Lament #0018 - It's NOT Tom, Dick or Harry! Try harder!

My second rant of the day stems from a conversation with my sister last night, in which I was very heatedly lamenting a very strong pet-peeve of mine. It pertains to many fantasy novels, including those written by very prominent and respected names within the writing community. Before I proceed, I need to make it very clear that I admire and ardently respect these individuals, and that this is purely a personal preference--and that my own preference just makes more logical sense.

I will list four novels to use in reference to my pet-peeve, which is actually sort of a two-parter. Ready? Here they are:

• Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series.
• Tad William's Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy
  
• Christopher Paolini's Inheritance cycle
• Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory's Enduring Flame trilogy

What do these four different series of epic fantasy novels have in common? Setting aside a whole lot, they are all novels depicting worlds separate from our own. First, I'm going to focus on the first three.

Richard, Simon and Angela. Oooh, what do these characters have in common? Well, names like ours of course! Something wrong with that? No, not precisely. But let's try three other names, each from a respective series: Kahlan, Miriamele and Eragon. What's the difference here? Well, they aren't names like ours. Oh, sure. Each author has an explanation in the form of different parts of the world, yada yada. But that's sort of stretching the truth, don't you think? Again, I'm not disrespecting the genius of the stories (nor am I placing these three books on the same level, by any means) but it seems quite a stretch that the only names from our own world are commonplace English names. I don't see a Shao, Maria or Akira within the pages of these works.

Now, we take the fourth example, the Enduring Flame Trilogy, where there isn't a single "English" name to be found. "Great!" says I, "A real other world with no laziness attached." Quite the contrary, in fact. They went so far as to rename coffee, camals and oranges! But, now, here's a different kind of trouble altogether. It takes reading about shotors several times before we have a clear understanding that these are camals, in effect; not something utterly different and found in Star Wars. This isn't always a bad thing, but here's my point.

Take my world B'korba, in contrast to these other books (again, not comparing genius, don't take offense). There are no characters within my fantasy world called Harry, Tom and Mary. Only Sai, Fayne and Mikena. On the other hand, there are horses, apples and raspberry tarts. How can this be? Here's how.

A fantasy work is generally regarded by fans, myself included, as chronicled histories (while fictional) of other worlds. As such, it is an unspoken rule that these works are "translated" into English for our enjoyment. It's like taking a Japanese manga and putting English in place of Japanese in the speech bubbles.

There's a series, referred to as Detective Conan in Japan, called Case Closed in America. It's an early translation job in which all the characters (like Shinichi Kudo) are given different, American names for "easy remembering," (Jimmy Kudo?!) although it takes away the authenticity of the Japan-based work. Since, manga translations have been much more accurate (although far from perfect).

So, looking at a fantasy novel as a historical, translated work, is the translator seriously going to take the time to rename Sai, Sam; Fayne, Frank; and Mikena, MaryAnne? However, if what the characters are, in essence, riding are horses, is the translator going to call them naafari because in Sai's language that's how the same creature is referred? I highly doubt it.

My point: It's a different world. Don't be lazy, make it real! Take time. If a character is called Richard, don't call his significant other Kahlan--call her Kate! Or, better still, call him something closer to Kahlan's name.

Even if the author can come up with an explanation for why half the characters have English names and the other half don't, it comes across to me as laziness. You can do better, novelists. We expect you're brilliant enough.

Lament #0017 - Where did all the support go?

All growing up, we hear the words of our families and teachers, all saying the same thing: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" They don't laugh when we answer "Astronaut", "Famous Singer", or "Princess." They only smile and reply, "You can be anything you want to be."

Then we hit our teenage years. We realize that princesses don't live in America, singers live poor lifestyles, and astronauts rarely make it into space. So we become rather cynical, or we jump to different dreams. As we decide on something a little closer to home, we share these new dreams with friends and family, and of course everyone is supportive (although their smiles may be a little less genuine, what does it matter? we'll show them).

When a teenager, I was asked what I wanted to be. My reply was always, "An author." "Of what?" "Fantasy." That answer was either followed by a badly guarded expression and a stiff, "Oh," or an excited, if disbelieving glint in their eye and, "Oh, really? When you're famous, I want to read it!" "Sure," I'd reply, beaming, absolutely certain that it would happen, and wouldn't they be surprised?

Then it was time to grow up. I moved out and my friends moved on. Upon occasion I would run into one of these long-ago friends and they'd ask, "How's your book? I still want to read it when your famous."

"I could give you a copy now," I offered.

