Currant Events (or problems with spell check)

First, I must apologize to the currant growers, who may have come across this title when searching the web, and came here eager for news of the current state of the currant industry.

One of the problems if you're a bad speller, is relying on programs within Works, Word, Open Office, Gmail, Email, etc. that are supposed to check your spelling, making you look erudite, thus giving your opinions and rants greater weight and respect. Usually, they're pretty good, not up on the latest netspeak and shortcuts, but that's a small problem.

The bigger problem is homophones (rain/reign/rein, break/brake). Most of them I don't have trouble with. Occasionally, I'll have to stop and think: they're = they are, their = belonging to them, there = a location. I generally find if I'm typing fast that last one will get by me sometimes. And spellcheck can't tell you you're using it incorrectly.

My biggest homophone problem, as you might have guessed, is the word which means contemporary. I was using it frequently in something I was writing, and I'd have to check the dictionary every time it came up.

At least in this case, a mnemonic device has proved very effective. If I need to write about current events, or an electric current, or river current, a picture of an animated, wrinkled fruit pops into my head. It is jumping up and down, waving its little stick arms, its eyes angry and mouth going a mile a minute. The currant is ranting (get it -- nudge, nudge)! It is therefore not the write right (damn homophones!) spelling for any of the meanings I want to convey.

I'll never get that wrong again. Now, if only some spellchecks could be made to admit when they don't know what a word is. Recently, my Open Office spellcheck didn't highlight the word "dieing," which I had twice in a manuscript. Since it couldn't figure out what I was trying to say, it just ignored the whole business.

Deliveries

Today I got the two things I had ordered. First, UPS delivered the second Destroyer adaptation from Cutting Audio. They really ship promptly; I only placed the order the 19th. I'm looking forward to listening to this one -- Infernal Revenue -- more than the last one. It's one of my favorite Destroyers. I'm glad that Cutting Audio got the contract to do the adaptations, but I wish they weren't doing them in the order the books were published. I don't remember if the other company did that too. I didn't buy them all, just the ones I liked best. Cutting Audio may only have the contract for this year; I don't know if Gold Eagle will bother once they no longer have the contract to publish the books. However, they do retain the rights to all the Destroyers they've published, for how many years I don't know. So they'd still be making money on the books if they let Cutting Audio continue. And this way, maybe eventually we'd get to an audio adaptation of The End of the Beginning!

Second, the mailman delivered my book from Lulu.

I knew I'd be thrilled to see my book as a book, not just a computer file, but I had no idea how it would affect me. I actually teared up a little as I was looking through it. And not because of grammar and punctuation errors (though they are certainly there)!

It really is gratifying to see something you've created in your head and on the computer in solid form. It's a book, darn it, a real honest-to-God book. Not with the polish or sophistication of a commercially published book, but still... At least maybe, if I'm reading it through all the way for the first time really since finishing it, if it still holds my interest, maybe that means it's not hopeless.

Horror at the Movies

I'm not a horror movie aficionado. My taste in scary movies runs to the old Universal monsters -- Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man -- or the poorly done ones of the fifties and sixties. You know: the Blob, the Creeping Terror. Monsters that had to be helped by their victims, who stick their hands in unknown goo or run around in circles or really, r e a l l y slowly until the guys under the shag rug catch up with and devour them.

I've completely ignored horror's evolution into the bloody and gory, the psychotic madmen with chainsaws and the supernatural villains who kill without discrimination or motivation. You can get enough of that reading the news. Callous sadistic people are a minority, but they make themselves known. In short, I don't like these movies, so I don't see them.

My friend's husband, son and sister in law go to every horror movie. It's a thrill -- like riding a roller coaster or bungee jumping. And a test: they can face the grossest of the gross-out stuff and take it. That's fine with me. I don't like the bloody, explicit horror movies that started with Day of the Dead, but to each his own. I don't think it's the end of civilization, or that people will see these things and become desensitized or psychotic killers. There are some traits, like callousness, that are inborn, and emerge to a greater or lesser degree depending on a person's upbringing.

