Home
The Audience is Otaku [entries|friends|calendar]
Eliza the Great/CHARGIN MY BLOGGLES

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

The Escape [10 Nov 2009|06:34am]
catandgirl

Comic

post comment

Raise Your Hand If You're Gonna Start Using That [10 Nov 2009|12:00am]
overheardnyc

Woman on bus: Hey, when are we gonna leave here--Christmas?
Driver: Lady, hold on.
Man on bus: He's probably watchin' porn.
Woman on bus: Yeah, stop beatin' your meat.
Driver: I'm waiting for my supervisor to give me the go-ahead.
Woman: Well, I'm gonna miss the ferry, so tell your stupidvisor I don't want to miss the ferry.
Driver: Did you just call him a stupidvisor?

--Chamber St. Shuttle to South Ferry

Overheard by: Jon


Alsome | Thumbs up | Thumbs down |
Link · Email · Quote this! · Del.icio.us · Posted 2009-11-10
3 comments|post comment

bleakness [09 Nov 2009|09:58pm]

rose_garden
Last night we watched There Will be Blood.
Today I read All Quiet on the Western Front.
post comment

Writers and Financial Woes: What’s Going On [10 Nov 2009|03:51am]
scalzifeed

An e-mail:

You talk about money and writing a lot, so let me ask you: What is it with writers and money? Lots of them seem to be in financial hot water these days.

Hmmmm. Well, let’s start by pointing out two rather salient points (note this discussion is primarily US-centric, but may have application elsewhere):

1. Things are tough all over. “These days” includes a profound recession, for which employment is a lagging factor, so let’s make sure we factor that not-trivial datum into our mindview. On top of this general employment malaise, writers of all sorts are taking an extra set of lumps: Journalism is losing thousands of full-time writers out of newspapers and magazines, writers in corporate settings are no safer than any other white-collar worker and publishing companies are actively trimming their author rosters and slicing advances. I’d hesitate to suggest that writers are having it worst of all recently, but you know what, they’re not just skating through this recession, either. They’ve got it middlin’ bad.

On top of this:

2. It’s not just writers who make lousy financial choices. There aren’t enough writers in the United States to cover all the bad mortgages out there right now, to make one obvious point. It’s not just writers who push the average consumer debt above $7,000 per card holder. It’s not just writers who save almost none of their income, leaving them vulnerable to sudden, unexpected changes in personal fortune. Writers are often bad with money, but then so are secretaries, and doctors, and teachers, and plumbers, and members of the military and any other group of people you might care to imagine, excepting possibly accountants, and honestly I wouldn’t even put it past them. So when we’re singling out writers for discussion, let’s remember they are not alone out there on the far end of the “wow, we really suck at finances” spectrum.

Having noted the above, here are some additional reasons why writers seem to so often fall face first, financially. Note that not all of these apply equally to every writer; we’re talking in vast generalities, here.

First, some practical issues:

3. Writer pay is generally low and generally inconsistent. And if one writes fiction for some/all of one’s writing output, especially so. I’ve written in detail about writing rates and payment before so it’s not necessary to go into detail again right at the moment. But what it means is that if one is a writer, one does a fair amount of work for not a whole lot of money, and then has to wait for that payment to arrive more or less at the pleasure of the person sending the check. Unfortunately, writers like pretty much everyone else have fixed expenses (mortgage/rent, bills etc), and those people generally do not wait to be paid at the pleasure of the writer; you pay your electric bill regularly or you don’t get electricity. This means writers are often in a situation where despite working prodigiously, they don’t have money in hand to pay regular, fixed monthly expenses.

4. Writers often lack what meager social net actually exists in corporate America. Writers are often self-employed, which means they bear the full brunt of the cost of health insurance or go without, and when they do pay for health insurance, they pay a lot because their individual plans don’t spread out risk like corporate plans do. Since per point three writers don’t get paid a lot (or regularly), very often they go without — as often do their spouses and children, if the spouse does not work for someone who provides health insurance. Which means they are quite susceptible to even incidental medical costs wreaking holy hell with their finances, and my own anecdotal experience with writers is that they are not exactly a hale and hearty group to start.

Self-employed writers don’t get 401(k)s and often don’t get around to funding IRAs, so their ability to save for retirement is made that much more challenging. They are on the hook for their full amount of Social Security taxes and also have to file taxes quarterly, and the IRS keeps a close eye on them (and all self-employed folks) for fraud and so on. Add it all up, and not being formally on the corporate teat makes it easier for writers to find themselves in a compromised financial situation.