"Oh, sure. That'd be great. I don't have a lot of time, but, ya know, I'd love to read it."

Naively, happily, I'd send them a copy. Six months later I had heard no response, and upon our next encounter:

"Have you had a chance to read my book?"

"Er, no. I've been busy, but I'll get to it soon. And hey, I still want a signed copy."

"Of course," I'd say, and after several such encounters with different people, I learned my lesson. Never again would I share my unpublished work with fair-weather friends. No doubt these same people, upon my actual published work, would reappear in my life with every claim that they, "read it before it was published!" (ha ha) and "She's my best friend."

"Right," I'd say. "After those who believed in me."

It seems that when we're small we can do anything, be anyone, and go anywhere. But when we're adults we're expected to change, become something ordinary and practical, or we just "won't go anywhere." How disheartening, how pathetic. That we set aside the dreams of our youth because no one really cares. Oh, certainly, I have a lot of dear supporters, especially within my own family. But of those friends who grew up with me, knowing my dreams, conversing with me about my story, I can count on one hand those who still actually believe in my ability enough to help me now, by reading a manuscript in their spare time.

One good thing, at least it's a means of knowing who really cares, and who only indulges in the moment. I will not forget the people who have supported me when there may be no national recognition; only a dear memory etched in my own heart, forever.

Here's to you, foul-weather friends. Those who believe in me now, before the future becomes our present.

Lament #0016 - Written words paint too!

With March almost gone, I realized that my rants have been few and far between. This isn't because I'm suddenly taking anger management classes. It's only because I have had so many rants lately, I haven't known where to start. But today--! Today I have a few rants.

I belong to a creative arts community on the web, and I've attended classes offline as well. I've conversed with people many times on the definition of art, and heard it defined by "professionals". These people all agree, in general, that writing is among the Great Arts.

Really?

Then what's wrong with everyone? There is no regard for writers, where there is an abundant amount of support for charcoal or water-color artists.

Why? I wish I knew. Certainly it's not for lack of books in the world.

"What are you talking about? People recognize novels as art!"

As well they should. But here's the thing-- NO ONE wants to read a novel. Granted, viewing a painting or wood carving is much less time-consuming than, say, reading a five-hundred page manuscript. But think about it: THAT'S WHY READING IS GOING OUT. People are lazy. NOT busy, but LAZY. They lack both the drive and the focus to devour a book, yet they spend countless hours pursuing other somehow more fulfilling endeavors.

Then there are those who hear a writer's dream to become a novelist, and dare to scoff because, "At least I went to school, where I learned a respectable career as a dentist." How dare they? It sickens me to hear that in order to be good at something you must always and only attend a school where someone else, someone older, teaches you THEIR methods of doing something, claiming it is the only right way. (This one paragraph is a premise for a whole new rant, I think.)

A considerable amount of my anger is fueled toward those silly artists in particular who paint a picture, then turn around and say to writing artists, "Ha! Here's real artwork." The sheer ARROGANCE of these people is unbelievable! I'd like to see them TRY to write a five-hundred-page novel! (Do, indulge me!)

Can people not realize that writing is as much career as pulling teeth? That it is as much an art as cinematography, or anything you might find in an art gallery? That it is as much a hobby as quilting, scrapbooking or photography?

Considering that it falls under three distinctive categories, how can it not make sense that writing is a wonderful thing? Career, Art, Hobby. Hmmm.

If you have issues with writers, take them up with God. He wrote the first book.

Lament #0015 - The Golden Rule, simple as that.

I admire and respect those with opinions which defer from my own.

That said, there is one particular crowd of people which, more than anything, perplex me. Those who once believed in God, and who now, for various "tragic" reasons, deny His existence yet hate Him all the same. That's very oxymoronic.

Allow me to truly lament for a moment, by recounting a few of the more eventful moments of my life over the past two years:

1. My then-twelve year old sister contracted an auto-immune disease called "juvenile bacterial arthritis" which caused her to lose most of her hair and grow a type of fungus on her skin as her muscles deteriorated and she was reduced to being pushed in a wheelchair. My family was turned into the state by a doctor for "child abuse", though the doctor knew the circumstances behind my sister's brittle appearance. I almost lost my younger siblings; luckily we could prove there was no abuse going on. We took my sister to specialists in a large hospital who declared "there is no cure." My mom refused to believe it, and took her far away from people who constantly talked about my sister's "impending death." For one year my sister struggled to survive. One day, a light came on and she realized she wanted to live. Pleading with God, she fought to make it through, and now my sister looks as though she was never ill for a second. She runs around, boundless energy coursing through her healthy bones. There are no remains of scars from the fungus, and her hair has grown back as lush and thick as before.

