|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
February 28, 2010 at 9:44pm February 28, 2010 at 9:44pm
| |
So I didn't finish my Short Shots entry this month, which is a bummer because I really loved the prompt this month. Since it's related to my professional career, I was looking forward to exploring the prompt, finding inspiration in the image, and writing a story that was near and dear to my heart. It seems, however, that life (as it often does) has other plans. I'm about halfway through, and I just found out that I have to finish a last-minute project for work... which means, ironically, the thing keeping me from writing a story about a filmmaker is actually doing something related to making a film.  C'est la vie... maybe I'll get an entry in next month. Off to finish my project for Tinseltown.
|
February 24, 2010 at 1:07am February 24, 2010 at 1:07am
| |
For the first time in I don't know how long, I actually finished a short story for a contest tonight! It felt good to write something again, even if it's only a short flash fiction piece. I've really been missing the writing process (and supporting so many of the great contests on WDC), so I'm very happy that the Weekly Quickie prompt inspired an entry this round.
Hopefully it will get the wheels turning again and allow me to find the inspiration to finish the two contest entries I've been struggling with since the beginning of the month - the Angel Outreach Contest and Short Shots. If I can finish my entries for those two, I can rest easy knowing February was a productive month.
|
February 22, 2010 at 11:55pm February 22, 2010 at 11:55pm
| |
I'm halfway through the series, both the movies and the books. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is... I liked TWILIGHT, but didn't love it... and I was, uh, less than enthusiastic about NEW MOON. I like Stephenie Meyer's easy, simple writing style, but the story and characters just don't really grab me (to be fair, I'm not exactly the target demographic  ). But the market for this franchise is absolutely astounding. NEW MOON made all kinds of money at the box office, and rumor has it ECLIPSE is expected to surpass its predecessor's numbers.
For those of you who are fans of the franchise and its stars, rumor has it that the ECLIPSE trailer will first be unveiled in front of Robert Pattinson's upcoming movie REMEMBER ME, in an attempt to drum up box office for the indie film... and Taylor Lautner was rumored to have been offered a whopping $7.5 million to play the title character in a big screen version of STRETCH ARMSTRONG. I couldn't imagine having that kind of money when I was high school aged. Hopefully he'll put some away for a rainy day, when those abs that everybody swoons over aren't so well defined anymore.
And it's a bit older news in the industry now, but BREAKING DAWN has been confirmed as two movies, to be shot back to back. I guess I need to finish up the series, so I know what's coming.
|
February 16, 2010 at 1:21am February 16, 2010 at 1:21am
| |
 I don't know what I did to deserve such wonderful friends. When I woke up this morning and logged onto WDC, I found a flurry of cNotes and Merit Badges waiting for me in my inbox... as well as a trophy for the "Invalid Item"  group item. Check it out! 
| |  | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
# by Not Available. |
Is that cool or what? Honestly, it's the best gift anyone could have possibly given me. When I first took over the group from laurie_o, I promised her that she was leaving the group in good hands. I truly believed (and still do) that WDC members deserve a newsletter for the erotica genre, and that cause is very near and dear to my heart. The fact that such a gorgeous trophy now graces the group item is reassurance that I'm doing at least a halfway decent job of keeping my promise and continuing to provide a place where erotica writers can read, write, learn, and thrive.
It's humbling to know that I have such wonderful friends on WDC who are not only capable of giving such a generous gift, but also know me well enough to know exactly what to get me that will mean the most. I don't now know who all was involved in this little scheme... but and I intend to find out and thank each of you personally.* 
Thank you, to all my WDC friends, for making my 7th account birthday the best one yet. 
* UPDATE: It helps to read the inscription on the trophy. |
February 14, 2010 at 3:10pm February 14, 2010 at 3:10pm February 13, 2010 at 2:38am February 13, 2010 at 2:38am February 8, 2010 at 10:26pm February 8, 2010 at 10:26pm
| |
I was listening to a screenwriting podcast yesterday, and came across an interesting conversation about cliches in the writing business. Up at the top of the list was the maxim, "Writers write," and they were talking about how there are a lot of people out there who consider themselves writers, but ultimately don't spend as much time writing as they do thinking about writing, wanting to write, or procrastinating when they should be writing. The comment that was made, as much as it may seem obvious, was that "you can't call yourself a writer if you don't write."
It was one of those moments where it really hit me. Lately, I haven't been doing much writing... I've been reading, reviewing, thinking about writing, wanting to write... but not actually doing any writing. I guess that technically means I'm not a writer. I've written before, but I'm not a writer. Right? I mean, technically, that's what they're saying. I haven't been writing anything, so I must not be a writer.
Of course, the thing is, I want to be a writer. It's been a passion of mine for years, and the idea of supporting myself and my family with an income from doing what I love is the ultimate dream. So was I discouraged and wondering what the heck I'm doing with my time? Hardly. Well, maybe a little. But more than anything, it really lit a fire under me. I am a writer, and I'm going to prove it - even if it's only to myself - every day if need be.
And you know what? In the past 24 hours, for the first time in months, I wrote 5 pages of a script I've been working on, and started a short story for a WDC contest.
