Category Archives: feature

Thanks to a background in the magazine business, I have the occasional hankering to pop out an article that far exceeds the detail and length one would expect to find in a blog post. They’re goddamn feature articles.

Dear Facebook, It’s not me, It’s you

Posted on by

I’ll go ahead and admit that I never “got” Facebook. I mean, I have an account, technically my second, but it largely languished, receiving snippets of content from my RSS and Twitter feeds. I never really cared if I was a ninja or a pirate, or for playing scrabble, or joining groups to show ironic allegiance to myriad infomercial products. But while I didn’t, numerous others did, causing the service to gain new users at upwards of a million people per week. I used to think that my issues with Facebook were my own, that was until recent events changed my mind. Beacon, deactivating instead of deleting, and now the ToS. Facebook just doesn’t seem to understand the internet.

An Honest Attempt

I first joined Facebook in 2005. I was going through my second attempt at college as an outsider in a school where everyone knew everyone else. The service, which was barely a year old, had already exploded across college campuses, with current and former students still being the only ones allowed to join and long before the dawn of the Facebook API. At the time, Facebook was simply a closed, visually generic version of MySpace. That every profile was the same seemed to force the ability to differentiate (the real use social networks isn’t to connect, but rather to stand out) not on horrendously designed profiles, but rather on the content in those profiles.

I was okay with that. I slowly started populating my Facebook profile. I searched for other friends be they online or off, and did what I could to connect with them. I uploaded a few photos of my apartment. I scribbled a few notes. And then I was done. I didn’t generate enough content to actually make going to the site worthwhile. The bulk of my good stuff ended up here, on my website. Or on Flickr. Or on another site that did the myriad little things that Facebook tried to do, but you know, did them well. So, for the first two years or so that I was on the site, my profile largely languished.

You'll use the internet his way

You'll use the internet his way

And then the news of Beacon hit

Despite the plethora of data that Facebook connects from users, Facebook still has no means of actually generating a profit. Yes, they do run advertisements, and yes, they can target exactly whom they show those adverts to by frighteningly precise demographics. But, this hasn’t helped them make anything close to a profit as Facebook has some of the lowest click-thru rates of any service on the internet.

In Zuckerberg’s attempt to milk his idea for a profit, he decided to team up with numerous online shops, turning purchases that users made into implied endorsements. To accomplish that, an item purchased from eBay would appear in a user’s feed with an implied endorsement.

Or Fandago. Or Travelocity. Or Blockbuster. Or numerous other services. The new advertising scheme was called “Beacon”.

The outrage was quick and deserved. Why? For a few reasons. One, Facebook didn’t notify users in a clear and timely manner that they were going to use this service. The service, which was launched in November of 2007, was suddenly broadcasting potential Christmas presents to friends and family on Facebook.

Second, Beacon was opt-out, not opt-in. This is a major no-no online, and something that the Facebook people should have perhaps realized. But, the arrogance of the service assumed that everyone would want this, in much the same manner as it assumed everyone would want to use the same generic profile.

And finally, Facebook committed the largest social faux pas of all, it lied about the service. Facebook gave misleading information about Beacon not only to partnering sites, but also news organizations.

But you can’t quit

I, like many other users, decided that this was enough. Even though Facebook backpedaled on Beacon rather quickly, they didn’t quite backpedal far enough. Yes, Facebook made Beacon opt-in, but they only made the publishing of results as optional. Whenever you made a purchase from any of their partner sites, Facebook still knew. And they likely still do. I decided to try and quit. At the time, Facebook wouldn’t actually let you quit the service. They would simply deactivate your account. Their logic was eventually, you’d want to come back, and when you did, all of your content should still be there.

From Facebook’s point of view it made sense. Why? Because their terms of service claimed full copyright over everything you submitted until you deleted your account. If you couldn’t delete your account, they were free to use all of your materials in any way they saw fit, forever. It was a win-win for Facebook.

The first blogging example of this hit the ‘sphere in July of 2007, causing a general uproar. So much of an uproar that the New York Times ran an article about it in February of 2008, right on the heels of the Beacon Fiasco. I know because I was one of the people trying to quit at the time. After the Times article, Facebook made it easier to leave.

