Tropical Storm Ketsana

A couple days ago, I found out about Ketsana hitting the Philippines; I got an e-mail from my cousin, then heard from my mom, who talked to my grandparents. The situation is extremely bad in the Philippines, as well as in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, from my understanding. Here are a few media:

~~~

Philippines Flood of Woes

At Least 240 Dead in Philippine Floods

Philippines braced for new storm

~~~~~~~

Fortunately, as far as I know, my family in the Philippines is alive, which I am very thankful for. I've read that the government has been slow to respond; hopefully my family has gotten help by now, and hopefully the potential second storm misses or isn't as bad as they are currently predicting.

I wrote a poem with my family in mind. It's not at all cheerful, but I tried to reflect some of what's going through some peoples' heads over there right now, to the best of my ability. It's hard from halfway around the world.

~~~

Tropical Storm Ketsana
          ~For my relatives in the Philippines

The clouds are empty now. Our houses are full,
and our homes are gone. Will someone respond?
No government yet (but, some are too high
to get their feet wet). From the top of my house,
I can see the ocean. Or maybe the Styx–
I saw two bodies float away. Now I know
my friend is dead; he’s lost in a sea
of soggy dreams, broken wood,
and all my thoughts and fears. Too many
to take the time to cry. I’m too dry anyhow,
parched in the soul. The water does nothing,
except whet the thirst; it travels slowly,
with a grim and sickly shimmer, so unlike
the crystal torrent just hours before,
with its jagged winds and massive roar.
My terror grew with every tremor.

                                                                —And yet,
I find the present, in its silence, to be worse.
The storm was like an army, but the river is a hearse.

~~~~~~~

Best of wishes to all my family in the Philippines,
~Neil

New Favorite Website

Christwire.org

Baha.

In other news, my absence can be explained in one word: college. I'm still getting settled, and I spend most of my time either socializing or studying, so I haven't been writing much of anything that's not school-related. Once I've been here for a bit longer, though, I'm betting more time will open up.

A small personal update, since I mentioned college: I'm currently majoring psychology with a minor in vocal performance. So far, classes have been good for the most part (I was annoyed at having to take two years of foreign language, but Latin is a better class than I thought it would be). College life is nice, and I don't think I'll have too much trouble with my classes (though I've yet to take an exam, so that may change). I'm thinking about approaching the journalism department with a weekly poetry column, but I think I'll wait until next semester/year until I do so. Overall, I've had a good time so far.

That's all for now: it's September, so celebrate. Or something like that. And go read Christwire. Seriously.

Take Care,
~Neil

Another Aesop

I thought I should pop in and post a quick poem (with the accompanying fable), since it's been over a month since I've posted. I'm currently getting ready to start college- wish me luck.

~~~

The Mice in Council

Once upon a time all the mice met together in council and discussed the best means of securing themselves against the attacks of the cat. After several suggestions had been debated, a mouse of some standing and experience got up and said, "I think I have hit upon a plan which will ensure our safety in the future, provided you approve and carry it out. It is that we should fasten a bell round the neck of our enemy the cat, which will by its tinkling warn us of her approach." This proposal was warmly applauded, and it had been already decided to adopt it, when an old mouse got upon his feet and said, "I agree with you all that the plan before us is an admirable one. But may I ask who is going to bell the cat?"

~~~~~

The Mice in Council

"I think I have hit upon a plan
Which will keep the cat at bay.
A bell 'round its neck, if we can,
Should keep our deaths away."

