I entered a competition earlier this year, the most important part of the prize being publication upon the completion of my book (I have in fact already finished my first book, am now having the second privately edited, while I work on my third but that's neither here nor there).
Part of the competition small print was that winners would be notified on or before 31st May 2012.
As you can most likely guess, I have not received any notification of any thing so I must take it as read that I have not won. Though I do not mind this fact much, once I had dealt with my disappointment, as it means that a fellow writer is now bring their career (good luck, long life and good health to them, may their career span a hundred books) I would have liked just a little note to say that I had not won, just an e-mail.
So many people complain about rejection letters. I am fast coming to the conclusion that it is more hurtful to receive no news at all. Though rejection letters are undoubtedly painful in their own way, they at least let you know that your work was worth looking at instead of being thrown on to the slush pile right away. As it is I must deal with the fact that neither of the judges felt that my work was worth a nod in my direction.
When you are throwing your work into the abyss, is it too much for the abyss to acknowledge that fact?
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Monday, 28 May 2012
Whale Wars - Comments
Just been reading some of the comments about Captain Paul Watson posted after his arrest.
Some have claimed that he has threatened peoples lives in his bind to stop illegal poachers and whalers from damaging our most precious resource, that he said once that he was quite happy with the idea of killing people in the course of what he does, that he and Green Peace parted ways for a good reason, that if he was so confident about winning the Costa Rica case then why has he avoided capture for so long?
This is not the first time that he and his crew have been arrested. He has always avoided, quote, 'justice', unquote, before because none of his ships have ever carried lethal fire arms, no person has ever died in the course of any of his campaigns and the only property he has damaged has been the property of those involved with illegal actives.
Yes, he styles himself an eco-pirate. Apparently one person thought because of this he should be crucified. Like that proves you to be a well balanced, rational person. Or perhaps you would prefer to see him hanged, as under the British Law. Or locked up and never heard of again, while his followers and supporters are "put in a SAFE PLACE".
I am sorry but from where I am sitting if you are illegally poaching then you get what is coming to you. If you weren't breaking the law you would not be putting yourself on to his radar. He is an eco-pirate because he is going after the people who the governments of the world aren't willing to touch for one reason and enough. If the governments of the world were more willing to tackle this problem instead of trying a blind eye to it because its 'not profitable' to notice it, people like Paul Watson would not be needed.
It seems to me that he and Green Peace parted ways because Green Peace isn't willing to sully their good name with the controversies Paul Watson is willing to face. When was the last time a Green Peace member was arrested for their actions?
And for the record, shark finning is barbaric, wasteful and inefficient.
Some have claimed that he has threatened peoples lives in his bind to stop illegal poachers and whalers from damaging our most precious resource, that he said once that he was quite happy with the idea of killing people in the course of what he does, that he and Green Peace parted ways for a good reason, that if he was so confident about winning the Costa Rica case then why has he avoided capture for so long?
This is not the first time that he and his crew have been arrested. He has always avoided, quote, 'justice', unquote, before because none of his ships have ever carried lethal fire arms, no person has ever died in the course of any of his campaigns and the only property he has damaged has been the property of those involved with illegal actives.
Yes, he styles himself an eco-pirate. Apparently one person thought because of this he should be crucified. Like that proves you to be a well balanced, rational person. Or perhaps you would prefer to see him hanged, as under the British Law. Or locked up and never heard of again, while his followers and supporters are "put in a SAFE PLACE".
I am sorry but from where I am sitting if you are illegally poaching then you get what is coming to you. If you weren't breaking the law you would not be putting yourself on to his radar. He is an eco-pirate because he is going after the people who the governments of the world aren't willing to touch for one reason and enough. If the governments of the world were more willing to tackle this problem instead of trying a blind eye to it because its 'not profitable' to notice it, people like Paul Watson would not be needed.
It seems to me that he and Green Peace parted ways because Green Peace isn't willing to sully their good name with the controversies Paul Watson is willing to face. When was the last time a Green Peace member was arrested for their actions?
And for the record, shark finning is barbaric, wasteful and inefficient.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Whale Wars
I have just found out that Captain Paul Watson has been arrested, on what charges has yet to be made clear, but it seems that the German government plans to extradite him to Costa Rica.
This seems to be in response to the Sea Shepherd uncovering an illegal shark finning operation. The word here is 'illegal'. How can an 'illegal', that is to say 'against the law', operation use international law to shut down the people who uncovered the acts that where against the law? Surely anybody can see that to jail a man who is fighting against the illegal fishing practises of companies and cabals around the world is to support the illegal practises. And if the governments and legal systems of the world are supporting illegal practises then they are supporting that which is totally opposite to everything that they are supposed - and are voted in for - to embody. If this is the case then the law is a mockery and government a sham.