A smarter return

Several months later, I was working on a startup idea and decided to try and use Facebook to try and give it legs. This time, however, I was determined to play things smarter. Because Facebook had engaged in dubious acts in the past, I used an email unassociated with any other online activity. I uploaded only a single photo, and didn’t give Facebook any original content. Just for fun, I would occasionally pump in gobs of bogus status updates to make myself a non-desirable marketing target. I was too vague, going in too many directions at once.

And so, my account largely languished, as I mentioned in the introduction. But, many of my friends and family and countless strangers saw the ease of centralization and filled up Facebook with blog posts, photos, and videos. At the time, they were rather safe in doing so. While your content was on Facebook, the service technically held total copyright control over them. But, you could regain control over your baby photos simply by deleting your content. A bit severe, but still a manageable out.

Fool me once

Or it was, until February 4th of this year, when Facebook plugged that out by removing a few lines from their Terms of Service statement, the binding legal contract that users agree to when they join, specifically the lines that say that deleting your work terminates their license to it. Furthermore, the termination section of that same statement now says that even if your account is removed, they still claim the same “irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)”.

Reality Check

For most people, this probably won’t be a deal breaker. For most people, allowing Facebook to use their photos in advertising is a rather fair trade off in exchange for free hosting. But for others, it’s it’s the end. For me, this is Facebook’s third strike. I’ve personally unhooked all of my info that fed into my account, removed Facebook Connect from the comments on this site, and took the Facebook app off of my phone. It’s not a breakup, it’s a starvation.

Yes, it seems that Facebook really doesn’t understand the Internet, at least not like I do. Users want empowerment, not enslavement. We want transparency, not obfuscation. After well more than a decade online, I realized it’s not me that doesn’t understand Facebook, it’s Facebook that doesn’t understand the Internet.

On Genre – Confessions of a Fantasy Nerd

Posted on by

When I first decided to make a second valiant attempt at writing long form fiction, I was hesitant to address the topic of my brewing works with strangers. All of the half-hearted, and drunken attempts that I’d mustered since the war, the ones that now lay strewn about my office collecting dust in black binders or cardboard bomber bindings, all fit nicely under the broad modern literature umbrella.

genreknight

The upcoming works, the collection of stories bubbling just below the surface of my fingertips, feel outside that genre, you know, the one we’re supposed to aspire to write to.

I broached the idea, in a casual, sideways manner, to good friend and respected writing cohort, Vito Grippi.

“What are your opinions on genre literature?” I asked, erstwhile, in an instant message.

Perhaps he knew where I was coming from and was simply being socially polite. Perhaps he was being truthful. Either way, his answer provided enough energy to my fledgling and fragile decision in such a way that a large bit of either blame or praise rests on his shoulders.

People think this everyday.

People think this everyday.

Vito’s stated opinion, that if the work is written well enough, and if the content is smart enough, that the genre means little, mirrored my own. To put it another way, damn the torpedoes and write the fucking book.

Yes, it was Vito’s sentiment, echoing a decision I had likely already made, that pushed me towards writing fantasy literature.

The decision to write a genre book, or in my case – genre books, wasn’t an easy one. I had bought firmly into the pomp and circumstance of modern literature. The desire to write the next Great American Novel was one that ate at me. To sum it all up, everything that is the America of today, the strife, the promise, the technological-fueled desires – they are all still leaping up, waiting for that perfect story to sum them all up. To explain them. To wrap up the meaning of everything so that future generations understand the duende that we now face, these are the questions that a writer today must address, and in turn, must answer. Common knowledge says they must be answered in a modern lit form, a genre that encapsulates the world in which the questions were asked from.

But I was purposefully choosing a different path. And it’s not an easy path to walk. Modern lit is almost defined as doing more with less, a cutthroat use of words so apropos that none other can be used in any given moment. Genre literature, on the other hand, is often ridiculed as doing less with more. It’s contrived. It’s cliché. It’s nerdy and fringe. It’s a sliver of reality at best, and a host of easy outs at worst.

Genre is, of course, none of these.