With cheers, they settled on the task.
An old mouse stood. The others sat.
"The plan is fine. But may I ask
Who is going to bell the cat?"

~~~~~~~

Some might say that reworking Aesop's fables reflects a lack of creativity/originality on my part. Y'know, though, there's nothing wrong with reworking something old into something new, or stealing an idea then making it your own with some personal touches. Doing it with Aesop's Fables is particularly nice, since they're part of the public domain. Also, fables fit my style fairly well.

I'll try to keep some posts going during the school year; I might switch into a poetry analysis mode, featuring great poems by various authors and talking a bit about them. I'm also hoping to break into some of the college publications (something is better than nothing, right?). Also, happy birthday to Jess and myself. Speaking of which, it's August.

I just realized that I started this blog when I was just entering 10th grade. There's definitely a difference between my entries now and my entries then (and I'm sure things will continue to change).

Take Care,
~Neil

Smart Words

Alex Sheremet recently wrote a response to this post which, along with Dan and Jess's response, deserve a place to be read. "The words cheered me, as smart words often do." So sayeth Jess- so be cheered:

~~~

Alex Sheremet:

Neil, I just remembered this e-mail / post (your blog, too, is Banned in Beijing, so I couldn't read it last month) --

You make a comparison w/ video games (I'm a fan, too, but less these days, although Oblivion dominated my sleeping & waking for 2 weeks, in '06, even though I recognized it lacked depth; but, such a pretty drug...), and I've often made a comparison to music, especially rap. My thinking was, why can't people agree on precise artistic standards, then follow them? Every book review I've read mentioned so many different elements ("humanity," "compassion," etc.) that, both then and now, seemed not only non-quantifiable, but irrelevant. To me, it was kinda like arguing over someone's personal aesthetic: should I get a tattoo of a star, or a butterfly? six pack abs, or not? red pants, or blue? That's not in realm of objective standards, merely taste, and should only come up in 1) minor comments, 2) more 'personal' essays, where the author not only touches on a work's artistic merit, but in what way the "compassion,"etc., influenced him, or how it relates to broader, greater things. Merely pointing out "compassion," or whatever, is as silly as emphasizing that a poem is written in blank verse. So what? It must go somewhere.

In rap, however, both in online reviews and face-to-face conversations, no one would have any of that shit. To call a mediocrity like 2Pac "human" or "compassionate" was, besides being a lie, simply embarrassing - you're either good, or you're not; everything else is irrelevant, even though, too often, people worship these artists as icons of some kind of cultural significance beyond art. So, why couldn't people apply the same thinking to art in general, and come away with a precise way to discuss writing?

Dan often gets angry at people's "stupidity" about these things, but I don't think it's stupidity, nor is it malice - it's usually ignorance, although though I'm sure at least a few writers recognize they have no talent. Also, it partly depends on your environment, too. When I was 16, I really had no one around me to discuss literature, etc., with - I was some anomaly that accidentally picked up a life-changing book, and began reading then. The fact that I became interested in literature meant I had to do the usual: read the NY Times reviews, online reviews, comments on Amazon, or books by critics, such as Dale Peck's Hatchet Job. As far as I could tell, everyone was discussing the "humanity," or "post-modern ennui," "cultural centers," etc. -- I thought, is this it? Does this mean "higher arts," such as literature, must be discussed in intangibles?

Well, it was hard to think otherwise if people more educated than me were so casual w/ such nonsensical phrases. Back then, I confused education w/ analytical ability, even though my interest in politics and debate allowed me to argue against most of my high school teachers with great ease. The obvious sometimes takes a while to sink in, and only now, after 3 yrs of college, I fully see how ill-equipped most professors are to discuss literature, educated or not. Some things really cannot be taught, at least not directly - you have to figure them out on your own. This builds self-trust and genuine understanding, without any of the posturing that false self-trust comes with. Regardless, it's hard to get over this garbage, even if you mean well - no matter how intelligent you are, you will be surrounded by frauds w/ lots of charisma, who will try to draw you into their nonsense. The question is, are you lucky and/or discriminating enough to find your way out? Even Dan was, at one time, drawn to violence and Paco (of his memoirs), for similar reasons -- he merely got out in time. I see art in a similar way - how many intelligent people are drawn to faux philosophy, faux standards, and artistic muddles, simply because this is the norm, and forever flounder in it? All of their potential is sapped, and if they realize it eventually, it's often too late. And, how many intelligent kids are forced into violence, and never find their way out, so that, later on, adults say: "My God, how -- he was so intelligent! Didn't he know better?" Maybe he did know better, but only by instinct, not in detached, calculated fact. Intelligence is not really the issue here.