However, the latest excuse for a horror movie disappointed them. I'm not naming it; it doesn't deserve any publicity. It wasn't a question of gore, even though this was excessive, according to them. It's the spirit of the movie.

Even in the worst of these things, there are a few conventions. There's usually a hero who outfoxes the killers, a few people who have been made sympathetic and the audience roots for them to survive. Generally at least some of them do. The evil force -- whatever it is -- is defeated. At least until the sequel.

This movie, it seems, is extraordinarily mean spirited, even for the genre. According to my friend her son described it thus: The first half hour is soft porn -- beautiful young people continuously having sex -- boobs and penises out bouncing around. Then the remainder of the movie is unrelieved bloody violence. Brutal torture and bloody killings. Everybody dies. One girl who survives being blow torched in the face and having her eye pulled out throws herself under a train, gore and body parts flying about. No reason is ever given for what's happened; there is no plot.

I wonder about the motivations of the writer, director, and anyone instrumental in foisting this off on an unsuspecting public. I've read conservatives who say that Hollywood's liberal screenwriters and directors are more interested in pushing their own leftist agendas than in making good films. Is this some sort of propaganda effort by necrophiliacs? Do the people behind this film get off on gore? Is that why they have the soft core at the beginning -- to get everyone excited, then abruptly replace the images of sex with those of violence? And they hope that people are going to stay stimulated and begin to associate violence with feelings of sexual pleasure?

Not that I believe it's going to work. As I said earlier, that level of callousness and psychosis is inborn. All they're going to get from this effort, if anything, is people demanding their money back. My friend's son was disturbed and disappointed. This movie will, I predict, sink into obscurity; even the DVD version will end up in the bargain bins and go largely ignored. Unless it's publicized by people objecting to it. It is objectionable. But, much like a two year old gleeful shouting naughty words, if there's too much of a fuss made over it, thrilled by the reaction he will continue with it longer.

Recent Rowling Article

Very good J K Rowling article in the Tatler. The only version I could find was from The Leaky Cauldron's files. It went into how her mother's death while Rowling was still writing the first book has been felt in the series as a whole. Death is never far away in the Harry Potter books; Rowling doesn't pull any punches. Good characters die, bad characters die. Facing death becomes inevitable when the only alternative is to sit by and let evil spread unopposed. Yet even with that, Rowling's deaths aren't noble sacrifices as a whole. Characters are killed suddenly and senselessly. Diggery doesn't get a chance to fight back. He isn't killed throwing himself in front of Harry and taking a Killing Curse meant for him. Black's is quick -- the result of a lapse of concentration during a fight. Minor characters are killed off-page, brutally and arbitrarily. They're targeted because they oppose Voldemort, but it seems to be more a matter of luck than of skill who escapes and who dies.

The one jarring sentence in the article is, unfortunately the first one. That sentence, "A tear slowly trickles down JK Rowling's cheek," sounds uncomfortably Rita Skeeterish to me. It reminds me forcibly of the one of the sentences Harry spies being written down during his first interview with her. "Tears fill those startlingly green eyes as our conversation turns to the parents he can barely remember." (GOF, U.S. paperback ed. p.306) It doesn't spoil the article, but it kind of tripped me up until I got into the rhythm of the rest of the piece.

Rowling hadn't wanted to let her mother she was writing a book, probably because she hadn't much hope of getting it published. I think that was the biggest regret -- not that her mother missed all the fame and fortune and adulation. That's a big regret of mine, too. My mother always thought I could write for publication, but while she was alive I hadn't tried. I haven't published a book or an article, but I was published in the New Blood anthology, and that would have thrilled her. I think she would have liked that I was expressing myself here and in blogs too.

But you can't change the past; you just have to go forward and try not to regret what you can't change. And hope there's a way that somehow, somewhere, our mothers are aware of what 's going on and are happy for us.