When we choose to look at the total body of any particular genre, modern literature included, the worth of the body is reduced to the median quality. When genres are considered, that median quality is easily reduced to the clichés – be it dragons and swords for fantasy, buxom women and buffed men for romance, hard boiled and scheming folks for mysteries, lasers and cybernetics for science fiction, or drug addicts and divorced children of modern lit.

The reality, when we choose to flee from such childish clichés, is that genre literature is at the very least, equally enabled when it comes to telling the situations of our modern dramas than modern literature. Genre fiction just chooses to do so in a metaphorical language. Genre fiction takes the obtuse tails of our modern world, and strips away the details which can easily trip a reader up, and supplants those stories into a details setting that is substantially less familiar.

To put it another way, genre fiction takes the core arguments of our existence, and couches those stories in another setting. The tripping points, the niggling details which can easily send a carefully crafted statement into the obscurity of entropy are avoided, in favor of an older form of story telling – that of the parable.

They’re two different tactics, two different roads if one is to borrow from Frost, but the end result is the same. That which we write is ultimately a reflection on the world which we live in. While the current set of stories might be birthed in a fantasy world, the concepts being tackled are no less modern.

I’m using my book, and the stories which are sure to come afterwards, to reflect on the lessons I’ve learned. The times I spent in Iraq, the ideas I have on being a citizen of a nation and a world, the understanding I have gathered from bars – these are all the fodder which will be handled. While these are normally the topics of modern literature, I’m eschewing that instead for fantasy. The problem, the argument, for me is too big to allow for details and their detraction. My use of genre is a means and a method.

I’m sure that I do have that modern lit novel in me somewhere. That story of life and love and trains and God, but right now, I’m not at a point where I can deal with that. Right now, I’m looking not to write the book, but to foster a career. Right now I’m taking the nerdier road, but I am okay with that.

For those of you wishing that I produce that book, I can only say hold on. For the rest, who are open to a story that is truly overflowing with truth, and who are willing to suspend the concept of reality for the betterment of understanding, then I’m working on book for you.

After all, my current work, Project Kingdom, answers more questions than it asks. It deals with being a soldier on the front lines of an empire. It deals with reality versus religion. It asks questions that I would have a hard time framing in a backdrop of reality. And it draws from a history of nerdy concepts.

And I’m okay with that.

The Future of Publishing

Posted on by

Music did it. Movies did it. Television is doing it. Even the newspapers are reluctantly doing it. The book publishing industry now stands as the last major media format to make the leap from traditional publishing to digital. The leap is large. The leap is scary. This is the largest change to the printing of books since Gutenberg. It’s going to require not only different marketing mindset, but a complete understanding of what digital content is.

There is, however, a key. To succeed in digital, publishers need to look at the following analogy and observe some lessons that other media industries have learned the hardway.

“The MP3 is to music as X is to books.”

What is X?

The easy, almost obvious answer is that X is the seemingly elusive eBook, a technology which has been promised to us for years. However, that answer is incorrect. Why? Because the eBook is a family of file formats, whereas the MP3 is a specific file format. This might seem like an argument based on semantics, but for the publishing industry, the devil is truly in the details.

What made the MP3 successful?

The MP3 existed for years before the portable MP3 player. The file format, MP3 was invented in 1994 – making it older than the public internet, and certainly before the iPod. As the computer and the CD-ROM grew in popularity, the MP3 became the perfect compromise when dealing with digital music. It had better-than-decent sound quality paired with a file size that was drastically smaller than other technologies of the day. Beyond that, it was portable – any computer with Windows 98 or an updated Windows 95 could play the file. To put it another way, the MP3 was universal and portable – like a book.

Again, what is X?

This is an answer that the publishers desperately need to decide for themselves. The MP3 was made the de facto digital publishing choice not by the record labels, but by computer owners. The revolution was carried out at the desktop, not in a corporate memo. The publishing industry has a position that I’m sure the recording industry wishes they had: there are numerous technologies currently available to create eBooks, yet none of them have become the standard.

The First Step is the Decision

Though there are numerous choices for the publishing industry to format future eBooks in, the importance isn’t so much on a specific format, but rather the specific format. In order to capitalize on the opportunity, the plethora of current formats, the path to success lies in publishers as an industry, or a significant share of publishers deciding on a single format. The public needs a single file format which it can recognize as an eBook. Developers need a single format to build for. Publishers need a single format to sell.

