http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:15:40 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/04/121540.php TDavidAn all new meaning for Iron Mike? If this rumoured boxer turned porn story is true then many will say this is a tragic end to a boxer that was once believed could be the greatest champion of all time. I'm going to take the unpopular side that Mike Tyson entering porn isn't a bad idea. After all, he has already gone to prison for rape, which he claims he never did, and to me is a thousand times worse than having a hugely publicized adult film career. Of which Mike will do well in the adult industry if he goes there.I'm seeing this same story -- Mike Tyson turns to porn -- in many places this morning so if it is a hoax, then it's a well-reported one. Google News has a half dozen stories alone as of this writing all quoting basically the same thing: Mike Tyson is reportedly set to star in a porn film - with Jenna Jameson. The former boxing World Heavyweight Champion claims he is desperate for cash, after being hit with a tax bill for several million dollars, and a porn career is a tempting offer.Tyson, who retired last month after being beaten by another fighter he was supposed to have beaten, allegedly said he needs the money "up front."If it indeed is true then none of this surprises me. I do wonder why Tyson doesn't do his own mainstream reality show? If he can get people to drop $50 for a pay per view fight, he ought to be able to get people to watch his own reality show. I'm guessing the problem is sponsors. What companies would sponsor a Mike Tyson TV show?Fellow Blogcritic Matthew T. Sussman opined after Tyson's last fight: "That's it. Mike Tyson's officially done."Ringside Report examines Tyson's storied boxing career and guesses that he'll have a future acting career of some kind: What's next for Iron Mike? Probably an acting career of some sort which is the most likely choice for a man who loves the public eye. Mike has appeared in movies like 1999's Black and White, playing himself to a disturbing part and he also appeared in the 2002 Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles, playing Mike, a man of meditation and peace. As for Jenna Jameson? She is well known in the adult industry and I could see her seizing this great money making opportunity. Also, Tyson if he's as endowed as some reports say he is, could probably could go a long way, pun intended.A modified version of this originally appeared at Things That ... Make You Go Hmm. Sports33655@blogcritics.org Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:15:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/28/160633.php TDavidAfter seeing this remake I wanted to shout: "Bad news for the viewers!" Yes, it's that bad. If you haven't seen the original, you might find this movie to be slightly more pleasurable than a fastball in the gut.Topping Walter Matthau who was already famous for his portrayal of a slob in the original Bears and The Odd Couple, was going to be an uphill battle for Billy Bob Thorton. Factor in a young Tatum O'Neal who was much more convincing than the new Amanda Wurlitzer (what's her name?) actress who seemed more bewildered than talented. The new Kelly Leak is more pretty boy than troublemaker -- who did the casting?The new Bears seriously suffers from a lack of many of the strengths of the prior Bears: notably the originality and believability of a misfit group of kids thrown together with a drunk, disinterested coach. Little substories and character backgrounds were inexplicably altered like Ahman who used to idolize a legendary outfielder and now looks up to ... Mark McGwire? Huh? McGwire is yesterday's news. How about Barry Bonds? At least he is still playing! (ok, well he's on the disabled list, but he's an otherwise active player). Oh, but they did manage to throw in a corked bat ... puh-lease.Billy Bob Thornton's acting is constipated throughout most of this film. He's like intentionally ripping off his Bad Santa character instead of paying homage to Matthau's artistry. Also, he's an exterminator instead of a pool cleaner? Why? So we can see him dump a cooler full of rats into a garbage only to stock it with [gasp] non-alcoholic beer and ice? Yeah, real shock value there.So the Bears are drinking non-alcoholic beer? Is that the ultimate statement of 2005 political correctness? The kids swearing seems extraneous and contrived rather than shocking and funny. A wheel-chair bound Bears player? Insulting and absurd.Almost everything that was entertaining in the original Bears is watered down and ruined including any semblance of a touching daughter-father type relationship between Buttermaker and pitcher Amanda. The characters are simply mailing it in for a much, much better original. The only thing Bears has going for it, is an open invitation to crack open the original Bears DVD and