has plans to use my image for his own obscene profit. Women everywhere will wonder who that handsome, mysterious warrior is, and he’ll keep my identity secret, so as not to have to share the proceeds.

Hey, shutterbug, you didn’t build that!

Blogs, Socials

The Best Spam You Aren’t Reading

Leave a comment

SPAM

We’ve been getting a lot of spam lately, and it’s a shame you aren’t seeing any of it. It’s inspiring, in an Engrish way. Early this morning, a dear-hearted spammer wrote, “Writing fictions are really helpful for me thanks a lot for show me the way of my own dream!”

In that vein, I want to share selections from more wonderful, wonderful notes we’ve received from our beloved spammers.

“Economy the ready with coupons is huge, but you can bail someone out even steven more by shopping at more than one store. Once in a while that you be sure this facts, you are ready destined for your next grocery put by visit.”

“One the go fence when wearing eyeliner, is keeping it from running or smearing all the way through the day. To put a stop to this, you should effect that you get the right sort of eyeliner. There are special brands that are arrest proof. These are imagined eyeliners that will matrix all epoch, every day.”

Doesn’t that warm your heart?

Reading

What To Read Next?

Leave a comment

Sherry has a long list of reading lists from various sites, plenty of material to inspire, ignore, or distain. If I was anywhere near a decent blogger, I would pick out titles I knew nothing about and mock whoever it is recommending them. But, no. I must move on.

Reading

Authors, Blogs, Socials

More on Lewis and Tolkien

Leave a comment

If you’ve been following this blog for the last few days, you probably noticed the considerable interest raised by my post on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, just a few inches below this on your screen. I wrote the post in response to reading Prof. Bruce Charlton’s e-book about Tolkien and The Notion Club Papers.

Today Prof. Charlton posted a piece responding directly to my suggestions. What surprises me most is that he places most of the blame for the rift between Lewis and Tolkien on Tolkien.

The critical rift in JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis’s friendship can probably be dated to early 1949, when Tolkien heard Lewis read The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.

This fact was forcefully brought home to me by Lars Walker’s blog posting at Brandywine Books.

Lewis later remarked that Tolkien disliked the book intensely, and Roger Lancelyn Green confirmed this from a meeting with Tolkien about the end of March 1949.

But if early 1949 was the critical incident, then we need to understand the background to the incident (and why it caused a rift) and also understand why the rift was not repaired.