2. With the economy's struggles, my dad was laid off work. His van was repossessed by the bank.

3. My car's transmission just died; I had no warranty, and so the money must come from my own pocket. I still don't have the means to pay it.

4. This last December my parents' home burned to the ground. My family lost everything within it, and several precious pets died in its intense flames. Something told my parents to leave my younger brother with me, rather than alone in their home. He was spared from death.

I don't hate God. Tragedy isn't a good enough reason for that. We can't blame someone else for life's surprises--we certainly don't hate God when something good happens.

You may choose not to believe in God. That is your right. Personally I choose to believe in a divine power. I don't go around attacking other people simply because they have different beliefs from my own. I would appreciate the same courtesy from those around me.

Life is too short to spend it pointing fingers and attacking others. Try kindness. When it comes back to you, it's not so bad as other repercussions might be

Lament #0014 - Ah! pain.

There was an early critique for the prologue of my novel Paradise?, which said "you seem to be alienating the 'masochist' audience," referring to the line, "...up until the part where one actually crashed into the ocean. That might not be so enjoyable. Unless of course one is a masochist, which, I hope, one is not. Or was not, seeing as how one is dead now."

An interesting thought, to be sure, and I appreciated the feedback. But here's the thing.

A true masochist would be grateful. Why, you ask? Simple. If the line from Paradise? singles out the masochist audience, and they are hurt by the reference, doesn't that help them, as they enjoy pain so much?

Honestly. I'm doing them a service.

You're welcome.

Lament #0013 - The Almighty Football!

Religion -noun
1. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
2. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

A lot of people are religious, even if they don't attend church. I'm also very aware that there are many people who aren't at all religious in the traditional sense--but, like it or not, most are religious. No, really.

May I suggest that there is a religion that has recently become apparent, even though its many, many practitioners aren't aware of such? It's actually an organization which has been around for decades, in point of fact, and most people, despite their vocal religious affiliation, are actually devote followers of this new faith more readily and zealously than they ever were of any prior faiths?

Sports.

Le gasp! How dare I mock the sacred event called sports? (May I point out that if any of you are offended that I mock this, it only further proves my point.)

In my own religion, despite its definite appointment that Sunday is a holy day where one should rest from worldly cares and focus on the Savior, most men (and women too) make Super Bowl Sunday a special "exception", justifying it easily. Never mind it can be recorded and watched the following evening.

Granted, my religion also supports choice. Heaven (literally) forbid agency be taken away. We are taught certain Godly laws and principles, and then are given the choice whether to obey or not. It is a much-debated point whether the Super Bowl is actually not within keeping the Sabbath holy, although it really oughtn't be such a point for debate, if people were truly honest with themselves.

Even outside of organized religion, how many people that you know (perhaps yourself included) take time out of life's essential matters (family, for instance), to watch that important [insert sports name here] event.

Is there something wrong with enjoying sports? Certainly not. But once again it comes down to how much time is spent pursuing the sporting world rather than our own lives, families, jobs, or religions? What responsibilities are shirked in the name of the Almighty Football?

Life is about moderation. We should pursue hobbies which we enjoy--there isn't anything wrong with that. But balance is essential for a healthy, happy life. If sports is causing a conflict with your other priorities; if sports is causing a rift between you and your significant other; something is wrong. Now is a good time to step back and examine how much time you spend pursuing your own hobbies, versus those of someone else, or versus the other goals and responsibilities you have in your life.

Any hobby which can cause harm to your family relationships or career should not become a central point in your life. On the other hand, if sports is helping bring your family closer, by all means, pursue it, so long as the purpose is a happy family, not a worshiped football.

Balance, balance, balance.

Lament #0012 - Can't anyone get it write?

Do you read fiction? I do. Or rather, I try to.

How much of the fiction you've read have had markedly satisfying endings? I'm not referring to those whose endings answered all questions or whose writing was decent or whose main male and female characters lived happily ever after. I mean, what was the last book you read which actually ended well. Very well. Like, with no sense of dissatisfaction whatsoever? (That feeling of let-down is something entirely different, as it just means you re-entered reality after a thrilling good read.)

The best book will leave you wanting more, because it was so good. Not because it missed a crucial element.

I can count the number of fiction novels which left me feeling content on one hand. I can't count the number of novels I've thrown across the room, burned (yes, burned) or left sitting on a shelf collecting dust because its ending was so poor. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but it says something of the state of things when a reader is left feeling like reading the bloody novel was a waste of her freaking time.