watch a real comedy -- oh, and to drink a real beer.The only thing I can imagine worse than this would be trying to remake: Bad News Bears Breaking Training or that godawful Japanese Bears sequel. Fellow Blogcritic Film Cynic was similarly unimpressed. No more pointless remakes, please! Get the DVD triple pack instead of seeing this in the theater, much better money spent. Grade: F Video33283@blogcritics.org Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:06:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/06/141919.php TDavidIt's official!Steve Jobs has just confirmed the rumours during his WWDC keynote. Apple is moving from IBM to Intel. MacObserver has reporters live at the WWDC running an IRC-to-web like updates in near real time of Steve Jobs WWDC keynote.There has been no wider speculation from both sides -- those for and against -- in recent Apple history. This ends a 10 year run that Apple had maintained with IBM and starts a new adventure.Over on MakeYouGoHmm earlier, I wrote about listening to former TechTVer Leo Laporte and PC Mag stalwart, John C. Dvorak debating this last night. Laporte thinks this is suicide for Apple and Dvorak thinks it's one of the smartest business moves they've ever made. Here is some of their exchange on the TWIT podcast #8: Laporte: "It's Steve Jobs ultimate act of arrogance." Dvorak: "Possibly the biggest thing Apple has done to dominate the market." Laporte: "I think we're going to look at this as the day Apple committed suicide." Who will be right? Will this be a good move for Apple or a collosal blunder?Jobs addressed the sensitive issue of application portability during his keynote by bringing in Theo Gray of Wolfram Research, the makers of the program Mathematica. Gray reports that it took two hours to port their program, saying: "We're talking about 20 lines of code out of millions from a dead cold start where he didn't even know why he was going."Apple is calling the emulation layer, also known as middleware, "Rosetta" after the Rosetta Stone. They demonstrated Photoshop, Excel, Quicken all compiled and running on the Intel Mac for display.Now we can all sit and wonder how long before we have a dual boot Windows / Mac OS X? Might be sooner than anybody thinks. Sci/Tech30622@blogcritics.org Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:19:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/08/115434.php TDavidMy goodness, would somebody please hook up Paris Hilton with a TV dinner? Instead of her and Nicole Ritchie probing that cow in the Simple Life, they should have eaten it. But wait ... oh, yes, this is a review of the new horror flick, based on the old horror flick (1953) House of Wax (HOW) which was based on Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933). The 2005 remake really only has wax in common with the prior flicks. Instead of Charles Bronson playing Igor and the uber-creepy Vincent Price, viewers are treated to Paris Hilton romping around, Elisha Cuthbert emulating her "Run, Kim Run!" escapades in a past season of 24 and other actors I don't recall seeing before.Based on the marketing alone, where you could catch the last week via podcast Paris talking about how tiring it was promoting HOW, I wanted to see the new movie which actually had Elisha Cuthbert, not Paris Hilton, in the lead role. Besides, until Star Wars III next week, it's really the only game in town. It's the remake of the Vincent Price movie of the same name, and it has moments of that classic eerie ambience.The basic plot is a group of young adults are heading to a football game and take a detour and camp out near a creepy town. During this campout one of the campers has his fan belt break (or cut?), so he has to make the trip into town with his girlfriend, played by Elisha Cuthbert, who has the lead role, not Paris Hilton. This is where they see this House of Wax which is quite literally a house made of wax.These two siamese twin brothers, separated at birth (?), have a bizarre fetish working where they cover humans -- living or dead -- with wax. From the previews I thought wax people came alive and walked the earth, sort of zombie-style, but that's not how it goes. Too bad, that might have worked better. Also, in the end, there is a slight twist -- which I won't ruin -- which almost guarantees there will be a sequel. Or two. Or three. That's the way it goes in and on the horror movie franchise conveyor belt.Paris Hilton really has only a small part in this movie and most the time you see her locking lips with her African American boyfriend who seems more interested in getting to the football game, getting laid and playing his tunes than being involved in the movie. Though I didn't count, it sure seems like Paris Hilton has more lip-locking and close-ups of scantily-clad dress scenes than actual acting scenes. When she does act, it's horribly wooden and unpolished. Get into