I'm taking on chapter six next. I can't remember for sure, but I think chapter six was probably one of the first scene ideas that I had when I started writing the rough draft of this novel many years ago. It has a lot in common with the two short stories starring Leah Nells that I wrote when I was in high school. The chapter is also important because the memory of the day sticks with Leah throughout the rest of the novel.

On the first day of school, Leah made the decision to eat lunch at one of the tables on the patio outside the school cafeteria. She enjoys sitting outside by herself, eating lunch and reading from one of her books, but her decision to spend everyday outside for lunch eventually poses a dilemma: she's at the mercy of the weather. And while eating outside is nice when the weather is warm and dry, when it rains, she can't sit outside. Worse, winter is approaching, and it will soon be too cold for her to sit outside at all.

I'm not giving away the ending when I say that the last chapter of the novel takes place on November 30. On that day, the looming threat of winter is very real, and I suggest that November 30 will be the last day that she will be able to sit outside, at least until spring. The reader is left to wonder, where will she go on December 1? I don't answer that question explicitly in the story, but earlier in the novel I do hint at the solution to her dilemma. I know where she's going to go, but I'll leave it to my readers figure it out for themselves.

Anyway, in chapter six, Leah is forced into the cafeteria when a morning thunderstorm makes it impossible for her to eat on the patio. I like the scene, but I'm having problems. The main problem here is that the language that I use is just too formal. When I read this chapter, I feel like I'm reading an academic dissertation, not a chapter from a young adult novel. I need to dumb it down a bit in order to make the language a bit more consistent with the rest of the story. That sounds easy, but I've got a LOT of sentences to rewrite. Let's take an example:

The boys didn't say anything to her; instead, they resumed their lunch and their conversation -- an indication to Leah that her presence at the end of the table was not considered a serious intrusion.

Well la-dee-da, Mr. Snooty Author Man! Would you like some wine and caviar while you write this chapter?

This is the kind of crap I'm trying to purge from my novel. I'm want to keep the language simple. A reader shouldn't have to consult a dictionary to read my story. Here's how I rewrote it:

The boys didn't say anything to her; instead, they continued talking to each other -- a sign that they didn't have any problem with her if she wanted to sit at their table.

That's not perfect either, but it's better than what I had before. Rewriting sentences can be very difficult work, and sometimes it is really hard to think of the best way to rewrite a sentence. Sometimes it takes days before I figure it out, but I am comforted by the knowledge that EVERY human utterance can be rephrased so as to better express whatever idea one wishes to communicate. Every problem sentence has a solution. It's just a matter of solving the puzzle.

Two down, one to go.

do not forget the basics of our blocks the very core of us
is us

The "fleshing out" came as a suggestion from my husband, one of the few people who's actually been allowed to read my whole novel. He said the ending felt rushed. So, I'm adding to the body count by inserting another chapter on the climatic battle at the end. This chapter is nice offshoot, IMO. I decided to go with a new POV character (a minor character) who isn't involved with on major event in the end and, therefore, and will expand the reader's experience of the battle. He's also expendable (muhahaha!). But it gives me a way to explain some of things going on in the background and maybe prevent a "WTF" moment at the finale. It's always tricky trying to find the balance between foreshadowing enough for the plot to be believable without giving everything away. I seemed to have erred on the side of the latter before.

As it stands now, I already have 12 pages scribbled out and about 5-6 more to go. Thank goodness there's NFL football tomorrow so I can continue with the violence and finish my rough draft of this chapter. Hmmm... maybe I need to kill more characters. If the Seahawks lose, I might have to.

every man can line up and lift the weight
until one knows the mass and the material
we are all dreamers and full of our shit

i woke today still dreaming just to see life become a little harder
as much as i would like to be seeing friends and lovers right now
i sit alone and realize i have changed and will never come back

alas, praises to the child i used to be
with welcomed homecomings to the man i am
i cannot wait to start another day

i feel this and i love it all
this poor world
how much more abuse can she take?