I hate it when you adore the characters, but there is not plot. Or it's a bad one. Or the plot is good, and the characters suck. Or both are great, but the end was abrupt, predictable or downright deplorable. I loathe it when the character you enjoy so much disappoints you by doing something stupid, and never redeems him/herself, ever.

Granted, not every reader will be satisfied with every book. Take the Twilight series for example. Obviously there are some pretty satisfied readers, as it's got quite the cult following. I am not among them. I tried reading it, and I will give Meyer points for not thoroughly sickening me. I simply couldn't handle the 17-year-old "romance", and so quit. That's perfectly fine with me. I tried, it failed me. Not to say it doesn't have its merits--it's just not my sort of readery. Your opinion, whatever it is, doesn't hurt me in the least. If Twilight gives you what you want from a novel, GREAT!

One of the first things which prompted me to write my own work was this dilemma: I can't find anything new worth reading. I keep resorting to the old and familiar, because those few books I thoroughly love are guaranteed to satisfy. But there are only so many times you can read the same thing. Where is the next J.K.Rowling or Lorna Freeman? I'm waiting, despairing, praying someone will write something right. Well. Good.

I want something which speaks to my heart, not my head and more base desires. I want something which motives laughter or tears or inspiration to be better. We need better books. We need better writers.

I have no doubt that out there, someplace I haven't yet explored, are the sorts of novels I'm looking for, and I hope I find them. Someone must have written one specifically for me. Where's my Twilight? Where's my next Harry Potter? Where's my lovable, eccentric Rabbit?

I read a statistic a while back which stated that if more people don't become interested in reading, then reading will virtually disappear within thirty years.

A separate group of statistics seem to back the first.

• 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school
• 42% of college graduates never read another book
• 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
• 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years
• 57% of new books are not read to completion.
• Most readers do not get past page 18 in a book they have purchased.

If that isn't proof that the literary world is failing, what is? We need fresh blood. We need new ideas, or perhaps very old and forgotten ones. Obviously novels are lacking.

Something must be done, or people will have no reason to read anymore.

Lament #0011 - Why not APPLE?

Time for a silly rant, as the last few have been heavily leaning toward disparagingly negative.

I recently conducted research on the mystery behind the three American flavors: chocolate, vanilla and...strawberry? According to the poll results 59% prefer the first two flavors to the later, or hate strawberry flavoring altogether. So, why then do we have strawberry of every variety? I thought apple was the American preference.

No one likes strawberry; not really. Not compared to other things. Granted, there is that 42% left on the polls, and that percentage loves strawberries--but in everything? Milk included? (Don't get me wrong, I adore strawberry milk, myself.)

I dare you to walk into a grocery store, find the snacks and sweets aisle and just try telling me that there's more strawberry sold out than chocolate or vanilla. Chances are most of the strawberry-pink packaging will be slightly dusty from neglect.

Wanna take me up on that?

Lament #0010 - How gullible ARE we?

There are moments when I really wonder about our mental state of mind. I'm not saying I don't believe in people, insofar as their ability to overcome and improve themselves. My issue is with those who don't and won't.

Take this for example:

Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student, gathered petitions to ban "DHMO" as the basis of his science project, titled "How Gullible Are We?"

In order to understand how this has any bearing, I will further demonstrate by referring you to an website which explains DHMO. Coalition to Ban Di hydrogen Monoxide. (Another informative website, more up-to-date, is found at DHMO.org, although the first link provides a concise example of what I wish to illustrate.)

Pretty severe sounding, right? Yeah, well. Di hydrogen Monoxide is only water. But there are thousands of people who don't know this, and who merely agree to sign a boy's petition without knowing the facts, because "it must be good to ban this, because a 14 year old boy asked me to!" Sorry. That's not a good enough reason to sign anything.

There's my issue. Humorous as the situation with DHMO is, I'm not amused by the consistent gullibility of the masses. How much effort would it take to type "Di hydrogen Monoxide" into Google, or to look it up in an encyclopedia to discover that, yes, water can kill you, and no, the odds aren't in favor of that. Assuming one has the sense to spell Di hydrogen Monoxide (but that's an issue for another lament).

And gullibility isn't always so harmless as signing a petition to stop water usage. Sometimes it has much more adverse effects.

Take, for example, the voting of Barack Obama into office. I'm not referring to his political standing, but rather those who voted for him for, say, a single act he promised to pass. My brother recently visited a neighbor who was among those who voted in favor of Obama, but now, mere hours after his official inauguration, they express the horror of voting without knowing all the facts. Or, in their own words, "We used to like Obama. Not so much now."