It was probably Nabokov's tangible approach to literature that got me questioning all of the above. Problem was, although I got over mainstream criticism, I later realized that Nabokov, too, for all of his education, and for all of his CORRECT steps in the right direction, was incomplete - he was not a great critic, and often not a great writer, because, in many ways, his vision was just as myopic as a pedant's, albeit in less offensive, less flagrant ways. He took the "practical" aspects of writing to such an extreme that he lost all self-control, larding his books w/ pointless, albeit beautiful, details, and refusing to engage in philosophy, as well as any real direction, thus lacking substance, while attacking writers greater than him. (I want to review his autobiography for Cosmoetica, kinda in the 'personal essay' vein, with two parts: his criticism, and artistic view of things, and how it contributes to but mostly detracts from his fiction.) I think this ability to learn from someone like Nabokov is important, and the fact that I can rationally reject this teacher after learning all that's valuable, is indicative of my growth, with no emotional quibbles over what I see is RIGHT.

This is why I recommend Cosmoetica to friends as well as professors - the criticism is level-headed, and, most of all, correct. The poetry is great. You can't really find this elsewhere, and this is easily provable. No idols, no genuflection, merely discussion of what counts. It might get people out of their own muddles, before a potentially great poet becomes a non-entity. So, thanks, Dan.

And Neil, English classes suck in college. It's good I have a second major, or else I would have lost my mind.

Alex.

~~~~~

Dan Schneider:

I was just consoling Jess the other day about people's stupidity. In some senses, ignorance is the better term, but, as when dealing with really messed up people, forget the Latin, saying they're fucked up covers it.

I mentioned to Jess the fable (some claim Aesop, others not) of the scorpion and the frog, and how, after conning the frog into taking him across a river (after the frog's claim that the scorpion would sting him and they'd both die), the scorpion indeed stings the frog and kills them, adding to the dying frog's final despair that he could not help himself, because it's in my nature.

My nature is to abandon the self and get objective about my or others' art. It's the only way to clarity. Some, like Art Durkee on this list (or Oprah, PoMo elitists, PC idiots, or other devotees of gurus) claim this cannot be done, but offer absolutely no proofs.

There's the old claim that if God made the universe who made God? Well, if one answers God always was, then God is obviated because one can say the cosmos always was and avoid the extra step. Similarly, people will argue that since one can never be anyone but oneself, objectivity is impossible. But this is a clear fallacy, because it presumes that objectivity has to be total. It might be true that one can never be objective about things related to oneself, but, since the self is an infinitesimile fleeting thing, that leave quite a bit of the rest of the cosmos that objectivity can be used upon.

And I won't even go into the silliness of the person who argues for subjectivity, thereby obviating their own argument for, if they really believed all was subjective,m they'd have no incentive to put forth the point.

And, yes, my years at the UPG especially showed me that creativity cannot be taught, and very few people are truly creative. It's a thing folk confuse with being 'special and stems from the same inner vacuity- one may be wholly unique to the 100th % (that's genetic reality), but if 99.5% of you is similar to others, you can hardly be called 'special.'

Specialness is the degree to which one differs, and usually in the positive sense.

The worst thing I'd want for any fan or reader of my writings to think is that I want them to ape me. Anyone claiming that is reading into my stuff their own biases and desires for guruship. I want to show people how to think for themselves, and only by using objective measutres can that be done. If one refuses objectivity one is a zombie- a kid with a pink mohawk who thinks he's special.

Think for oneself, and argue one's points- esp. if they are one's own, not aped replies. What is really depressing is seeing how many lit or film critics say ZERO of any depth or uniquity because they have no ability to think for themselves- critical cribbing is what I call it.

Enough.

DAN

~~~~~

Jessica Schneider:

Alex:

You make great points. Critics will argue the "honesty" and "compassion" in one's works, but then go nowhere as to what exactly works or not. Yet in my own book I can say that I had both those things (though that has nothing to do with quality itself) and when that reader was approached with it, she didn't "like" it because it was not the "honesty" she would imagine for herself. In other words, they wanted a character that would be like them. I'm not like anyone else. Why would I want to be? It is odd that they're chant about the importance of "truth" and "honesty" but no one ever wants to say anything of substance, just take safe stances like "racism is bad."