How about that? I guess all I needed was a swift kick in the pants.
|
February 7, 2010 at 10:26pm February 7, 2010 at 10:26pm
| |
I'm not sure if anyone is following this merger like I am (I work in the entertainment industry, so I kind of have to ), but I'm more than a little concerned about what this means for broadcasting. The United States government already decided that studios (who produce and distribute films) can't also own exhibitors (theaters and theater chains) because it created a monopoly. The Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 effectively put an end to the old Hollywood studio system, which allowed the studios to produce and distribute their movies to theaters that they either owned or partially owned, thus ensuring their movies would screen ahead of or instead of movies from other studios, companies and independent producers. The practice was declared unconstitutional, and studios can no longer own exhibitors... so smaller movies from other sources have an opportunity to be screened for audiences in an environment that allows for (theoretically) fair competition.
My question is... since NBC Universal is a provider of content, and Comcast is a broadcaster (i.e. the television version of an exhibitor), isn't this bordering on the same practice that was abolished for theatrical films in 1948? While there are more regulations and checks and balances now than there were in 1948, it still - in my mind - boils down to the same problem... the company that provides the programs is the same company that determines which programs make it onto the broadcast schedule. And while proponents of this merger promise that the companies will be run autonomously... when it comes to the balance sheet and the stock prices, won't there be a point where someone comes up with the bright idea of favoring their own programming in some way to increase or maintain profits and discourage competing content?
The continuing efforts of large companies to merge and create larger conglomerates truly concerns me. When larger companies bought into the Hollywood business (GE and NBC Universal... Time and Warner... Viacom and Paramount), the Hollywood business really stopped being about making a good movie or program (or even about making one with a decent return), and started being about how generate revenue for the corporation - which always comes down to equalizing the successes and failures into net profits on the financial reports. The entertainment industry has actually been in the black during this recession, but their parent companies overall have been down... which means the industry has faced the same layoffs and cost-cutting as everyone else, despite posting record profits.
If NBC Universal and Comcast merge and form one giant media conglomerate... I'm wondering how many more mergers there will be until one ginormous company is responsible for providing all of our media - movies, television, music, news, cell phone service... the whole shebang. Am I the only one that thinks the prospect of having one source for all our information is a scary thing?
|
February 5, 2010 at 5:01pm February 5, 2010 at 5:01pm
| |
I know that talk about raising taxes is borderline blasphemy these days, especially with the economy still in the dumps... but something needs to be done about California. I just read an article in the paper about the State Legislature shooting down Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to install speed cameras at intersections across the state, in an effort to raise $400 million and combat the state's $20 billion deficit. While it's not the out-of-the-box thinking I have a problem with... did anyone think this through first? As the article mentioned, the cameras would remotely photograph people driving more than 15 MPH over the speed limit and send them a ticket in the mail.
When did raising fines become a viable form of fundraising or debt relief? While I certainly don't condone speeding, when you depend on speeding or any other criminal act as a viable source of income that needs to be adjusted, increased, or modified, it's going to create problems for the people affected. A $400 speeding ticket is serious money to most people... and more and more people, when they do get a ticket like that, are going to be faced with the very real decision of paying the bills or complying with the law. I know the argument is "don't speed", but this is a commentary on state revenue streams, not the morality of legality of speeding. That's another blog...
And I'm not even going to go into the fact that this legislation is largely sponsored by the lobbying of Redflex... one of the major suppliers of these cameras. Did you know that in a recent report to their investors, they explained that revenue might fall below expectations this year... because of "the costs of lobbying in various key legislative contexts?" Interesting.
Anyway, the whole point of this is... when did raising taxes become such a bad thing? Especially since it seems like almost everybody is in agreement that it's not really an issue of tax hikes for everybody... but increased taxes for the wealthiest among us, who can afford to pay a more proportional share of their income. It seems that we're so afraid to utter the words "tax increase" that people like our beleaguered governor will try just about anything to find a way to raise the money some other way.
When I was working one of my first jobs out of college, I worked for a company that needed to make cuts... business was down and expenses were still sky-high (the same as during their glory days). So they brought in a guy to help them figure out where they could cut costs and adopt a more appropriate business model. The guy reported back to them that, in all honesty, the problem was the salaries of the top executives and the various perks they enjoyed (expense accounts, car allowances, etc.). He recommended that if the company was going to make it, they had to either issue pay cuts to those executives, or get rid of some of them to equalize the cash flow. Those top executives said, "Sorry, can't make any cuts here. Figure out some other way." So what could the guy do? All that was left was trying to put a Band-Aid on a severed limb... he laid off entry-level assistants and support staff, cut out the snacks in the break room, and had people share offices so they could lease out some of the office space used by the administrative staff. 
It's the same problem with California. We need a tax increase for those who have for too long enjoyed the loopholes and exceptions in the tax laws that allow them to pay proportionately less than everyone else. (For the record, my tax bracket takes about 30% of my salary out for taxes... I have a friend who makes TEN TIMES what I make - or made, rather, when I was fully employed - and only pays about 15% of his salary to taxes). The tax law needs to be remedied and, yes, taxes need to increase for some people. But people are so afraid of talking about tax increases... like the guy who tried to save the company by eliminating the three grand a year spent on morning bagels versus the three hundred grand a year paid to one of ten executives... we're just going to keep coming up with ridiculous ideas for how to put Band-Aids on our severed limbs.
So please, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the legislature. Stop bickering about how to raise $20 billion in fits and spurts, and start having a serious conversation about what needs to be done to rescue the state economy. It may be painful and it may not be what people want to hear... but then again it may be time to stop telling people what they want to hear, and start telling them about what needs to be done in order to have a realistic shot at significant and enduring recovery and growth.
*end rant*
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 1 comment 