pron officially already, Paris!Elisha Cuthbert, perhaps most notable for her role as Kim Bauer in the Fox TV show 24, has a different look and does OK as the lead in the flick. It can't be a step up for her professional acting career moving into remakes of old horror flicks though.So the real question is: does Paris Hilton get waxed? I won't tell you if she gets wacked, that would ruin the fun, but she definitely does not get waxed. I was hoping they'd put some wax on her and put her on gruesome display at the end of the movie. They could have tied in some clever Simple Life segues and satirical stabs and totally missed the opportunity.Comparing this movie to other B-grade horror flicks and it's not horrible, but it takes a good hour -- which is too long -- to get the story and characterizations painted. Some of the characters are sterotypically cheesy: football jock looking for redemption, brother and sister feuding, etc. Still, no boobs! No nudity alert! What is a lame horror movie without bare breasts? This movie could have been so much more with some headlights on, but you don't even see those through any shirts. You get some pictures of chests, even closeups, but no knobs. Downgrade there.Sound wasn't anything special. There were a few jump out of your seat shock moments, but not enough to make HOW truly scary. HOW may make for a good rental, but forget about it in the theater. We paid matinee prices which, after popcorn, soda and candy, worked out to be like $30, not counting the $5 gas to get to the theater. It was a decent Saturday afternoon diversion, but wait for it on DVD where it will probably be packaged with a ton of goodies for less money. I doubt this one will last long in the theater as I counted 15 people in the theater besides us. Grade: C+A slighly different version of this review originally appeared at Things That ... Make You Go Hmm. Erin McMaster reviews HOW for Blogcritics here. Video29175@blogcritics.org Sun, 8 May 2005 11:54:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/20/174005.php TDavidThe rumours are over, as the official Flickrblog now confirms that indeed Yahoo has purchased photo-sharing application extraodinaire Flickr. This is a great move, I think, for Yahoo. Now comes the question of whether they will sit on the app like Google has done pretty much with Blogger or really intergrate and continue to innnovate. The explanation via Flickrblog:Flickr will be continuing on the path it's on -- to Flickr 1.0 and beyond. We'll be working with a bunch of people that Totally Get Flickr and want to preserve the community and the flavor of what is here. We're going to grow and change, but we're in it for the long haul, with the same management and same team.Flickr is a photo sharing service that allows users to tag and share photos and send via email, computer or camera phone. It came along after competing service Textamerica had blazed the photo-taking/sharing scene and Flickr attracted users who really liked the smooth Flash-based interface. Soon, Yahoo users will be able to use their Yahoo! ID to sign into and use FlickR. A slightly different version of this post originally appeared at Things That ... Make You Go Hmm. Sci/Tech27012@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:40:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/21/133401.php TDavidI blogged my first conference on Saturday: Northern Voice in Vancouver, BC. It was a curious experiment and event. Yes, I've blogged the monthly blogger meetups in Seattle for four months now (11/2004, 12/2004, 1/2005 and 2/2005), but this was the first time I have blogged an actual conference. The event was held downtown at the UBC Robson had excellent WiFi and this was a definite plus.I recorded audio of every session using OneNote on the Tablet PC and made some handwritten notes, but most of my notes were blogged. I also tried out Technorati tagging for the first time during this event. Not completely sure how I feel about tagging yet.I setup camp to the left of the stage on the carpeted knoll. First up was Tim Bray from Sun who spoke about writing (blogging) what you know. He gave some good tips: * fill your blog with links. Link to other people. Link often. If it doesn't have links then it's not a blog. * smart people in the world are usually where you are not * Post often. In periods where prolific, readership goes up. * Correct yourself. * Generalize. Make some general point. General will live longer * Flame judiciously. Anger gives flavor. He feels that if you are angry about something then you should share it. "It's entirely ok for bloggers to be unreasonable ... sometimes." * Spell-check. Quality matters. Mark Cuban cited as example of blogger who doesn't use apostrophes, but one that can get by with it because of "style." * Look good. Bray feels that a good-looking blog generally speaks to the quality of the blog. I disagree