so i've been writing off and on for the past few weeks. i've only been writing separate little scenes, almost like self-enclosed short stories. sometimes i'll jump ahead to a part of the book i feel like writing and then sort of go back and piece things together, move scenes around... sort of like putting together a big jigsaw puzzle. the luxury about writing is that you can do whatever you want. the way you write one book, isn't necessarily how you will write your next book, and so on.

i've finally settled on the fact that the mood and pace of the book cannot be settled in just two parts. i'm just not that talented. instead, it will be three distinct, yet connected parts. think of it as three short stories all including the same characters. the first section will be an exploration of men and their relations to each other and the lasting influence of their fathers. the second section will be the nity gritty political stuff, involving the clash of civilizations. and the third section will be about redemption and proving to be bigger than your physical frame. i'm actually writing a disney screenplay, haha.

my writing is becoming pretty spare and bare bones which is kind of nice. there's a nice aesthetic feel to the work, where it actually just looks better on page. i know this is pretty superficial, but it matters. i find i am just not bothering with too much continuity from scene to scene. a character may act one way in one scene, and in the very next scene, they may act another way. the reason is that i don't find explaining what happened in between very interesting. most people can infer what went on. i just can't be bothered. overall, the book should come in at a very lean 150 to 200 pages. i just don't have the patience to write long books. i find i have to finish a book quickly, before i lose interest, which happens faster and faster these days. as one gets older, one finds they don't have much time for filler.

this book will be less explicit and graphic than my previous work. i am finding more often that with sex and violence, less seems to be more. if done correctly, a two or three line bit of violence can do more for the imagination than a dozen pages of overwrought, dramatized orgy of blood. not that an orgy of blood is bad. sometimes, in the hands of a very skilled writer, it can be quite good. personally, it gets boring to write such things.

i have been doing some research for the book. not a lot, because most of the stuff, especially the political stuff, i'm already really into so i get that stuff on a daily basis (eg: articles on political torture, renditions), but i'm looking into some other things that i'm not really versed with. learning how to accurately describe a gunshot wound by looking at gunshot victims online isn't really very fun, but it helps in the accuracy department. you kind of have to have a strong stomach to look at some of the stuff i've seen. there are some sick fucking things that people will upload or post on their websites. for example, i found a website that showed gunshot victims; detailed, graphic, pre-autopsy photos. the kicker is, the website speaks out against gun control. the point is, the teenage kid you see with the hole in his head could have been alive if he had had a gun to defend himself with. right. in that particular instance, it was his father that shot him. executed him point blank. kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, you think?

meanwhile, i have been reading a lot. in the past couple of months, i finished a couple of books that really aren't worth mentioning. sometimes you have to just try new things, and while somewhat entertaining, these books were pretty much just filler. i do have some better reading coming up (or at least i hope so). i'm waiting for the delivery from amazon.ca. the books are, in no particular order:

civilwarland in bad decline by george saunders.

into the wild by jon krakauer.

the tent by margaret atwood.



youtube is a bed of copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean you can't get interesting art from it. most of the times it's an excuse to post clips of television shows and movies, but there are people that are using it for what it was meant to be for: broadcast yourself.

the vancouver film school has been posting videos of films made by its students. some of them are interesting, others are just plain weird, but they're all original creations, which makes it kind of fun to watch. below are a few videos that i found to be interesting:


to the door

piece of mind


kim campbell

kim campbell, former prime minister of canada (the first female canadian prime minister), was on bill maher in 2004 which i missed somehow. anyway, in this clip, michael moore and maher are begging perennial pariah ralph nader to not run in '04. he was seen as the spoiler in the 2000 election that handed george w. bush the victory (which i personally don't think is true).
what is interesting about this clip is that campbell makes a very good argument against nader running. she is right when she says that politics isn't an abstract exercise, that there are real lives on the line, and nader isn't helping anything when he does what he does in this particular situation.
i like ralph nader, and i believe in the principle of what he is doing; the problem is that he is dictated by principle and principle alone on this issue, about bringing in a third party as a significant player into u.s. politics. sometimes he gets so riled up in his principles, that all reason and logic and humanity is forgotten. he claimed there was no difference between the two parties, and it didn't matter who you voted for. well, this is true. but who you vote for does matter: george bush proved this point. there can be someone worse. i cannot recall a president more destructive for his own country, as well as the international community. by 2004 people knew he was no good. he had to be removed. nader knew it, but he didn't care.
now i haven't seen any statistics on nader's effect in the 2004 election, but i do want to back kim campbell's point, that nader has influence, and influence can translate to power and the ability to effect change. he could use his influence to aid one side (in this case it would have been kerry). i'm not saying nader would have had any real effect, all i am saying is that sometimes you have to put aside principle when you have a chance to make immediate and effective change. yes, a third party will only arise if there is real movement and voice, and sometimes you have to break a few eggs to succeed. but this is easily said when those eggs aren't yours. it's easy to be principled when regardless of the outcome, you will be fine.
maybe it's because i'm pretty cynical and i don't think a third party will ever be effective in u.s. politics. but campbell makes a great point here, and it pisses me off that maher interrupts her for the sake of a really lame o.j. simpson joke. campbell was making a real political statement on a show about political discussion. but ultimately maher always has to get the last laugh, and it's a shame. i like maher, but sometimes, he just has to shut the fuck up.