Oh, great. I feel so reassured that those who voted really knew where they stood.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

With the mentality of people like that, people who think they hear a good idea, and so jump at it, it's a wonder we have a person in office at all. They may as well have voted for those 300 roosters on Fox News, instead of Obama. It would have been just as consistent.

Whatever a person's political, religious, or other views, they ought to "look before they leap", think before they talk, watch before they stand. Unlike a computer art program, where we can simply "undo" our mistakes, the world at large doesn't in reality revolve around us (sorry, no, it doesn't) and life goes on after we've made our blunder. Whoops. Too late now.

In short, know where you stand now.

Yes, I know. Twenty-twenty hindsight. Easier said than done. But that's my point. If we know the facts, all the facts, before the issue, how much easier is it to know where you stand, what to say, how to vote? I've made decisions early in my life which still affect me today, whether adversely or not.

I believe in people, as they can be if they only take the time to try. I believe we have what it takes to make or break the world by acting on our convictions, rather than standing by, or signing our names on the dotted line because a young boy asked us to. Learn, evaluate, know yourself. At least then, when the smoke has cleared and you see the results of your actions, you can know for yourself that you did what you knew was best. There are less regrets that way. I can't see anything wrong with that. Can you?

Lament #0009 - Try playing life for a while.

I play games, how about you? I really enjoy them, too, although I'm less excited about Internet or video games, and more enjoy a good round of Twister most any day. Still, I play.

But I don't obsess over games.

I feel very much the same about games as I do about online relationships; they ain't healthy. At least not on a constant basis. Statistically, games are all about improving oneself, whether it be reflexes, memory, or any other sort of skill one can acquire by mastering a game. If we're speaking of RPGs (role playing games), it could be creative processing, writing or interaction with others. Games can be healthy, were meant to be healthy, in fact. But something went wrong. It usually does.

Games are about dealing with life. Not vice versa. It was never supposed to be, "When life gets you down, HIDE!" Of course, anything can cause you to ditch everyday life for an alternative; the Internet is one of today's loudest, most addictive distractions. But that's just it; things like games are distracting, and seem more and more to be keeping people away from life instead of teaching them how to deal with it.

I can't tell you how many blogs, livejournals and forums I've been to where someone has discussed the drama of their life only after they delightedly shared the drama of their games--usually RPG, but sometimes others. How much fan art and fiction are based on games? Again, there isn't anything wrong with enjoying what you enjoy, so long as you don't skip life for years of rolling a die or sharing a fictitious romance!

Despite the justifications we hear, addictions are harmful, and in most instances (not all, but most) gaming is an addiction. I have friends--wonderful friends--who are game addicts in the extreme. One in particular has wasted years when he could have been out gaining both education and social associations, but instead has chosen to remain aloof. I swear he's dating his Xbox. I'm just holding my breath for the wedding announcement.

I'm aware that most people, especially in my age group, enjoy games; whether RPGs, video games, or something else. Xbox, Wii, PS2--these are wonderful! It amazes me how far technology has advanced, and I love how much fun we can have. But I am sickened by the gross amount of time spent distracting our lives away.

If you would rather spend every free moment in front of a console than to go out, meet people, learn something, read a book, interact with your family, then something is wrong. Gamers seem to think that they should make a living off what they waste their time doing. And some do go out and make something of themselves--they create games, sell games or rate games! Grand for them; truly, I'm impressed. But what of the millions of others who don't? What will they do in ten years, when all their high school buddies have moved on, gotten educations, families, lives? Keep playing of course, because it's too late for life.

My prescription is the same as it is for online relationships--for anything, really. Take time off; learn something new. You know that game you learned on the Wii? Try learning it for real, outside (as long as it isn't the sniping one). Get in shape. Attend a class. Celebrate life, because, despite what others would have you think, life really is worth living. Sure, there are ups and downs alike--and sometimes the downs are steeper than the ups can seem to climb above, but give it time. Stay patient. Have a little faith.

If you were proud of beating that level ten monster, try beating life. It has a greater reward waiting at the end. Endure. You'll find no greater satisfaction than by sticking to life and living it well.

Lament #0008 - What's our country, again?

The biggest problem with America is simple. It's the same problem which has plagued this country since World War II. I'm not talking about civil laws and human rights: gay rights, abortion or anything of the like. The problem rests with most of America's presidents.