with this one. Most programmers are not graphic designers and some of the most useful sites on the web are ones that are not all that graphically pleasing: Google, Craigslist, eBay, for example. * Be brief. Tighten it up. * Be intense. * Don't tell secrets. * Don't ruin your life. Don't lose your job over what you say. * Don't blog on command. Next up, was Microsoft's Technology Evangelist, Robert Scoble, whom I've spoken to a couple times in person now. Scoble explained how he reads 1000 blogs a day: * Highlighted entries since last time read blog shows the new blog entries. [via Outlook and Newsgator] * He uses Pubsub frequently which helps him do keyword RSS searches. * He will unsubscribe if: blogger gets racist, not having full text RSS feed, maybe if it becomes boring The best presentation, particularly for podcasters, came from Tod Maffin who discussed ways to make one's podcast more compelling: * He took an uncompressed file 1000k and compared different compression schemes. 128/44 which was 93k. * Don't have a show about nothing, have a show about something. * What's your passion? Clear show topic/focus. Tell a story. Example of Adam Curry's bandwidth issues being made content for his program and creating interest. * Speak to one person. There is no "everybody." * Be brief. 45 minutes suggested as a max length. 8-10 minutes is the sweet spot for Tod Maffin. * Mix up the sound. Provide "audio-on-ramps" which are like headers, one person in the audience mentioned. * Microphones meant to be near mouths. Use a pop filter * Don't verbally listen. * Double-ender. Record on both ends and then mix together source files as opposed to recording one good end. * He doesn't like the quality of Vonage. He thinks Skype is a "little" better. * Collect 30 seconds of roomtone and then use that as background for editing. * "Fair comment" allows for a brief snippet portion of a licensed song when commenting on a particular part of a song or artist. Following the best presentation was the worst one, again IMO, from Stephen Downes. This guy analyzed blogging and link behavior like I've never seen or heard it analyzed before. This didn't work for me, as it seemed like it was just way too analytical. Then again, maybe my mostly negative reaction was because this was right before lunch. Someone in the audience said: "I think I lost you somewhere along the way." I know the feeling!After lunch came the panel I was looking most forward to: promoting and building your blog traffic. There was some useful discussion here, but the conversation broke down into what the demographics and readership in blogs was like. There was also discussion about how giving a definition of RSS isn't the best thing to do, it's better to show people what RSS can do. I agree with that.I wanted to add a comment to this, but there were too many questions from the audience (most of which were not on topic of promoting and building your blog traffic). One guy was very concerned about getting slashdotted and what that would do to his bandwidth.I skipped the second panel after lunch to go into the hallway and decompress a bit. It was there that I ran into Chris Pirillo and his producer as well as the guy (Greg) who is behind beercasting.com.The last panel was called Lightning Tool Talks and the idea was to have several different people demoing useful blogging tools and services. Scoble was back doing a demo of Newsgator + Outlook. Roland Tanglao, one of the people who put on the conference, demoed the online photosharing app: Flickr. Tris Hussey showed Qumana. Seb Pacquet was there talking about WebJay. Nancy White talked about Furl and Del.icio.us, the former of which I used to keep track of useful links online.The bottom line is Northern Voice was well organized, had all the amenities a blogger could ask for, had diverse, informative speakers and panels (my already blogged comments give specifics there), provided information of use to podcasters and bloggers alike and was priced so that just about any blogger of any financial level could attend. Well done to all involved and responsible! Grade: AThis review was created from a messageboard post I made as well as various real time blogged posts during Northern Voice at Things That ... Make You Go HmmTag: northernvoice Sci/Tech25794@blogcritics.org Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:34:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/11/110213.php TDavidNow my wife and I can honestly say we've seen The Beatles live in concert. OK, no, not the real Beatles, but about as close a facsimile as possible. While in Vegas last week we caught several shows and the best one of them was the Fab Four, a Beatles tribute band, at the V theater in the Aladdin.These guys play everything live "without any tapes, sequences or backing tracks!" dress and talk like the Beatles and cover the band chronologically with three