5. Writers, like many people (even presumably educated folks), often have rudimentary financial skills. Which means even when they do have money and a desire to save it intelligently, they often don’t know how or have already gotten themselves into a compromised financial situation which makes smart and sane financial practices more difficult. Now, for writers, to some extent we can blame them and their arty-farty educations for this lack. I’m not sure how many MFA or undergrad writing programs out there require a “real world basic finance” class for a degree, but I’m guessing I can count them on one hand and have up to five fingers left over. Likewise, my anecdotal experience with writers suggests that not a whole lot of them have a vibrant love affair with mathematics, even the relatively basic sort that underpins day-to-day financial planning. So there are two strikes against them right there.

But to be fair to writers, once again, it’s not just them. I have a philosophy degree; it didn’t require a real world financial management class either. I don’t believe I actually ever took a class in basic financial planning and management, ever, and I’m guessing I’m not the only one there. This leaves basically everyone to get their financial educations from rah-rah financial bestsellers, fatuous talking heads on CNBC and folks like the sort who recently suckered millions of Americans into buying far more home than they could rationally afford on the basis that hey, the real estate market will never ever go down. This is, basically, an appalling state of affairs, and not just for writers.

Having enumerated some practical issues, here are some (for lack of a better term) “lifestyle” reasons why writers often have money problems:

6. Writers are often flaky. Which can mean (pick one or more) that they have short attentions spans, which penalize them for things like finances; they get bored quickly and therefore make bad economic decisions because they want to stop thinking about them and get on to interesting stuff; because they are clever with words they think that means that they are smart outside of their specific field (and particularly with money), which is common mistake people good in one intellectual area make; they trust people they should not with their money and/or their life situations; they go with their guts rather than with their brains; they prioritize immediate wants over long-term needs; and so on.

We could have a nice fun argument about whether flaky people become writers or whether being a writer makes one flaky, but it’s a discussion that’s not relevant at the moment; the point here is that many authors by their personal nature are not well-composed for the sober, staid and completely boring task of dealing with money.

(Note I’m not simply running down other writers here; ask my wife why it was when we met I had all my utilities on third notice, despite the fact I could afford to pay the bills. It will confirm my own “flaky like a pie crust” nature.)

Related to this:

7. Writers are often irrational risk-takers. Because how can you write about life without experiencing it, etc, which is a convenient rationale for doing stupid things and getting caught in bad situations, up to and including terrible relationships, addictions, impulsive life-changing decisions and so on, all of which end up having a (not in the least) surprising impact on one’s financial life. Hell, even a bog-standard nicotine addiction will set you back $9 per pack in NYC and $5 everywhere else (not counting the cost of one’s lung cancer treatments later). Whether these sorts of irrational risks actually do make one a better writer is of course deeply open to debate, but again, it’s a rationale as opposed to a reason.

Note that in the cases of 6 and 7 above, there’s another potential correlating issue, which is that writers like many creative types appear to have higher incidence of mental illness than your random sample of, say, grocery store managers or bus drivers. Mental illness — particularly illness that goes untreated/undertreated due to financial constraints — will have corresponding effects on one’s financial situation.

8. Writers are often attracted to other creative folks, including other writers. Nothing wrong with this in a general sense, mind you. We all love who we love, and what’s not to love about another witty, smart and talented person? The problem financially speaking, however, is that other writers very often have the same basic financial issues: low, irregular pay, no benefits, poor finance skills, tendencies toward flakiness and risk-taking, and such. Two incomes are theoretically better than one, but two sporadic incomes accompanied by everything else that comes attached to the writing life isn’t necessarily as much better than one would expect. And don’t forget: Kids may happen. They often do.

9. Writing can be expensive. The actual act of writing is not expensive, mind you — if one had to one could do it for free off a library computer, although few do — but everything around it adds up. Typewriters, paper, ribbons and correcting fluid have been replaced by computers, printers, printer ink and internet access, so the sunk cost there is roughly the same as it ever was, as are the costs of sending manuscripts and correspondence, at least to the markets which still require paper submissions. Writers who write in coffee shops and cafes pay “rent” in coffee and pastries; it sounds silly, but those things ain’t cheap when you check the tab. Writers are gregarious and go to things like workshops and conventions and writers’ nights at the local bar; these aren’t required costs but they are desirable activities and they cost money to attend (even if it’s just to get an overpriced beer).