I saw this film back when I was in high school and I didn't get the point of it. Upon viewing it with a lot more experience, I thought that it was a smart observation about surburban life. Although it was somber in various levels, it is also darkly comic while still being tragic. Thanks to Ang Lee's ability to balance tones and characters, this turns out to be not just another look at suburban depression. It actually has something important to say, which should be apparent by the end of the film. I must give kudos to Sigourney Weaver for playing an unlikeable but hilarious character. Although her character says one thing, she completely thinks and does the opposite--which I think most people can relate to, including myself. Christina Ricci, Tobey Maguire, and Katie Holmes were (or looked anyway) so young here to the point where it was kind of shocking. All of them delivered and proved to be interesting side characters. In a way, this is kind of like a classic novel that literature professors love to dissect. Motifs, contradiction, foreshadowing... all of those things that make up a rich novel can be found in this film. If one is into films about tragedy in suburbia, I recommend this one without hesitation.

Incredible Hulk, The (2008)
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

I'm greatly surprised with this movie because "The Hulk" directed by Ang Lee was such a disappointment; that if a great director couldn't make it work, there must be something wrong with where the material was based upon. "The Incredible Hulk," directed by Zak Penn, is much more engaging because it was action-packed without having to result to mindless violence and Edward Norton can easily be digested as a man trying to change himself for the sake of others' safety. Moreover, I loved that science was constantly used as an explanation and weapon: I loved the whole primer-DNA segment with the hilarious and sarcastic scientist, played by Tim Blake Nelson, because that's one of the main ways to alter protein expression--and therefore phenotype--in real life). Liv Tyler is also pretty darn great here because she was both elegant and strong in her own way. I also like the CGI look of this Hulk a lot better than the other one. Lee's Hulk is more light or flourescent green and it looked more cartoonish. Penn's, on the other hand, is dark green and looks more sinister. Overall, this is without a doubt, the better film not just in comparison with the first, but as a stand-alone film. I rarely say this but this film deserves a sequel. I'm crossing my fingers for that Avengers film! ...But I must say, I'm really curious about the longer version that Norton wants released (and since it wasn't, he chose to not advertise for this film).

What Happens in Vegas
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

It's not as bad as critics and most audiences claim it is. I think this is one of those movies that became a victim of group think. Don't get me wrong--it did have forced humour (that either worked or didn't) and characters making stupid decisions right after another--but none of it is meant to be taken seriously. Since I saw this movie via Netflix, I think I would have been a lot less figiving if I had seen this in theaters because it is not worth the ten dollars. I did enjoy the way Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher's characters would torture each other. As much as I would like to believe that people like them do not exist, they do. I learned to accept that fact and pretended that I was watching those kind of people interact with each other while watching this film. I thought Diaz and Kutcher did eventually had some sort chemistry, especially toward the end, so I somewhat bought the whole romantic notion... even if it was a bit too forced. The side characters made me laugh at times and I appreciated the movie's energetic tone. It's not the greatest movie in the world but it's not the worst either. Compared to "The Heartbreak Kid," "What Happens in Vegas" is a masterpiece.

My DH is teaching summer school this summer, which means he has to get up at 5:30 in order to be at work on time. I, on the other hand, am not teaching summer school, so in theory I should be able to sleep in. Well, such theories are all well and good unless you live with a deaf jerk dear husband who can't hear his own alarm in the mornings as quickly as you can hear it. On top of that, he tends to migrate to my side of the bed over the course of the night, leaving me clutching for dear life to the edge of the bed. You will see why this is significant in a moment.

So, long story short, the alarm is on my side of the bed, and it went off with full barrels blazin' at 5:30 this morning (after I stayed up until 11pm last night to watch Empire Records), and as I leaned over to turn it off I felt myself continuing to lean myself entirely off the bed, until - BAM! - I hit the floor. So to sum up: this is DH's fault because he can't wake up his own sorry ass in the mornings and because he took up so much of my side of the bed that I was left with no leeway to save me from falling off. Grr.

So I wonder if this means the rest of my day will go poorly. It hasn't been too great so far, to tell the truth. I had to go get a physical for my new job, which involved a tb test. One of these days I will blog about my petrifying fear of needles, but for now, suffice it to say that the TB test was not exactly the highlight of my day. Then, I forgot to bring my wallet to the doctor's office, so I had a scowling receptionist tell me I would have to come back later this afternoon to pay my copay. I also forgot my physical form, so I have to take that back later, too. This does not bode well for the rest of my day.

However, there was a sunny side to my day. I came home and read this blog post from Cass, and realized that her day was way worse than mine, so I should just shut up now.

I should have known better.  I NEVER pack only one pair of shoes when I travel.  EVER.  And yet this past weekend I did just that.  It was my fourth road-trip in a month's time and I was tired of packing, so I thought, OH, I will just bring my Teva flip-flops, they are versatile enough. 