signature Beatles wardrobe changes spanning 1963-1966, then the psychedelic era from 1966-1967 and finally the Vietnam war (part of it) and Beatles breakup era from 1967-1970. Though my camera phone pictures all suck, they sort of give the feeling of the small, intimate live "shoe" to use Ed Sullivan's verbiage.And yes, even Ed Sullivan is there - well, a guy that is playing Ed Sullivan anyway. You can find better pictures on The Fab Four Web site. Another cool thing is they mix in black and white video to accompany some of the songs.If anybody reading this travels to Las Vegas between now and February 12 and are a Beatles fan of any sort, then this is one show that's well worth the $50 ticket price. Also, if they tour your area and the above applies then buy tickets. We would gladly pay to see this tribute band again.The Fab Four covers over 200 Beatles song and they played several of the songs listed on this page when we saw them including: Penny Lane, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, She Loves You, Twist and Shout, I Want To Hold Your Hand, Yesterday (Paul solo), Here Comes The Sun (George solo), Imagine (John solo), Revolution and more. I didn't record a complete set list like I normally do with concerts, because most Beatles songs are very short (2-3 minutes) and I was just too into this show.Yes, it was that good.In fact, looking through the Beatles song list which includes dozens of hits I don't think saying that The Beatles were the greatest band ever is an overstatement. Who has been a better band over a similar, relatively short period of time? The Fab Four deserve the best grade possible. Grade: A+A slightly modified version of this review (same grade) originally appeared at Things That Make You Go Hmm Music24131@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:02:13 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/11/142836.php TDavidLast night we took the kids out for a rare trip as a family to see the new G-rated film: Polar Express. I don't remember the last G film I paid to go see because it's been a long time but I've been interested in this one since seeing the early previews.The entire movie can be told in one sentence: it's about a boy who gets on a train that rides to the North Pole and Santa picks out a toy for each child. It is centered around the power of believing in the magic of Christmas which is something that sooner or later, people grow up and lose.It is based largely on the 32-page children's picture book by Chris Van Allsburg, but extra content and padding needed to be added by Back To The Future director Robert Zemeckis to fill a full-length movie. Along the way there is some interesting visuals which made this viewer sometimes forget he was watching an animated film. Some of the film is very realistic looking. Cartoons have come a long ways since the days of the Flintstones and Scooby-Doo when I grew up. Most of the action scenes in the film center around the train ride. For example, there's a scene where the train is going up and down steep areas with a very roller coaster feel to it. A New York Times review called this cheap video game tricks, but I liked these parts of the film, as they held a sense of wonder and glee to which overall seemed a bit too dark visually. The sounds were well done, offering solid compliment to the overall film. There were a couple of musical scenes, one involving some hot chocolate that was particularly fun to watch and listen to, but this isn't a musical. Tom Hanks does the voice acting for multiple characters, including the story narrator, and he does an admirable job with an intentionally simplistic storyline. An reported $270 million was spent to make and market Polar Express, and therefore it's a major financial risk for the studio and their new "performance capture" technology used to make the film. I think the technology is cool, but it leaves the characters looking something like an eerie cross between real people and cartoons and I don't know how that will play out in holiday films. Maybe this technology would be better for stories like The Cat in the Hat.Our youngest child enjoyed this movie (age 11) but it didn't get positive reviews from our 14 year old or 13 year old, the older of which saw some teen girls he knew from school in the theater and seemed ashamed to admit he was at this movie with his family. In retrospect I don't blame him for his embarassment. Overall, I'd say Polar Express is good for younger children (11 and under) as there is a sweet, although somewhat cliched Christmas oriented plotline and the overall visuals reminded me a bit of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Alas, I'm not sure if the 270+ million dollars was really worth it. Perhaps the wonderful children's picture book this movie is based upon would be a better gift for a younger child?I can't bag too much on holiday family