This seems to be in response to the Sea Shepherd uncovering an illegal shark finning operation. The word here is 'illegal'. How can an 'illegal', that is to say 'against the law', operation use international law to shut down the people who uncovered the acts that where against the law? Surely anybody can see that to jail a man who is fighting against the illegal fishing practises of companies and cabals around the world is to support the illegal practises. And if the governments and legal systems of the world are supporting illegal practises then they are supporting that which is totally opposite to everything that they are supposed - and are voted in for - to embody. If this is the case then the law is a mockery and government a sham.
Monday, 7 May 2012
A Different Stage
Went to see 'Holmes and the Ripper' last Friday at the Assembly House, Norwich. An extremely good play that puts forward some all too possible theories as to the Ripper's identity. Although the subject matter is serious there is enough humour to stop it becoming too depressing, including the police man who arrests Watson by mistake.
However, the most surprising facet of the play was the placement of the stage. It was in the middle of the room with the audience all the way around it. This meant that no matter which way the actors where facing they always had their back towards at least part of the audience. Despite this, in many ways, the play was more intimate than many plays I have seen before, probably because there was no curtains to close between scenes. The use of lighting was extremely well down, however, to give the back stage crew a chance to more set pieces.
I had the chance to speak to a member of cast afterwards, who told me that it was the most liberating stage they had ever worked on, due to the fact that they couldn't help but have their back to the audience. This meant that they did not have to worry about turning towards the audience to say their lines and make the action seem natural, leading to movement more akin to that seen in real life. Probably another reason why the action seemed so much more intense than on a more traditional stage.
However, the most surprising facet of the play was the placement of the stage. It was in the middle of the room with the audience all the way around it. This meant that no matter which way the actors where facing they always had their back towards at least part of the audience. Despite this, in many ways, the play was more intimate than many plays I have seen before, probably because there was no curtains to close between scenes. The use of lighting was extremely well down, however, to give the back stage crew a chance to more set pieces.
I had the chance to speak to a member of cast afterwards, who told me that it was the most liberating stage they had ever worked on, due to the fact that they couldn't help but have their back to the audience. This meant that they did not have to worry about turning towards the audience to say their lines and make the action seem natural, leading to movement more akin to that seen in real life. Probably another reason why the action seemed so much more intense than on a more traditional stage.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Superheroes
Just been to see the 'Avengers Assemble' film and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, it did make me think. Why are people addicted to stories of superheroes? Because it is not a new phenomena. The legends of Greece and Rome are littered with demigods that fight the hideous monsters. The Hindu sagas have the same thing. There are even oriental examples with the Peach Boy of Chinese legend and Tengu (the demon that, having been defeated by the hero, swears utter and undying loyalty to him) in Japanese.
I think it is because of a couple of things. One, we humans want role models, beings who are far above us in physical power, thus giving us something to admire and aspire to. We then want these beings to look at us small humans and see us as something worthy of being protected and guarded against the monsters out there, possibly because we want to know that no matter how badly we foul up, someone, somewhere is going to care about us. Lastly, it is because we want stories where the good guys are going to win at the final curtain call and where the bad guys gonna get what's coming to them. If these stories involve gods and demons and odds that seem impossible for the hero to overcome then all the better because that's even more existing and awesome! Also, it is possibly because we want to believe that no matter how bad our life gets, someone else, somewhere has already faced worse and defeated it.
Superheroes also carry a message, beside the obvious one of good guys and bad guys. Superheroes have helped in the past to change popular ways of thinking. The example that springs to mind is Captain America. The first Marvel comic to feature him fighting the Nazis was published, as far as I know, during the Second World War because the writers of the Marvel Comics believe that America's stand of neutrality in the early stages of the war was not a morally acceptable decision. Because of the comics popularity it helped change the public perception of the war. Not bad for 'just' a comic book.
I think it is because of a couple of things. One, we humans want role models, beings who are far above us in physical power, thus giving us something to admire and aspire to. We then want these beings to look at us small humans and see us as something worthy of being protected and guarded against the monsters out there, possibly because we want to know that no matter how badly we foul up, someone, somewhere is going to care about us. Lastly, it is because we want stories where the good guys are going to win at the final curtain call and where the bad guys gonna get what's coming to them. If these stories involve gods and demons and odds that seem impossible for the hero to overcome then all the better because that's even more existing and awesome! Also, it is possibly because we want to believe that no matter how bad our life gets, someone else, somewhere has already faced worse and defeated it.