The Brave New World

There are still lessons to be learned from the way that both the music and film industries have grown moderately successful in the world of digital content. Lessons like pricing, availability, and portability. These are not easy lessons, and they often chaff against what is considered the acceptable standard. But they exist for a reason – digital content is vastly different than physical.

Control and Scarcity

Perhaps the most alluring aspect of digital publishing is the lack of resources required to produce and maintain a product. When a book is electronically published, there is no limit to how many copies can be sold. This is a wonderful thing, it means that more books can be published in a year. It means the end of a 10,000 book run. It means that anyone who wants to buy a book, can, as long as they have access to the internet.

However, consumers are well aware of this, and expect a digital version to cost less than the physical variety. Considerably so. Customers want that savings passed on to them. Why? Because they are opting out of a great deal of comfort. They cannot hold their digital purchase. An accident can easily render it lost or unusable. The ease of purchase lends itself to the phrase – easy come, easy go. And the customer doesn’t want to be the only one financially shouldering that risk.

Or, to put it more bluntly – to succeed in electronic publishing, book publishers must relinquish scarcity pricing, and scarcity marketing. Prices must be low, drastically so. Publishers must embrace a digital marketing mindset.

The Upside of the Digital Marketing Mindset

Of course, there is an upside to this. The lower the price, the lower the resistance stopping someone from making an electronic purchase. That is, the lower the price, the greater that chance someone will buy an eBook. This allows for popularity explosions, the viral phenomenon, which can’t be easily replicated in a printed book.

Digital publishing also allows for what Wired’s Chris Anderson calls “The Long Tail.” Removing the scarcity mentality allows for books to be published on a time scale that comes a lot closer to infinity and in which purchases can always be made. Long tail economics means that a property can continue to collect revenue long after it’s initially published, something that can’t be done amidst the continual turnover of a brick-and-mortar book store.

Get Centralized

Apple’s iTunes Music Store became the largest music retailer, not just online but in the United States, through a combination of branding and player. However, the success of the store draws not from that, but from the fact that it is centralized and easy. Apple didn’t secure the rights to sell music from one or two of the major record labels, but from all four of them. This made Apple the place to go for all your musical desires. The moment the switch was flipped on at the iTunes Music Store, it became an instant competitor to the largest and most established music stores in the world.

Granted, there are more than four major publishing houses, but they would each be wise to come to some agreement on a centralized, universally acceptable method for selling eBooks.

The Player

The other reason for the success of iTunes Music Store was it’s tight integration with Apple’s iPod – a device already reaching near-ubiquity when the store launched in 2003. For the publishing industry, the obvious conclusion to draw here is that Amazon is the new iTunes Store, and the Kindle is the literary world’s answer to the iPod.

Again, the obvious answer is wrong.

Why not the Kindle?

The Kindle is certainly a fine piece of technology, leveraging a cellular network and epaper to produce a reader that does a fairly good job of simulating paper. But, for all the wonderous and smart technology involved in the device, it is a perfect example of good intentions, bad idea. Or, perhaps, just bad timing.

The Kindle, which routinely sells out at Amazon, has racked up an impressive 250,000 to 500,000 units sold since it was first introduced in 2007. Beyond that, the Kindle average one book per unit per month. A quite acceptable haul with the understanding that outliers are probably skewing that number in both directions. The problem with the Kindles that there aren’t enough to truly take advantage of the digital revolution. Why? According to a report by Citibank, Amazon is only looking to sell another half million or so Kindles this year, and two million in 2010, which would put the installed base at around 3 million users.

We Already Have eBook Readers

Though this number sounds juicy enough, it falls flat when compared to this statistic: in the first month it was available for sale, the iPhone 3g sold 3 million units. It took Apple one month to put a perfectly acceptable eBook reader in the pockets of as many people as Amazon hopes to push the Kindle on in more than 3 years.

And the iPhone isn’t alone. Every one of the cell phone companies has a large touch screen device currently on the market. Every one of the of the cell phone companies has some method for distributing content like ring tones and wall papers across the cellular network.