And then, in a strange kind of foreshadowing, I thought, "But what if something happens to one of my shoes?  Then I will be shoe-less!"  But I chose to ignore my inner voice and stick with just the Tevas.  After all, I had NEVER ever lost a shoe.

I should have listened to myself.

Let me tell you about these Teva flops.  They were a Mother's Day gift from my husband because he HATED my choice of flip-flops.  I had two pairs that he named "ugly" and "moldy" (in my defense, the second pair are NOT moldy, just a kind of brown fabric that turned dark with use).  The Tevas quickly became my FAVORITE pair of shoes that I owned, period.  SOOOO comfy, and they are cuter than you can tell in the picture.  I wore them EVERYWHERE, and with everything, even things were NOT flip-flop attire.  I probably would have worn them to the White House.

By the way, TEVA brand was THE shoe back when I was in college.  EVERYONE wore Teva sandals for outdoor activities.  Yet this weekend my college-age brother and sister were like, "What's TEVA?"  What's TEVA?!?    *thunk* I feel old.

So we traveled to my Dad's place on the river and and set off to play on the motorboat.  I REALLY wanted to knee-board.  I don't remember the last time I got to show off my skills... pre-babies, perhaps?  My sister bravely decided to be first and test the water for jellyfish.  She leaped into the water and immediately got one wrapped around her FACE.  I saw it draped across her neck.  OW.  There must have been a scramble and lots of movement because when the chaos was all over I could only find one shoe.  My FAVORITE shoe.     

SHOE OVERBOAAAAARD!!!!  I was heartbroken.  We spent half and hour trolling in circles (and whipping various people around in the inner tube behind the boat) looking for the shoe until we realized we were wasting so much gas ($4/gallon!) I could BUY another pair for cheaper.  I painfully walked up the hill to the house BAREFOOT.  Ow.  (Stick.)  Ow.  (Pinecone.)  OW!  (Holly leaf!)  

Poor me!  STUPID me!  Why the heck did I pack only one pair of shoes!  I seriously NEVER do that!!  I usually even pack extra shoes for just DAY-TRIPS!  

And WHAT were the chances that the FIRST and only time I have ever lost a shoe would be the one time I have ONLY. ONE. PAIR!!!???!!!   

What in the world would I do?  We were in the COUNTRY on July 4th.  Cornfields galore.  Not like I can pop up to Payless and snatch up a pair of shoes.  My stepmother kindly rummaged around and gave me a mostly new pair of Crocs that my grandma didn't want. 

Crocs.  The shoes I swore I would NEVER own.  The shoes I made soooo much fun of.  I mean, come on, they look ridiculous.  But at least I am not barefoot.  Who knew Crocs could make me so very happy?  I had never been so glad to look so ridiculous.  And so I post the lolcat picture in honor of my new shoes.

But if you find a black flip-flop floating in the water somewhere PLEASE let me know!

Beautiful.

It's hard to watch well-written television. Catch the subtext, foreshadowing, and motifs. Honestly, having this blog helps me do the thinking I need to do to fully appreciate the genius and subtlety of the show. Oh my gods I sounded like I was giving Matt Weiner a blowjob, didn't I? But it's just that good.

Obama has remained "Mr. Cool," even when his campaign seemed to be blowing up around him. He didn't do the politically expedient things: He didn't wear his patriotism on his lapel with an American flag pin; he didn't promptly disown his race-baiting former pastor, Jeremiah Wright; he didn't apologize for comments by his wife, Michelle, that many Americans found unpatriotic. You can say what you like about the substance of these positions, but the interesting fact is that Obama didn't flinch.

"Yes, we know what's coming. I'm not naive," Obama said in the North Carolina speech. "We've already seen it . . . pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along."

That's the message: Attack me; attack my pastor; attack my wife; bring it on. I'm ready.

The past several months have revealed Obama's vulnerabilities, but they've also shown his ability to take a punch. Many whites are furious that he didn't throw Wright overboard sooner, but blacks surely like him all the more for resisting the pressure. And there's an instinctive American fondness for people who don't rat out their friends, even when their friends are creeps. That's why a Wright-based strategy may backfire for the Republicans, just as it did for Hillary Clinton.