films like this without feeling Scrooge-like, so I'll just go up the middle with this rating. And yeah, it's the coward's way out as a reviewer, I know, but I enjoy Christmas time and snow and giving presents -- ho, ho, ho! I feel as guilty about this movie review as I do with those Salvation Army bell ringers in front of stores when I don't have any spare change to put in their donation cans (and incidentally, bells do play an important part in Polar Express). When the inevitable time comes I'd imagine Polar Express will look and play as cool as a snowy evening on a progressive scan DVD player and skeptical viewers may want to wait for a Christmas DVD release because I don't think Polar Express will last all that long in theaters. We'll see.This might explain why they released it so early, so that if it did indeed tank in the theaters then they could rush it out there as a DVD right at Christmas time to help recover the expensive production costs. Grade: CThis review, in part, originally appeared at makeyougohmm.com Video22130@blogcritics.org Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:28:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/06/172818.php TDavidStarting in 1999, Chris Baty and a few of his friends decided to do something crazy: force themselves to try and write a 50,000 word novel in one month. They officially coined this: National Novel Writing Month or NaNoWriMo for short, hence the website URL: nanowrimo.org and the challenge began.I learned about NaNoWriMo last year from an internet messageboard post and went over and checked it out. I didn't try entering the challenge last year, but this year I looked at it more seriously. Being a novelist myself (seven complete unpublished novels to my credit or shame, whichever you prefer), the concept piqued my curiosity. My original idea for the NaNoWriMO 2004 was to document my experience buying an Apple Mac computer for the very first time. Being that I'm a long time, experienced Windows user I had lots to say on this and have begun my own journal on the subject.But fiction is the aim and spirit behind the NaNoWriMo, not non-fiction, so my idea went out and I started wrestling with the decision of whether or not I would join the NaNoWriMo 2004 challenge or not. I decided to buy Chris Baty's non-fiction book: No Plot? No Problem! and see what he had to say about the process and if it would inspire me to start writing some fiction again (I hadn't written any fiction since 1998). Suffice to say, this book would help me in this endeavor.The book is paperback, but with a slightly harder spine, which seems like it might be a little more durable than a traditional genre paperback. It's also a little wider and taller than a standard paperback. Not much text in it, as it weighs in at a mere 176 pages, including the index and acknowledgement page. Some of the illustrations are way too dark gray with black text and difficult on the eyes, but the regular text is easy to read. Mr. Baty points out that the size of this book was intentional -- clever -- to illustrate approximately what 50,000 words actually looks like in published form.In the introduction the book is described as: "... intended as a guidebook and companion for the month-long vacation into the weird, wonderful realm of the imagination" and this turns out to be a fair representation of what follows.Over the nine chapters, Baty offers many tips, tricks and even some writer-related tools he's gathered over the four years of participating in the NaNoWriMo (1999-2003) and warms up new participants for 2004. For example, in chapter one readers learn that Baty feels the most powerful weapon for a writer is a deadline, that with a deadline it magically turns many of those people who say: "I wish I had time to write a novel" become novelists.Other chapters include information on how to stay on task and keep writing, where to find the time for writing, music to listen to while writing, where to get help form other NaNoWrimos (or NaNos sometimes for short). The nanowrimo.org website forums are a useful place to find other writers of all skill levels and backgrounds pushing toward the goal of writing a 50,000 word fiction novel in 30 days. Other helpful places include starting local writing groups, blogging about the NaNoWriMo efforts and getting helpful encouragment from other NaNoers.The book itself provides helpful information for staying on track and writing but honestly I've found their interactive forums more timely, inspiring and useful than the book. This isn't really a knock on the book because almost any reference or guide book written becomes outdated by the time it is published compared to the dynamic nature of the internet.The book price of $14.95 is reasonable considering the content, but perhaps $9.95 would have been a better price point, but this is not a must-have purchase for NaNoWriMo participants. NaNos