When you branch out into the greater smart phone population, the numbers start to get truly staggering. The iPhone, however, provides a wonderful place to start. It’s a huge installed base filled with people who are already accustomed to purchasing applications and media wirelessly.

Apply the Lessons

Making the change from a physical product to a digital distribution method is a scary concept. But it is one that is unavoidable. Just as the internet lowered the perceived value of music and movies, it is also providing numerous new avenues and means for people to read.

It seems only logical that sooner, rather than later, that the book will be ported into the electronic realm. The task currently set before publishers is not to see digital publishing as a threat, a means to cannibalize print publishing, but rather as a means to make print more profitable. Selling more books at a lower price can lead to higher profits, especially long tail economics are taken into account.

The goal then, is to establish the online marketplace as the publisher, rather than to allow the free market to establish it for you. But to do that, you have to understand online publishing, and you have to do it right.

If anyone would like further information on this, including optimal technologies to use and pricing policies, feel free to contact me by email or leave a comment below.

For a more personal anecdote on the future of eBooks, check here.

Also, don’t forget to pitch me on a book to buy.

Profound or Profane? Swearing in Literature

Posted on by

Perhaps the most widely cited reason for the inclusion or usage of profanity in any artistic medium is the desire for realism. The logic itself makes sense because people do, in fact, swear. Some of us frequently. And some, like the Coen brothers, David Mamet (video with strong language), and even William Shakespeare, have become legends for their use of profanity. Numerous others have raged against the use, labeling it as crude, grotesque, and a mark of artistic laziness. How, then, is a modern writer supposed to handle the situation? To swear or not to swear is an important artistic question.

The Power of Profanity

In an article lambasting the use of profanity in literature, Charles Benton ironically provided an argument for its use that is as true today as it was when he wrote it over a century ago. Benton noted that “the essence of profanity is a Vandalic desecration of those inner temples, without excuse save the depraved desire to show contempt for that which is dear to another.”

Or, to paraphrase, profanity in its many forms is an assault on the reader and what they hold as dear, a form of mental shock that when used correctly, can jolt the reader.

Understanding Profanity

After all, art is simply a means to communicate without being present. A method to convey thoughts and emotions to an audience. Profane words are taboo because they are powerful, they question or challenge the various parts of our humanity that we are the most self-conscious about: our religion, our sexuality, our race, our base bodily functions.

The use of these words has the same effect as the Vandals, dirty barbarians, riding into the white marbled Rome. They desecrate. They destroy. They tear down what we hold dear, they become what we fear.

The Desecration Principle

As these words are the metaphors that sack Rome, one should consider the Romans. For, just as profanity is a part of the reality of many, it is also abhorred by a vocal group. And understandably so. Just as Charles Benton described the power of profanity in his missive rallying against it’s use, so does the modern audience. For many people, profanity simply has no place in art of any medium.

The Corruption Cliché

The common cliché regarding power and corruption holds true when extended to profanity. The overuse of profanity creates an awkward, contradictory situation.

In the first part, when profanity becomes common place, the words themselves lose specific power as the audience becomes first accustomed, and then desensitized to said power.

The contradiction arises when, despite these words losing their individual power, the whole of them taps into the strength of their original intent. That is, despite the individual use of profane words losing value, the whole gains a greater value. When collected in an individual work, the work itself becomes profane. When stretched amongst a series of works, in which the unifying, notable feature is the profanity itself, the works are reduced to little more than a gimmick reaching for shock value. And shock is a momentary experience which stands opposite the immortality of art.

hemingwayquote

The Question Begets Questions

The most difficult task with regards to profanity and art might not be the binary question or do or do not, but rather the more cumbersome questions of when, where, and how. Unfortunately, these questions are ones that each artist must individually grapple with, and the only guide is that of tone and questions.

To Each Their Own

Each artist walks their own path, even today in our age of digital mashups and artistic appropriation, and so there are no hard and true rules for the use of profanity. The pure fact is that sometimes a piece of art has a critical moment when it is necessary to sack the white marble temples of Rome. In others, there are ways to show desecration sans exacting details.