Do all these things mean writers are more susceptible than other trades/professions to encounter serious financial issues? Not necessarily; folks in other creative fields (acting, music, art, dance) have the same set of practical and lifestyle challenges, and while the challenges of other lines of work will vary, they’re still there – hell, even doctors and lawyers find themselves saddled first with huge amounts of debt and then with some impressive overhead to keep their practices going. Pick a profession — there’s lots of ways to get yourself in financial hot water doing it.

However, there is one thing that can make it appear that writers as a class are in more financial trouble than other folks, regardless of whether or not it’s true:

10. Writers write about their situations. Because they’re writers, you see. Writing is what they do. And lots of writers feel the need to share their financial situations with an audience, to a greater or lesser degree. Why? Because (again, pick one or more) writing helps writers think through their situation; writing is therapy; writers feel an obligation to share; writers are hoping for sympathy, encouragement and possibly solutions or even help. Whatever their reasons, it shouldn’t be very surprising that you’ll more than occasionally read an author lay out his or her financial woes, and (yes) do it in an interesting and engaging style that sticks in your head more than, say, a similar blog post by a janitor might. It’s an interesting curse, you might say.

So those are some reasons writers might be having a hard time of it right now — and why it might seem they’re having a harder time than some others.

post comment

New watch podcast: HourTime Show [09 Nov 2009|07:44pm]
boingboing_net
Attention horology fans: here's the podcast you're looking for, courtesy of Ariel Adams and John Biggs. [HourTime]

post comment

[cancer] Visiting the patient [09 Nov 2009|06:55pm]

jaylake
I'd been thinking about having some of my friends attending OryCon visit me in the hospital, but I'm told they're being extremely vigilant about visitation due to risks from H1N1 and seasonal flu. I may have trouble even getting my immediate circle of family and friends in.

So the fallback plan is to have interested folks visit Nuevo Rancho Lake on Sunday. I should be discharged from the hospital on Saturday to continue post-op recovery at home.

However, that presents several potential issues. First, we have no idea what state of mind or body I'll be in. Visitors may be impractical unless it's a tour of Jay snoring in an opiate-induced haze, for example. Second, because this is lung surgery, I'll be incredibly vulnerable to respiratory infections, including common colds, flu and pneumonia. And if someone brings me Con Crud, that would be a wretched gift indeed.

Yet at the same time, I know me. If I'm not toxically wretched, visits from my people are immensely uplifting for me.

So we're talking about face masks and contingency plans and whatnot. At the moment, it's utterly unclear. Watch this space, and the blog of [info]calendula_witch for details as they emerge.

However, if you are interested in seeing me that OryCon Sunday, please let me know in comments here, or by email. That might help in planning.
11 comments|post comment

Glittergeddon! [09 Nov 2009|06:17pm]
boingboing_net
glittermain.png

Channel 4's documentary-style drama, The Execution of Gary Glitter, imagines an alternative Britain that reintroduces the death penalty. Celebrity sex offender Paul Gadd—AKA glam rock star Gary Glitter—is re-tried for his crimes and hanged. It's a story about the moral quandary of capital punishment, generously garnished with the British media's obsession with pedophilia.



The real Gadd was disgraced by a child porn bust and his subsequent residency in sex tourist hotspots. After 18 months in a Vietnamese jail on a conviction for child molestation, he was released in 2008 and flown back to the U.K. The tabloids now stalk him and run stories like "Gary Glitter changes the style of his beard."


Execution depicts a different outcome. Arrested hours after landing, he's put on trial to test new legislation that allows capital punishment for crimes committed abroad. He sneers, argues, and wheedles. Talking heads, politicians and members of the public pop up in news-style interviews. Then he is put to death. Channel 4's Hamish Mykura says that "this drama confronts the public with what many say they want."


The documentary style is clever, and Hilton McRae does an excellent job as Glitter. He is alternatively smug, sordid, humane and pathetic. But then there's that whole weird thing about portraying an act of rationalized mob justice on someone who is very much alive and free.