They seem to be badly educated, or are of the opinion that the American people are, as a whole, ignorant. Well, Mr. Presidents, not all of us. Sorry.

Before I go further I should mention that I'm not addressing Democratic vs. Republican party views. I'm referring solely to the form of government which America is--not what it is called.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

Please note the bold text.

Now, allow me to quote our up-and-coming US president, Barack Obama.

"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics."

Democracy? What is he talking about? Is our nation a democracy? It is? Sorry. No. It's not. At least, it wasn't ever supposed to be.

Anyone who has pledged allegiance to the American flag, anyone who has repeated those words with their hands over their hearts, calls our nation a Republic. And it is, according to the constitution of our land.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." --Article IV Section IV

Not once, through the whole of the constitution, does it ever mention a democracy. Not once.

I find it very disturbing that our president-elect, and those who have come before him, are under the misconception that America is a democracy. Even setting aside the fact that, yes, there are differences between these two forms of government, it disturbs me to know that I understand the constitution better than those who have spent decades in governmental affairs. How can I trust my beloved country to men who are either too stupid to read, or who must else wise intentionally ignore the words which they swear to uphold, live by and protect?

It's no wonder our nation is so split. It's no wonder people aren't sure what to think. No one's reading the words we each have a duty to protect! No one understands them! I'm far from reassured when men in power stand up and constantly, over and over and over again, call my nation something other than what my forefathers, and our founding fathers, LIVED AND DIED TO PROTECT.

Lament #0007 - Why English Sucks.

Yes, I'm approaching this subject again, because I never get sick of ranting about it.

This morning my brother, sister and I were discussing the inconsistencies of the English language. We brought up a lot of interesting points, not the least of which being, "Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?"

To further prove my point concerning why the English language sucks, Brian Regan will demonstrate:

Skool!

It is a Youtube video, so it might take time to load, but it's absolutely worth it. You'll never see our language the same again.

"Moosen!"

Lament #0006 - PROper ProNUNciatAtion rOcks!

Nothing bothers me more than bad pronunciation. Okay, there are some things that bother me more, but not many. Least ways not much more.

The English language is particularly evil that way; especially the way English-speaking people speak not-English-speaking languages. But first, let's examine our own inconsistencies.

Take this for example:

Monkey. Pronounced MUN-key, right?
Now take donkey. DON-key.
Spelled the same, yet pronounced differently. Explain that one.
Shouldn't it be MON-key and DON-key--or MUN-key and DUN-key?
Ugh.

Then there's improper foreign pronunciation; perhaps more understandable yet all the more irksome.

Since I know how to pronounce Japanese, I'll use that as an example.

Anime. Most pronounce this like the English word Animation. That's actually wrong (yes, despite what you like to think). It's not Anna-may. It is in fact On-ee-may. On. Ee. May. Got it? Yup. It's true. Just like Manga isn't pronounced Main-gah like a mango. It's actually MAHN-gah.

Or Naruto. Na.Ru.Tow. Not Nar.Uu.Toe. Say it out loud to hear the difference.

If people care to be experts (or otaku: Oh. Taw. Kuu) they should at least learn how to talk right first. Geez.

Lament #0005 - I'll show YOU crazy!

There is a problem with writing about crazy people. You begin to think like them. Or, is it that you begin to realize that they think the way they do because you think the way you do which causes them to think that way, too? Either way--or both--it seems that an unhealthy level of influence from my characters, or from me to my characters and back to me, has caused my insanity to reach a level unparalleled by the insanity of my characters--all thanks to them (or me, rather, but we've covered that already).

"Why do you think you're crazy?" you ask? Simple; I hear things. Things no one else hears. Like my name, called out by nothing. Because I'm alone in the house. Terrifying, that.

But that's not all. I talk to myself.

"Really?"

"YES! See?"

"No!"

"Yes, you do. Liar."

"Shut up."

"I can't. If I do, you will."

"Good point. So, proceed."

"Thanks."

Do YOU see?

Are you arguing, "But a crazy person can't know they are crazy!"

Psh. Have you ever been a crazy person with the inability to tell you're crazy? Honestly, how is a person with a certificate stating they are sane in order that they can call others crazy really know how it feels to be crazy? Huh? Yeah, good point, isn't it?

"It is."

"Hush."

And while we're on the subject, who isn't crazy? I mean, who decides what normal is--someone who feels HE is normal? Oh, that's brilliant. Let someone who believes themselves to be normal define normal, so everyone else who doesn't think like them can't be normal, so they must be crazy. Again, brilliant.