In literature, the artistic area with which I am most accustomed, the decision can often come down to the specific medium. As a writer, I would be hard pressed to use profanity in print journalism. When traipsing into fiction, I do have stories in which the characters swear, and have used profanity in the narrative when it fits the voice of the narrator. Here, on my personal website, there is the occasional use of profanity, but then this is written in my voice. And I do swear. A lot.

Useful Questions

Perhaps the best guidance for the use of profanity in any artistic medium can be summed up in a set of questions:

  • Is this usage appropriate for the setting?
  • Does this usage achieve the message I wish to purvey?
  • Am I using this profane term because no other will suffice?
  • And finally am I willing to risk isolating my audience?

When measured against these questions, profanity does still carry a risk, but if the artist is honest in answering them, profanity can be a powerful tool. The end result, the line between a profound piece of art and a profane piece of garbage, might actually be best determined by borrowing from the Supreme Court’s ruling on pornography. In the words of Justice Stewart “I know it when I see it.”

In preparation for this piece, I contacted numerous peers including Justin Koeppen, fellow writers at Lyran Tal Press, and Debbie Stier at HarperStudio. All of whom put up with my pestering without resorting to using profanity.

Midseason TV Spectacular!

Posted on by

As the winter shifts beyond the holiday season, the networks and cable channels roll out their new crop of television shows in what is affectionately known as the midseason. Typically starting in January and rolling through March, we the viewing audience are given numerous new and familiar properties. Out of the hundreds of potential series produced during pilot season, a scant few are picked up for an initial run. Out of those, most won’t survive the initial season. Here’s a look at what’s new, what’s returning, and what, in my opinion, is worth keeping.

The New Stuff

December

Leverage – TNT – Dec 7

The cable channel which seemed to specialize in Lonesome Dove made-for-tv movies spun off into producing their own content a few years ago with the Closer. Saving Grace was added to the lineup a season or two later, and this year TNT is bringing two new dramatic properties to the mix in an attempt to cement themselves as a channel with original content. The first such show is Leverage.

The gang from Leverage

The gang from Leverage

Flexing an ensemble cast with Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton in the principle role, the pitch is rather simple. Take the team of specialists ala Mission: Impossible (the show), add the youth of the Mod Squad (again, the television show), the A-Team’s philosophy of helping the little guy, and toss in a modern anti-corporate (or anti evil corporations) mission set, and you’ve got the gist of the show.

Leverage has the distinct advantage of being the only new series this midseason which I’ve actually seen prior to deadline, so my opinion is based on experience rather than educated speculation. And my verdict? I like it. It’s a solid show. And it has a lot of room to grow. Timothy Hutton earned my respect with his role in the woefully overlooked series Kidnapped, and he brings the same chops to Leverage.

The characters, so far, are largely foils to Hutton’s more developed mystery. Most of the crew are bringing only minor pieces of their past, typically represented through actions (a sign of strong writing), but the showrunners have given themselves strong foundations to work with. The plots have been predictable, yet enjoyable – the show provides clues in a manner that abides by its own logic – that is to say it’s not all grit and reality, but the Leverage rules agrees  with the setting in which they are presented. For those who like a good mystery, you can typically predict the ending. However, the characters are presented in such a way that I found myself pulling for them.

And lest this seem like a guy’s show – the girlfriend has quickly become a fan. She joined halfway through the pilot, was interested in the second episode, and is looking forward to the third tonight. This ranks as one of the few shows that we can watch together and both enjoy.

Verdict – Set the season to record.

January

Lie to Me – Fox – Jan 21

It’s CSI minus blood splatters and LVPD plus private contractors times behavioral analysis. And I’m probably not going to watch it. While the premise seems to such metaphorical concepts such as “truth”, I have a strong feeling that this series is going to be a reskinned House or Bones. Or, to put it another way, it’s a formula.

Verdict – I like Timothy Roth, so I might do an episode or two. Who knows, maybe Fox can commit to an actual serial drama other than 24…

Trust Me – TNT – Jan 26

trustmeTNT’s second new property this year stars Tom Cavanagh and Eric McCormack (the guy from Ed and the guy from Will and Grace, respectively) star as two best friends who work at a high power Chicago advertising agency. The play is that McCormack is the workaholic familyman art director and Cavanagh is the creative, single, and likely manic copywriter. Despite being friends, they are an obvious odd couple, and those odds come to a head when McCormack gets a promotion that makes him his Cavanagh’s boss.