Among the rationales offered is that the movie confronts us with a difficult truth; namely, that Britain needs to see Gary Glitter executed if it is to come to terms with its own moral indecisiveness over capital punishment. But the movie's concept isn't really "Imagine if we made new laws that dealt severely with sex offenders." It is "Imagine if we made new laws that would make Gary Glitter the center of national attention again." His presence is a gimmick. Without him, it would be a dry exploitation flick about no-one in particular—but one that might at least make sense.


The film's legal devices exist only to bring the celebrity to the rope. Hangings within a month of conviction, without any right to a court appeal? The EU not enforcing the Convention of Human Rights just to keep Britain happy? Get real, little Englanders. Besides, Britain has an ample supply of bona-fide child murderers competing for eligibility: I guess Ian Huntley just doesn't look enough like Fu Manchu.


Moreover, if the filmmakers cared about depicting the reality of capital punishment, they could have at least cooked up a more convincing doom. Western executions, where they play, follow years of legal wrangling. They are usually dehumanized clinical events, not pathos-filled remixes of Saddam's last gasp.


In any case, the dramatics fade before the loopyness of the Glitter premise. How did Britain's fixation on sexual stranger danger get this baroque? I'm stumped, frankly. I'm ready to be told the whole thing was some kind of deadpan black comedy. But a few ideas do spring to mind.


My countrymen often complain of the nanny state, but that modern taste for risk-peddling seems an international phenomenon. Throw pedophiles in the mix, however, and the outcomes start getting really weird.


Take, for example, the recent actions of Watford local council, which banned parents from being with their own children in a public play area. Then there's the 82-year-old woman accused of being a possible pedophile after taking photos of a swimming pool. And so on. This suggests confusion over the proper areas of association between kids and adults.

Then there's concern over youngsters' wellbeing in general. Britain's children are supposedly the unhappiest in Europe. Those responsible for their happiness were given a scathing review by UNICEF, which suggested British families are the least nurturing this side of the former Warsaw Pact. Though Britian's schools remain among the world's best, the rankings fell sharply over the last decade, and reports of its state childcare system make for grim reading.

There's also a broader anxiety over childrens' place in society at large. That younger kids are given few of the freedoms and pleasures older generations enjoyed is another problem hardly isolated to the U.K. But our fear of older youths is manifested in the press as a distinctively British moral panic. Tabloids seem to treat the nation's offspring either as hapless victims of predatory adults, or as dangerous, vaguely subhuman livestock.

Perhaps this sort of thing lets us forget that most childrens' problems are the result of familial and institutional neglect, not the likes of Gary Glitter.

Finally, there's the case of the bleeding obvious: media the world over sexualizes children, but Britain's is particularly ready to project its hypocrisy at deserving targets--or anyone who addresses the subject matter without the required solemnity.

Satirist Chris Morris produced the original "Paedogeddon" mockumetary in 2001, ridiculing the media's voyeuristic obsession with the subject. He got pols and celebs to repeat nonsensical urban legends, making fools of the lot. Condemnation of the show was nearly universal, but reinforced his point over and over again. One Daily Star article slamming the show ran next to an item praising a 15-year old singer's breasts. The Daily Mail described Morris as "unspeakably sick"--even as it ran a photo of the bikini-clad royal busts of princesses Beatrice, 13, and Eugenie, 11.

In one of the final scenes of The Execution, the condemned man says "they're not going to execute Paul Gadd." This makes a point about celebrity, about how it trades in mediated personas. The "thought-provoking" question is clear enough--is something other than a man being destroyed?--but it's a thought buried under the batshittedness of Glittergeddon.

If The Execution of Gary Glitter sounds barbaric, rest assured that it was merely inane. He isn't some metempsychotic vessel for the nation's unease over child abuse or the death penalty, after all. He's just a dirty old man, and he gets what he deserves.

post comment

I Blame Niel Simon [09 Nov 2009|09:00pm]
overheardnyc

British mother to young son: No, I want you to wear shoes on the subway.
British son: But I'm already barefoot, so what does it matter?

--American Museum of Natural History


Alsome | Thumbs up | Thumbs down |
Link · Email · Quote this! · Del.icio.us · Posted 2009-11-09
1 comment|post comment

Muddy River 11/09/09, 5:20 p.m. [09 Nov 2009|08:45pm]

urbpan
post comment

Be A Hero [09 Nov 2009|09:30pm]

beatonna



Requests aren't done, they will be popping up as we go, but honestly I do not need annnyymooreee! I was looking at the Wonder Women that I drew last year and started drawing her again, because she's pretty fun to draw, and surly Wonder Woman here came out. Don't settle for being a tits and tits heroine ladies, be yourself! Poor Nibbles.