Superheroes also carry a message, beside the obvious one of good guys and bad guys. Superheroes have helped in the past to change popular ways of thinking. The example that springs to mind is Captain America. The first Marvel comic to feature him fighting the Nazis was published, as far as I know, during the Second World War because the writers of the Marvel Comics believe that America's stand of neutrality in the early stages of the war was not a morally acceptable decision. Because of the comics popularity it helped change the public perception of the war. Not bad for 'just' a comic book.
Friday, 13 April 2012
Cirque de Ciel
Just been to see Cirque du Ciel's Shanghi. AWESOME!
In fact awesome does not cover it. If you have a liking for stunning acrobatics, mind boggling tricks and death defying stunts, then this group is well worth a watch. As far as I could see there were no safety lines and they only used crash mats for the rope dance and the monkey poles. I'm not sure about the evening performances but the matinees had children doing some of the stunts, including throwing themselves of the top of the monkey poles and trusting the adults to catch them. The level of trust between every member of the team was awe inspiring.
What I particularly liked about it was that there was an equal division of the performances between men and women, with some men having their own acrobat come ballet routines and some of the women having a chance to play the drums in one of the big drumming numbers.
I have to admit that the hat juggling number was a favourite of mine. How do you have a hat on your head and one in each hand and make them rotate positions without either speeding up the passes as you go or having a third arm?
Grant still have to say that the hoop routine and the monkey poles were the best of the show.
Definitely one to watch out for!
In fact awesome does not cover it. If you have a liking for stunning acrobatics, mind boggling tricks and death defying stunts, then this group is well worth a watch. As far as I could see there were no safety lines and they only used crash mats for the rope dance and the monkey poles. I'm not sure about the evening performances but the matinees had children doing some of the stunts, including throwing themselves of the top of the monkey poles and trusting the adults to catch them. The level of trust between every member of the team was awe inspiring.
What I particularly liked about it was that there was an equal division of the performances between men and women, with some men having their own acrobat come ballet routines and some of the women having a chance to play the drums in one of the big drumming numbers.
I have to admit that the hat juggling number was a favourite of mine. How do you have a hat on your head and one in each hand and make them rotate positions without either speeding up the passes as you go or having a third arm?
Grant still have to say that the hoop routine and the monkey poles were the best of the show.
Definitely one to watch out for!
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Nppf
Just read about the National Planning Policy Framework.
Is any one really taken in by their babble about development only bringing about the lost of habitat only if "the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss"?
Who decides if the "needs for" and the "benefits of" the development "clearly outweigh the loss"? The local people who don't want more housing? Who have said as much in their meetings and petitions? Who don't want more people moving into the area until there is work enough for the people already there? Or the developers who have the bank balance to buy the solicitors and the opinion of the government? Who have the money to keep putting forward application after application until the local people have not the money or the will to fight it any more?
I'm not a betting woman but I know who I'd put my money on.
And while habitats can be bought and sold for the money gained when the houses are built, the woodland and farm land of England will continue to disappear. After all, if all else fails they can always slap a compulsory purchase order on the land like they did to the farm that used to be were Thorpe Marriott now stands.
However, all is not lost.
If you feel like standing up and telling the Government and its money bloated cronies were to sling their collective hooks, then the Woodland Trust does charge a large amount of money for membership. And the money you give them will go to buy the woodlands up before the developers can get to them. What is more, once the land is owned by the charity then compulsory purchase orders cannot stick.
Lets show the government the meaning of the words "The voice of the people is the voice of God!"
Is any one really taken in by their babble about development only bringing about the lost of habitat only if "the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss"?
Who decides if the "needs for" and the "benefits of" the development "clearly outweigh the loss"? The local people who don't want more housing? Who have said as much in their meetings and petitions? Who don't want more people moving into the area until there is work enough for the people already there? Or the developers who have the bank balance to buy the solicitors and the opinion of the government? Who have the money to keep putting forward application after application until the local people have not the money or the will to fight it any more?
I'm not a betting woman but I know who I'd put my money on.
And while habitats can be bought and sold for the money gained when the houses are built, the woodland and farm land of England will continue to disappear. After all, if all else fails they can always slap a compulsory purchase order on the land like they did to the farm that used to be were Thorpe Marriott now stands.
However, all is not lost.
If you feel like standing up and telling the Government and its money bloated cronies were to sling their collective hooks, then the Woodland Trust does charge a large amount of money for membership. And the money you give them will go to buy the woodlands up before the developers can get to them. What is more, once the land is owned by the charity then compulsory purchase orders cannot stick.
Lets show the government the meaning of the words "The voice of the people is the voice of God!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)