Most things in life do not carry any meaningful significance. One has to create one's own significance. Or else, all goes unforgotten, "a fart in the windstorm," as my grandma used to say. I agree about Nabokov, as Lolita had some "pretty writing" here and there, but his fans are obsessive. He was pretentious and always playing an act. And he managed to get fans to buy into it. I said it was a good solid book, but by no means great, not to mention the opening line is a terrible cliche and that intro by that fake Academic is just flourish.

Thanks for the discussion, D&A--the words cheered me, as smart words often do. Thank you for spreading the Cosmoetica word.

~~~~~~~

I'm lucky to be in a newsletter with so many intelligent people (this isn't the first time I've quoted one of these e-mail discussions). Anyhow, it's July now; hope everyone had a nice 4th. I played in an orchestra that accompanies the fireworks, which was fun (as always).

Take Care,
~Neil

DSI Update

Recently, Dan Schneider added a ratings system to his interview series (yes, you can rate interviews, too!). There are a lot of great, in-depth interviews, but there are some duds in there as well, from people who are jerks or give shallow/rushed answers. Personally, I think a ratings system is a good way to direct people to the worthwhile interviews and let them skip the bad ones (unless they're just curious). Jess also talked about this change recently, and there's one point that she makes that I want to single out. Some people blame Dan for the bad interviews, and Jess wrote: "...if you're gonna blame Dan for all of the bad responses then by that logic you have to credit him for all of the good ones too." That's a good point, and there are definitely more quality interviews than there are bad ones.

Additional reader comments were also taken into consideration, but the idea was later dropped because the list of interviews would become too cluttered with a bunch of comments floating around (good call, since quality web design isn't about fancy jazz and cramming in as much content as possible, but about clarity and easy navigation). However, Jess thought I should go ahead and post the comment on the James Emanuel interview that I unwittingly wrote. Hey, if it's not going up on Cosmo, it might as well go up here, right?

~~~

"A real writer is lucky to find enough time to write, and he will not complain when The Muse is out to lunch. Even without a spade, he will dig in."