Hey Montreal! I'm going to be at Expozine this weekend! You should come.

Store!
41 comments|post comment

x-posted to my LJ... [09 Nov 2009|08:25pm]

metaquotes

[elorie]
( You are about to view content that may not be appropriate for minors. )
40 comments|post comment

Romper Room 1988 [09 Nov 2009|05:24pm]

monstro_draw


I get really freaked out about some of those drawings! If I drew that Crazy Fish or that Crazy Snake in my sketchbook today I would post them on the internet.

I might upload the whole episode, there's a bit with me pretending to be a bee, and a really cool Paddington Bear short. Also there's more of that red headed girl acting CRAZY.
38 comments|post comment

Houghton's Pond [09 Nov 2009|08:07pm]

urbpan


Yesterday we ended up at Houghton's Pond. It was unusually warm, and ladybugs were swarming on the information kiosk.
Read more... )
1 comment|post comment

HAPPYFEST [09 Nov 2009|07:54pm]

slave2tehtink
OK, so Democrats in Congress threw women under the bus with the health care bill.

I'm probably going to wind up having to go to community college for 12 credits to convince UMW that I am not a worthless fuckup.

It is heading winterward and the sun is hiding a lot.

TELL ME HAPPY THINGS PEOPLE. Leave me a comment with something happy. A link, a story, I don't care, just something that makes you smile and think that maybe the world is not that bad after all.

Roo is contributing to HAPPYFEST 09 by washing my face for me. YOUR TURN. Pls to not lick my face because Roo has that niche cornered.
7 comments|post comment

Duke University official concerned that sex toy study will make students want to "just sit around an [09 Nov 2009|04:39pm]
boingboing_net
A Duke University study on sex toys has the University's Catholic Center director worried that female students will "just sit around and masturbate."

post comment

Real-time, global marine traffic map [09 Nov 2009|03:45pm]
boingboing_net
Yo, where my ships at? You'll never have to ask again. marinetraffic.com is a fun way to burn otherwise productive time. Cargo ships, military vessels, luxury high-speed yachts: track them, and imagine yourself out there on the high seas, instead of in that cubicle. (thanks, @shirky)

post comment

More Debris [09 Nov 2009|04:41pm]

jasonturner
[ music | Bittersweet Symphony ]

 

5 comments|post comment

...Whatever Your Name Is. [09 Nov 2009|06:00pm]
overheardnyc

Stranger: Hey, big dick!
Black guy: Hey, what's up guy. Not big dick anymore, small dick! (motions with hand)
Stranger: Not what that girl told me last night, haha.
Black guy: Well, alright, take care.

--Union Square

Overheard by: Brandon


Alsome | Thumbs up | Thumbs down |
Link · Email · Quote this! · Del.icio.us · Posted 2009-11-09
post comment

Genome sequencing for under $5,000 [09 Nov 2009|03:38pm]
boingboing_net
A US-based genomics company announces that it can perform genomic sequencing for under five thousand dollars. In my budget, that's "fully loaded 8-Core Mac Pro and a monitor," or "sweet new Canon 5D with one nice lens." But unlike those tools I covet, DNA is forever.

post comment

The real-life "Men Who Stare at Goats" were even weirder [09 Nov 2009|03:25pm]
boingboing_net
channon.jpg

How many of the kooky military research projects featured in The Men Who Stare at Goats really happened? Reality is more complicated than the movie (or the book), reports David Hambling at Wired's Danger Room blog. But reality may also be weirder. Hambling's post examines, Snopes-style, the truth or bogosity of such purported American military projects as:

• Psychic Spies
• Drug experimentation
• Killing animals with telepathy
• Sound weapons
• An army of hippies who can smite you with the sheer force of their BO.

Oh alright, I embellished the last one a bit. Read: Psychic Spies, Acid Guinea Pigs, New Age Soldiers: the True Men Who Stare at Goats (Danger Room, thanks Noah Shachtman)

Image: the First Earth Battalion manual (PDF) from the movie, which was based very closely on the original manual created by Lt. Col. Jim Channon. He "dove deep into the New Age movement, and came back to the military with a most alternative view of warfare -- one in which troops would carry flowers and symbolic animals into battle."

post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]

Advertisement