Why not let the crazy diagnose themselves, as I think we would know better than a person who believes himself to be sane. If he can decide that, surely we have the same right.

"Right?"

"Right."

Lament #0004 - What then?

It is difficult to examine a situation as it is occurring and state firmly, “this is right” or, “this is wrong.” Usually we are swayed by the forces at work. Not until after all is said and done can we look back and say, “that was right” or, “that was wrong.” Very often we each view the situation differently, but the majority opinion will be what most history books record. While Abraham Lincoln was a very unpopular president through most of his term, now he is viewed as one of the greatest American presidents in history.

Twenty-twenty hindsight. The knowledge that what has occurred was necessary, or wasn't. It makes me wonder, after this is ended, and the world is again something new (or rather very much older), will we examine what is happening now and state “this was good” or “this was bad”? When the forces now at work have had their peace and are finally still; when the consequences of our actions have revealed themselves; what then?

That is the real question, isn't it? What then? Will what matters today really mean anything tomorrow? Was it for tomorrow that we fought, died, rioted, ran, lived, lied? Or was it still for what had occurred yesterday? Once today has passed, as the smoke clears for tomorrow, what then?

Whatever it is, we'll have brought it on ourselves.

God bless us, if he will.

Lament #0003 - Why rants are good.

I have a tendency to rant (no, really?), and there have been many, many, many, many people who have shot me disapproving looks on multiple occasions for expressing a strong and admittedly ranty view on various subjects. These disapproving glances only goad me on. And they also give me inspiration.

"Why?" I ask myself. "Why do I rant about things that upset me? Why not leave it alone? Bury it. Shut up and stay still."
"No," I answer myself. "The world needs ranters. Do you know why?"
"Why?" I ask.

And thus the almost-disturbing-in-the-fact-that-I-answered-myself-explanatory-rant was born:

I rant because I must. A rather bold statement, yes, and subject to debate. (Bring it on!) It is, however, very much the truth. If I don't rant somewhere, I will explode.

People have opinions. You do, right? Well, so do I. The fact that you agree or disagree with that statement further proves it. And, furthermore, people's opinions often and usually vary. Obviously, or we wouldn't have struggles between neighbors and nations alike.

Many opinions are publicly known. Anyone in the limelight (politicians, celebrities and authors, for example) are known for their opinions on some subject or other. In this sense, opinions are what make up the world. Do you concur? For time's sake, I'll assume we're on the same track now.

These people in the limelight are the loudest to speak out for what they respectively believe. Because of this, changes occur--not always in favor of popular opinion, mind, but the fact that well-known people are making a stand for certain issues makes these issues all the more important which allows them to be addressed by the masses. A consensus is then reached.

But what about other important issues? Important issues that aren't being addressed? Ones that matter to you but seem not to matter to those with the power to influence the masses? Well, that is what rants are for. On a small scale, speaking out helps. And even if no one else really listens, at least you sent it out there, and it's floating around somewhere.

Not all of us are public speakers with a rapt audience who clings to our every word. And obviously if everyone were expressing his or her opinion, no one would be listening, and nothing could be done.

Maybe your rant will do nothing for the world at large, or even in the comfortable suburban streets of your small community. But, there is a certain joy that comes from knowing that at least your rant is there; understood by some, or even just yourself. Bottle up inside all your woes and it does nothing. Share it with the world, and someone else will eventually listen and agree.

To keep our thoughts inside ourselves is to slowly, over time and agony, go mad. I believe in the freedom of speech, especially for the fact that it keeps us in our right minds.

That, and to speak it, or to write it, fleshes it out. Makes it real. Gives it body, and a firm foundation. I recommend writing your rambling thoughts as often as possible. Better still, take the side in an argument which you would usually disagree with and attempt to defend it. Can you? Are there things in that side which you find yourself agreeing on? It's amazing how that works!

And sometimes you only believe more firmly in your own standpoint. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. That means to you, you are a solid individual with the backbone to trying backing yourself up. See? Rants are good!

Now, when people give me that look to try to discourage my rants, I merely smile and continue with my business. After all; if they have the right to shoot me down with a look, why I can't share my opinions, too?

Lament #0002 - Are we baby cows?

Had cold cereal for breakfast this morning. Afterward, oh! what congestion in my throat was I plagued with. It was miserable.

And it struck me.

Milk comes from cows. Baby cows drink milk.
Milk comes from human mothers. Human babies drink milk.
Adult cows stop drinking milk. Adult cows start eating grass.
Adult humans stop drinking human mother's milk. Adult humans drink cow milk.