Obama has a transcendent ambition: It's part of what gives him the "man of destiny" quality. When you see him on TV or in pictures, he always seems to be looking into the middle distance -- not to any person in particular but toward "the people" and the far horizon.

Cool is good, but overconfidence is dangerous. Obama's had a delicate balancing act in the primary and I think he can be tougher on McCain (for several reasons) than he could on Hillary. But it's not a processional to the White House; it's a fight. How (and how much) can Barack get around the "elite" tag? Clearly, bowling didn't work. This will be the trick of the general campaign, I think; he needs to show he understands voters' fears and concerns, not just about "politics as usual" but about real, emotional issues. I think he does understand, and some of his rhetoric has been effective. But if he's doing this in his campaign, he hasn't yet figured out how to force the media to show it. He can say "it's not about me, it's about you," but he's got to show that with pictures and powerful, grounded emotional appeals. And supporters need to echo and amplify that, as well. The campaign should be producing quotes and talking points for the million volunteers that go straight to local, emotional issues. The message is not simply "Don't you want change?" but also, "With Barack Obama in the White House and a new Democratic congressman in your district, we can finally get free medical coverage for your kids."* How do we make that connection in our local media?

*When that's fair to say, basing that claim on this, presumably:

• Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
• Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.

So I welcome the end of the primary, the end of a lot of desperate, terrible decision-making on the part of the Clinton campaign, and the end (I hope) of these great rivers of spiteful blogging. I also welcome the beginning of a period of stepping back and concentrating on the next phase. There's lots to be angry about, rightfully, on both sides. And it will be worth remembering and addressing the issues that this primary brought out; we obviously still have a lot of entrenched animosity toward one another based on fundamental identities, and we also feel free to cultivate and perpetuate an atmosphere of vitriol and vindictiveness. That's disappointing, for sure.

But I am eager to move on and to get into what should be a really fun and informative general campaign. We're going to nominate a historically important and very charismatic candidate in Barack Obama, and we have the winds of reason and hope at our backs—usually we go with the one; it'll be nice to have both. We have a ton of new voters and we have the responsibility to bring along supporters of both primary candidates. Now let's make sure that the media, the puppet masters, the hatchet men (and hatchet women) and the Orc armies of bigotry don't get to tear down a good campaign. Let's go get the government we deserve.

UPDATE: Adding, I recognize that trying to be dispassionate about politics is exactly bass-ackwards to the way that most people experience it and is, in fact, the major liability of the party. But in trying to be dispassionate, I am trying to see clearly, to see more moving pieces, so that I can understand where we might be blindsided as we have been in the past. I don't discount any emotional relationship to the political; that's all very, very real. But I also want to see beyond the emotion, see what's happening, and make sure that the emotional appeals we're designing are the right ones. I'm pro-hope, I really am. But mostly I hope that we can repair a damaged party rather than simply throw it out and start over under some new brand. I suspect a lot of the Hillary supporters felt—rightly or wrongly—that Barack's anti-Washington message is an anti-party message, and parties, for all their faults, are still important to millions of voters. Less so to younger voters, new voters, highly educated voters; that is, Barack's constituency. But still, many people have powerful emotional ties to the party of FDR and JFK, of civil rights and long-lost protections of unionism. The difference between the delegate counts at the moment is about five percent of the total (give or take a half percent depending on whether you count superdels). That's an amazing accomplishment by the Obama campaign, but he's still got a huge traditional Democratic base to integrate into his message. If he simply counts on their vote, he will be missing an opportunity to consolidate his power and his party.

Barack has walked many fine lines with a great deal of skill to get to the nomination. But I would like to see an emotional appeal to all Democrats, not just those who are critical (though many of those criticism are certainly valid) and who are new to politics. He has some baggage—some people see him as Kerry-esque in a pejorative sense—and he needs to turn some of that around. He can do it if he wants to, and I really want him to want to. He's not going to get any help from the media. So, as I've been trying to say since last year, everyone will be needed to win in November. We need unstealable margins. It's time to start weaving us back together. I presume Barack wants to do it and I presume that Hillary will help. But I think he needs to offer more than just a "change" message. His change theme is urgent and appealing, but perhaps it fails to recognize the emotional, cultural and political capital that the party—a party we can and should be proud of—has fought for an earned over many decades. Is the party faultless? Are any candidates pure? Of course not. But there is heritage there and it shouldn't be abandoned. Barack should turn his eloquence toward an appeal to the best of the historical party as well as the best of his own vision. I'm not sure what, precisely, his vision of the future is, but I know what liberals, progressives and Democrats have fought for in the past, and that's real, too. If we bring those two emotional narratives together—and stay three steps ahead of the millionaire Swiftboaters—that will be a winning strategy. The potential is immense. If we really want to achieve a shift in the political landscape, that's how it will be done. Building those rhetorical and intra-party bridges should be our priority starting now.