Young artists should always leave themselves open to the wisdom and works of older artists; doing so is nothing short of a necessity. However, a young artist must be selective in who and what they learn from, lest they are swept up in a current of bad artists, bad art, and bad ideas about art. I can think of few (if any) works I’ve read that offer more wisdom on writing, in and of itself, than Dan’s interview with James Emanuel. Great insights abound. Furthermore, the poems contained in the interview are a must-read for those unfamiliar with Emanuel’s writing, and every answer provided by Emanuel is precise, polite, and insightful. A must-read, especially for young artists.

~~~~~~~

Finally, I think it would really awesome if, sometime in the future, Dan Schneider interviews Jessica Schneider, as a special edition~ Fun stuff!

Take Care,
~Neil

This Blog Receives a 7.3/10

I've been a fan of video games for most of my life. In fact, I even argued that game design is a form of art in some cases.

I've also enjoyed reading books for most of my life. I don't have to point out that books are a medium of art (though I just did).

However, I'd say that I started reading video game reviews long before I started reading book reviews (if "long before" can even apply to someone my age). Y'know what's great about video game reviews? They reach a numerical verdict for every single video game. Most reviews specifically note the quality of both technical aspects (which you *cannot* overlook in a video game the way you can in a novel) and creative aspects, then give an overall rating with these things in mind. So, you say this game is a 7.8/10? I might play it if it's something I'm interested in specifically; otherwise, it's not quite good enough. 4.5/10? Never touching it. 9.6/10? That's worth playing no matter what it's about. That's still how I use these reviews, and it helps that the reviewers talk about both main aspects of the games (technicality and creativity) and then give a clear verdict.

Then I started reading some book reviews here and there, both to find something interesting and because I was curious because I had heard how, um, bad they can be. Most book reviews don't use numerical ratings. Now, some people can write a perfectly sound and clear review without using numbers; I know that. However, after reading several reviews, most of what I find is mush. Almost every book is "good" or better, and critics often talk about how you will "like" or "love" the book. Look how human this book is! Look at how this book is about abortion/drugs/alcoholism/transsexuals! It must be good! The whole time, I'm thinking, "Okay, fine. But is the book well-written?"

The best reasons I can come up with for why people reviewing paintings and novels don't use numbers are that a) These works often originate from a single person and reviewers don't want to come down on one person (we know whose to blame when there's only one person responsible), b) Many artists function in a circle of sycophants who praise each other ceaselessly, and c) The people working in these fields tend to be more touchy-feely than those working in, say, movies and video games. Reason "a" is especially ridiculous; screw their feelings! Just because they've enter the field of art doesn't mean they should be exempt from receiving just evaluation; adults should be properly criticized for performing poorly in their chosen profession, and that includes artists of all sorts. Reason "b" almost completely invalidates any criticism coming from involved individuals. The main effect of reason "c" is the reign of using "like/dislike" in criticism instead of "good/bad". It's easier to avoid hurting people's feelings by using the former (and hurting people's feelings is a no-no, because of reasons "a" and "b").

But, wait! Exactly how similar are books and video games? In fact, how can you even juxtapose the two? Well, for reviewing purposes, here's a list of similarities between the two:

~~~

~*Both contain technical aspects which can be horrible, great, or anything inbetween (this is what gets overlooked by so many literary reviewers)
~*Both contain creative aspects which can be horrible, great, or anything inbetween (literary reviewers tend to disguise "horrible" as "different" or "unique")
~*Both involve the combination of technical aspects and creative aspects to create a final product; the quality of this product can be horrible, great, or anything inbetween

~~~~~~~

For reviewing purposes, there's enough similarity between the two to approach both with the same basic mindset.

I realize that using number ratings wouldn't make for instantly concise and insightful reviewers (note the majority of movie critics). However, it would help clear up the mush a *little* bit ("good" book #1 may be a 3.5/5, while "good" book #2 may be a 4/5). It would also give reviewers a standing number for each book, so that they can compare future books with ease.

I doubt the shift to numbers will ever occur, for the reasons listed above. However, I can give at least one example of numbers being used for literature: Dan Schneider uses numerical ratings in his This Old Poem series. Scroll down for his rubric, which is sound. If you can give reasons for your judgment, why not assign number ratings to poetry? People are still free to like/dislike all poems as they please, no matter their rating, but good/bad can be accurately determined by objective criticism. The same applies to game design, novels, comic strips, sculptures, tattoos, and any other form of art, high or low.

I'm done. I think I'll go play that 9.6/10 video game now. Good stuff!

Take Care,
~Neil

LAEvaside: It's June. Also, for the record, the title rating is a joke (I hope). [/laevaside]

Almost Done

I've been gone lately. Why? Wrapping up high school. I've but a few graduation rehearsals, senior checkout, and a couple "finals", and I'll be done. Go me.

Another reason I've been gone is because I performed in a Les Miserables/Seussical mixed concert last Thursday and Friday. Lots of rehearsals. I haven't seen Seussical all the way through, but I have the 10th anniversary concert version of Les Miserables on VHS, and I recommend watching it. Les Miserables is the best musical I've seen in terms of, well, music, even if following the story can be difficult in a few parts. Here's a couple of the songs:

~~~

Bring Him Home

Empty Chairs at Empty Tables

~~~~~~~

I ended up singing Empty Chairs, which I enjoyed; dramatic is fun, since more acting can be mixed in with the singing. Anyhow, I've not read the book Les Miserables, but I will say that the musical (or, at least, the concert version) clocks in at somewhere around two hours, so it's not the time sink that 1200'ish pages is.

The next act consisted of various Seussical songs. I've always been a fan of Seuss (though with Seuss books, it's important to note that without the combination of whimsical words and illustration, the books would not be great children's books; one without the other just wouldn't work). There aren't many good recordings of Seussical online, but I will say that I ended up singing "A Day for the Cat in the Hat", which was great fun, since, well, dressing up and singing as the Cat in the Hat is simply awesome (and I had a large red box I started the song in).

Anyhow, enough about the musical. I just thought I'd do a lighter post as a "coming back" type entry. Hopefully I'll have some more interesting things to say in the near future. Oh, and it's May!

Take Care,
~Neil

Five Cubed

Well, it's mid-March. Life is happening to me and preventing me from blogging as much as I'd like; but then, I suppose most people don't hold blogs through high school (it's strange to think that I founded this blog when I was 15 years old). Again, thanks for the support lately (especially Anthony, who recently featured one of my poems), and here's to another 25 posts, which will come, however slowly:

~~~

~*C~ See?

~*Too Many Facelifts~ Hollywood isn't the only one suffering from this.

~*Begin at the Beginning/Middle/End~ Do it!

~*A Conversational Sonnet~ There's an interesting conversation in the comments, too.

~*Totoro!~ You still need to watch this one, Jess~

~*Performance vs. Composition~ Different, indeed.

~*Aesop's Fables~ Read them to your children and whatnot.

~*In Love (Features)~ Three poems- one from each of three wonderful writers and supporters~

~~~~~~~

Take Care,
~Neil

Inspirational Poems for Valentine's Day

Hey, guys! It's February! I've been reading some wonderful poetry lately, and, because Valentine's Day is a day for beautiful words and truly heartfelt writing, I thought I would share with everyone!

If you don't understand what a lover or a friend is, this poem is just for you!

Sometimes, you get into deep conversations with a significant other. This is a great example of that!

It can be hard to find the perfect words to give to your sweetheart at this most romantic time of the year. However, this poem is here to help! What person could resist "fuzzy song logic"?

And, if you're still having trouble, perhaps you can "reference" this poem!

It's perfectly fine to use someone else words to express your sentiments. It's the thought that counts!

Maybe you've had this happen to you before!

Bye, guys!

~Neil

Alexander? Not Good, But...

It's January, and we have a new president. Rejoice! I watched a good deal of the inauguration at school, and most of it was interesting. But, the poem reeked, as Anthony pointed out. In fact, I think Obama might be a better poet than Elizabeth Alexander, whose poem, "Praise Song for the Day", was a serious drag and a definite low of the proceedings. And yet, worse poetic travesties have taken place before:

~~~

So say the Asian, the Hispanic, the Jew
The African and Native American, the Sioux,
The Catholic, the Muslim, the French, the Greek
The Irish, the Rabbi, the Priest, the Sheikh,
The Gay, the Straight, the Preacher,
The privileged, the homeless, the Teacher.
They hear. They all hear
The speaking of the Tree.

~~~~~~~

Wait. What if I follow Scientology or Pastafarianism? All joking aside, let's look at another excerpt:

~~~

You, who gave me my first name, you
Pawnee, Apache and Seneca, you
Cherokee Nation, who rested with me, then
Forced on bloody feet, left me to the employment of
Other seekers--desperate for gain,
Starving for gold.

You, the Turk, the Swede, the German, the Scot ...
You the Ashanti, the Yoruba, the Kru, bought
Sold, stolen, arriving on a nightmare
Praying for a dream.

~~~~~~~

It's very universal. O you, the Bishopee, the Ham, the Bacteriaman, keep praying for that dream. I wish I knew so many denominations so I could write well like she does.

Oh right, "she". Maya Angelou. That's the one. Y'know, they actually made a book with *just* this poem in it, and sold it for, oh, 6-7 bucks, if I remember correctly. Real sad. So, embrace the Alexander number read at Obama's inauguration, with the knowledge that it could have been far worse.

Take Care,
~Neil