ARE WE BABY COWS?

There are other ways--less congested ways--of getting our calcium.

Unless we like frogs in our throats.
But that's a lament for another day.

Lament #0001 - Internet relationships.

Internet relationships.

Yeah, if you're reading this, chances are you have them. But what exactly are they? How should we categorize them? Can we call them friendship? Can we call them more than friendship?

That depends, right? Right. Of course. What have you talked to them about? What have you learned about them; what have you shared to them about you; etc? Are your conversations casual, philosophical, tender, explicit? Is there something wrong with that?

There can be, yes. Now, hold on! Before anyone gets on the defensive, finish reading my lament.

Ahem.

In order to deal with this lament in a fairly concise manner, let's use the most commonly destructive, ever popular Internet relationship: Romance. How many times have you been hit on by some guy/girl you don't know?

Allow me to quote a statistic for you, found here.

"A 2002 IPSOS-Reid survey in North America claimed that 44% of respondents considered that people had a better chance of finding a partner online than in a singles bar (with 8% rating online services as equal to bars); 32% thought that an online relationship was likely to be more successful than one initiated in a singles bar. Tellingly, only 27% would however recommend online dating to their friends."

Why is it that while online dating is so successful, percentage-wise, only half of that percentage recommend it to their friends? Granted, this was in 2002, and the rest of the statistical article shows the progress made since, however, there's a very good argument against online dating versus the real life version. Good, and simple to boot.

PEOPLE CAN LIE.

Oh yes, they do that in real life, too. I'll grant you that. But if they are so easily able to do it in person, how much simpler, how more tempting is it to so do online? WHY NOT? I have before! Raise your hand if you have used a fake identity online at one time or another. Admit it, you've been tempted. And even if you're the small percentage who hasn't, that doesn't vouch for the rest of the Internet community. Seriously, who wants to fill out a Facebook page admitting their every flaw, every weakness, every truth? I sure don't. And that's fine--because the Internet at large doesn't need to know.

Except when dating is involved. Then, weaknesses should be known, don't you think?

Online dating is dangerous. Aside from the obvious ruses, such as fake facts and pictures (AKA stolen identities), there are darker lies; secretly married (but you don't have to know! It's only online, after all!) or worse. Nearly the entire world (which is big, you may recall) uses the Internet. Consider, if you will, how much crime is committed each day in the USA alone. Big numbers, right? Right. How many felons use the Internet? Are they gonna openly admit to having committed a felony when dating you online, when they know it ain't gonna impress? Not bloody likely, my friend.

"But my boy/girlfriend is different! I've talked to him/her on the phone!" "My other online friend knows him/her."" "I just know!" "My gut doesn't lie." "S/He's different."

Yeah, yeah. And, so, you're willing to take that risk--that huge risk--for someone whom you've never met, because the odds are somehow stacked in your favor? (I'd like to see you prove it.)

Internet relationships have worked in the past, I'll grant you. But how many more have failed, how many have ended in tears, or worse? There are warnings against meeting online people in real life for many reasons; dang good reasons; not the least of all being rape.

Not sold yet? How about we consider the "other side" of people. Think about all the people you know in real life. Parents, siblings, friends, associates, co-workers, peers, etc. Consider, if you will, how each of them knows you differently. How some know certain music you listen to, while another portion wouldn't dream that you listen to [insert name here]! Oh boy. You've a multi-faceted person. Aren't we all?

"So? Your point?"

So. My point: By viewing a person in their day-to-day life, over time, you come to see who they are. Not every aspect. (Let's face it; all relationships are risky to some degree.) But you can gradually see what they are like, how they react to real life as it proceeds around them. How are you supposed to do that with an online relationship? No matter how much you converse, there is only so much words can convey. What about feelings? Thoughts? Expressions?

The online world is a wonderful playground. You meet people; wonderful people! You interact, learn, compete. But things like Internet relationships are the leading causes of rape, crime, pornography, murder, theft and even a lack of social life "outside". Where have all the hours gone?

It isn't healthy, whether you plan to meet that "special" someone offline or not.

"But no one is interested in me offline!"

I recommend disconnecting for a while. Try a month (if you can manage it). Go out. Meet people--real people. The kind you can see. The kind who can see you for who you really are--because sometimes, whether we mean to or not, we adopt an online persona that really isn't our own. How fair is that to our online friends if we want it to be something deeper?

The best thing you can do for yourself is come to know yourself. Come to care about yourself. Then, real people can know you, and can come to love you. You want a meaningful relationship? Try life. That's a good one to start with.