The incidents are not limited to burglaries. In Mississippi, former Judge John Whitfield was the victim of arson at his office. In Alabama, the whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, Dana Jill Simpson, had her home burned down, and shortly thereafter her car was allegedly forced off the road.

While there is no direct evidence linking these crimes to the US Attorneys’ office targeting these individuals, or to the Bush administration, there is a distinct pattern that makes it highly unlikely that these incidents are isolated and unrelated.

All of these crimes remain unsolved.

H/T, Hullaballoo > DDay > Raw Story.

[JIC: Plumbers. Plumbers' helpers.]

my life is starting to get out of whack and i can't wait to get it back.

i don't really wanna get into detail (i'll only tell suki and mayybe haowie. lol

to hao: how was picturesque boy? he wasn't very picturesque when you saw him, but he is actually TOO adorable when he plays guitar. my godddd. :D

*sigh* i don't really have much to say today. but today was a good day. nothing drastic.
something's gonna happen tomorrow morning, people.
get ready for tomorrow's blog!

楽しみにしているんだ～

よろしくね～～！ 

ICED: I Can End Deportation. A tough life-on-the-streets videogame (free to download) that offers information about marginalized immigrant communities. No idea what the real story is, but certainly an interesting piece of cultural work.

I've been saying the "video game" paradigm is going to jump its borders for a long time (which of course it has been doing for a long time already). Is this "video activism"? "Role-playing politics?" Will people actually play this and get something out of it? Interesting stuff.

HT, the ever-snappy Big Action!

This book is a wonderful read aloud, with lots of foreshadowing and creepy atmosphere.  The book references Richard Adams' Watership Down, and students who are advanced enough to have read it can expand their thinking by comparing the characters of both books.  It's also a good look at the struggle newly blended families have getting along and acclimating to new living arrangements.

... The story was a giggling GOP oppo plant, but that didn't stop the kewl kidz from running with it. I don't need to remind you about John Kerry and his "butler" and the "green tea" and the "wit-whiz" psuedoscandals of 2004. If Clinton were still the front runner, she'd be portrayed in the press as a cross between Dalmation draped Cruella DeVille and Evita Peron with her 100 million and Bubba trophy husband. (Actually, she is -- they aren't taking any chances.)

Meanwhile, you have a temperamental, fabulously wealthy, flip-flopping, seventy one year old warmonger on the other side who's being called "the coolest guy in school" by 20-something reporters.

Nobody should be surprised or unprepared for this by now. I think Obama's campaign people underestimated how this label could be applied to their guy and they allowed it to play out in Pennsylvania in ways that should have been anticipated. But then I have always wondered why Democrats are always off guard every time this hits them. ...

I'm about to co-found an online/video consulting/development/production business and this could be our motto/mission statement.

(Another contender: "don't use so many g*damn backslashes")

I feel like I'm at about 0:39.

I was mulling over the ABC debate this morning and the moderators' claim that knocking Obama with a more or less uninterrupted stream of Swift Boat gotchas was justified by focusing the debate on 'electability'. And it occurred to me that we have now crossed an important threshold where the Republican operative cadre has sufficiently disciplined and trained the press (and more than a few Democrats) that their own role may simply be redundant.

Think about it. Organized campaigns of falsehoods, distortions and smears used to be something most people thought of as a bad thing, if not something that's ever been too far removed from American politics. Now, however, members of the prestige press appear to see it not as a matter of guilty slumming but rather a positive journalistic obligation to engage in their own organized campaign of falsehood, distortion and smear on the reasoning that it anticipates the eventual one to be mounted by Republicans. In other words, we've gotten past the debatable rationale that journalists have no choice but to cover smears and distortions once they're floated into the mainstream debate to thinking that journalists need to seek out and air smears and distortions on the grounds of electability, as though the mid-summer GOP Swiftboating was another de facto part of the election process like primaries, conventions and debates. ...