can get equally useful information, and more timely, from the nanowrimo.org website and forums, though it isn't as organized as it is in the book, so there is a trade-off.I'm not saying there aren't good, useful parts to No Plot? No problem! but the book left me overall feeling like it was not so much a companion to the NaNoWriMo challenge as it was a marketing tool for the website and Mr. Baty himself. The book doesn't go off (too much anyway) into donation mode like when you visit the supporting website and see a graphical meter telling that 2004 expenses are $60,000 and that 50% of any money generated over that amount will be donated to a good cause. I wonder how many donaters miss that part which I italicized. I suppose my donation was buying Mr. Baty's book and if I make the 2004 challenge I'll probably be compelled to buy a t-shirt to remember the occasion.Maybe it's just me but when I looked at the breakdown of the expenses and saw that $27,600 of that was for the "personnel costs" for what is essentially an online, web-based user interactive event for one month ... well, I felt the spiel of a slick, marketing pitch looming. Hey, I'll give it to Mr. Baty, he's generated a nice side job for himself online each year and seems to be able to generate gullible writers like me to donate to the cause.I don't think Mr. Baty meant his book to come off as a marketing pitch, or maybe he did, but at the end of the day it struck me as a little too much self-marketing and promotion. Hey, it's America, more power to him making a buck, but I wonder if making that buck at the expense of having primarily would-be novelists cranking out 50,000 words of rough, first draft material is worthy of those over inflated 'personnel' costs. Please raise your hand if you wouldn't like that job?Writers looking to become serious fiction novelists may only glean semi-useful information about how to write quick first draft material from this book because there isn't a lot of focus on creating truly publishable work, only creating words fast and in great numbers. Yes, there is focus on plotting and characters, it's not like the author is suggesting people just type 50,000 nonsense words.Chapter nine, the final chapter does delve a little bit into: "I wrote a novel, now what?" but it's presented on with the rest of the material more like an epilogue than a principle part of the plot. It's also one of the shorter nine chapters, weighing in at 14 pages, with only one page truly summarizing the real world publishing process.I would like to see Mr. Baty write a follow-up book entitled: No Publisher? No Problem! because beyond the personal satisfaction of writing a 50,000 word novel the reality of selling or sharing in some way this work becomes the logical next step for novelists. Yes, there are hobbyists who just want to experience the thrill of victory being able to say: I wrote a novel, but for those who want to publish their work, sell their work, and have already written publishable material in other areas (screenplays, teleplays, articles, etc), they will probably not need the NaNoWriMo boost of write fast and sloppy.Alas, but that turns out being the whole point of No Plot? No Problem: to write without any inhibitions, to just ... write. Action. And in this respect, readers of No Plot? No Problem! will find this book worthwhile.As for me being a NaNoWriMo 2004 participant? Yes, I decided to take the plunge and start working on novel #8. I took the idea about being a Mac user for the first time and blended that into a fiction story. At the time I'm writing this review, I'm about 9,300 words into my 50,000 words goal after only six days into the process, which is a little under the pace, but today isn't over yet! Also, I'm trying not to write total garbage material in the first draft, which isn't really keeping with the spirit of the challenge. My fault there if that causes me not to make the goal.Bottom line: creative business-oriented idea (for the author primarily) and fun activity for creative people and budding novelists in particular. The book itself might make a good gift or souvenir for those who actually take, or consider taking, or have taken, the NaNoWriMo writing challenge and/or those who need a kick in the pants to write the rough first draft novel they've always wanted to write in a short amount of time.For serious and/or professional writers, people who are either already published writers (I am, just not as a novelist) these folks will likely do just fine with visiting the excellent supporting website, entering the yearly challenge, writing their novel, and skipping the not-so-subtle and thinly disguised self-marketing pitch.Follow along with my NaNoWriMo 2004 effort (cheer me on, or root for me to fail, whichever turns you on more).Other Blogcritics who have written about NaNoWriMo in the past:(2004) Doug Moore - a fellow NaNoWriMO for 2004(2003) Corinna Hasofferett - The Novel is Nude(2003) Phillip Winn - NaNoWriMo starts tomorrow(2003) DebbieX - NaNoWriMo is six days away! Books21954@blogcritics.org Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:28:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/01/092410.php TDavidI woke up this morning and was thinking about Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and what they really mean to me. I am not an attorney so the thickly worded legal mumbo jumbo used sometimes escapes me, but the common sense and spirit of these agreements is rather easy to comprehend. I've signed NDAs, worked under them and abided by them many, many times. An NDA is like somebody whispering in my ear: shut up. Don't talk about the contract, don't talk about who the contract is with, certainly don't talk about the specific or even general work being done, don't talk about anything even remotely related to the work. The actual code I'm working on should be treated like a bomb that will blow up if anybody else outside of the parties specifically listed in the NDA sees, smells or touches it. Just don't talk about it, period.If one creates this much care, concern and control over the NDA, then there is no way that h/she could ever break the NDA. Certainly blogging about it would be a major no-no. Writing a news article about the technologies used in the project? Definitely a problem. Readers of my recent entry about Troutgirl's firing from Friendster (and sorry to those who are sick of this story that I'm sort of spilling this into two entries) will see where I'm going with this.One thing for certain these days is that I'd make sure with any new job that the blogger identify that h/she has blog(s) and make sure, in writing and in advance, that these blogs will not present any problem. If this means running the content through the legal department for approval, then so be it.This way if the employee is terminated over something written in his/her blog, there could be some more likely recourse for the employee. Also, it will put the employer on notice that this blogging activity exists and there are no surprises all the way around. I realize this doesn't protect any future blogging or blog entries, but it does give the company and legal department a chance to review the existing content and return with any concerns about existing content that would be unacceptable or problematic in the future.I remember back in 1997 basically receiving a cease and desist letter from the insurance company I worked for because I was collecting emails and corresponding with clients (insureds) via email. They told me that this violated their internal policies and procedures for communication with insureds "because email was insecure" and that I should stop right away or it could be grounds for termination of my appointment with the company. Of course, our agency stopped the practice right away. The funny thing is several years later, the company was encouraging agencies to collect email addresses and these days if we don't communicate with clients via email, it's considered that we're not providing good service. Of course I never have received any sort of retraction for that letter, but I have plenty of internal bulletin notices which refute everything written in that letter to me. My how times change!An employee-employer relationship is a contract and IMO the employee has at least an ethical obligation (though perhaps not a legal obligation, again I'm not an attorney) to make sure they disclose anything that might negatively (or positively) impact the company. In my case with the insurance stuff I disclosed to them what I was doing with email and my website and their response was: stop doing it. I complied. They didn't just find out what I was doing, I notified them what I was doing and asked for their approval (which at the time I didn't receive).Who knows, the employer might actually pay the employee more for blogging about the company. Or if h/she comes up with some clever marketing strategy through blogs, blogging and/or other web-related activity this might involve a raise in pay as well.Blogging about one's job is, after all, a form of subtle to not so subtle (for evangelists like Microsoft's Robert Scoble) advertising. I would think most companies would like the idea of essentially free advertising, so long as it doesn't violate trade secrets or something which they are not yet ready to publically advertise. Companies wouldn't ask for NDAs if they didn't want to keep what they were working on hush-hush. Always read what you sign, ask for clarification when you don't understand something and comply with what you agree to. NDA, insurance contract, any contract.A slightly different version of this entry originally appeared at Things that ... Make You Go Hmm Sci/Tech19317@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:24:10 EDT