Labeling itself as a drama filled with witty banter, this looks like it’s going to be a more modern version of Mad Men, and walks a tough path in that shadow. I’m forced to wonder how the series will do without the booze, broads, and smokes that made advertising seem interesting in the 1950s. Though, Cavanagh did impress me with his work on the failed CBS vehicle Love Monkey, and the two characters he played bear a strong resemblance on paper. If we’re in for a repeat performance, this show could have me watching religiously.

Verdict: I’m in for at least the first three episodes.

February

Dollhouse – Fox – Feb 13

Dolls apparently are also models

Dolls apparently are also models

For a show that’s still two months out, this one has been garnering a lot of buzz. And with a name like Joss Whedon prominently attached, there’s a reason why. Whedon has fans by the bucket after creating properties like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefox. His fans might not be the biggest in number, but they are very, very vocal. And they’re mad about the show being given a dead slot – Friday evening. They have reason to be, given the networks’ reliance on the very flawed Neilson rating system. However, this is the age of the DVR.

The plot of the Dollhouse is similar to a point to the recently pulled NBC drama My Own Worst Enemy in that it follows a set of agents (Actives or “Dolls”) who have their minds wiped and imprinted with mission critical materials. The drama comes into play when the protagonist, Echo (Eliza Dushku), starts to become self aware. The Dolls operate off the radar and are supposedly being hunted by a Federal Agent.

The plot itself holds a lot of merit, and like Whedon’s prior properties, this one has real potential for a balance of character and action. The real make-or-break for this show will be whether it drifts into cheesy territory, and whether Fox wrests creative control away from Whedon and Co like they did with Firefox.

Verdict: I’m watching, though with some reservations. If the plot or dialogue drifts towards high school, I’ll likely leave.

March

Kings – NBC – Mar 19

Although NBC’s promotional department is playing this one close to their chests, it has attracted Deadwood noteable Ian McShane as the titular King. Set in a modern, or slightly futurist setting, the story is supposed to focus on the story of a small town boy who somehow get’s mixed with the ruling powers of a totalitarian state. It doesn’t sound simple, and the plot get’s even more convoluted when you factor in that the pilot was written by Heroes vet Michael Green and is a loose retelling of the Biblical story of David. Whether we’re getting David vs. Goliath, or David as Badass King, isn’t yet known. Here’s a video, so you can start to piece together your own conclusions.

Verdict: My interest is piqued, and I’m reserving judgment until I get to see the pilot.

Beyond or Undated

Blue Blood – NBC – The true story of a Harvard educated man turned cop. Action-drama.

Verdict: Meh.

Courtroom K – Fox – It’s another legal show, but unlike the myriad procedural dramas out there. This one is a comedy. I guess most people are now too young to remember Night Court.

Verdict: Has some decent names attached to it. Will need more information to actually pass judgement.

Harper’s Island – CBS – Apr 9 2009 – A murder is loose on a small island near Seattle. The plot is basic, and if done with care, could provide some really intense storylines. Jeffery Bell is the showrunner (writer-producer) and he’s got a pretty decent pedigree with Alias, the X-Files and the short lived Day Break. Yes, he wrote for Angel, but I’m not going to hold that against him. Jon Turteltaub, of Jericho, is the show’s Executive producer. Hopefully CBS can bear through the initially low ratings and let these two build a good solid story.

Verdict: Looks interesting. On my “To See” list.

Man of Your Dreams – NBC – half hour comedy (we used to call them sitcoms) about a bartender dispensing love lessons. Set in Chicago, expect lots of attractive people, contrived situations, and me not to be watching. I like Michael Trucco on Battlestar, but not enough to start following a sitcom. I do not like the 22 minute canvas.

Verdict: Sorry Michael, I’m skipping this one.

Merlin – NBC – It’s Camelot, but inspired by 21st Century storytelling? Can anyone make any sense out of that? Seems to be it’s the King Arthur story meets the OC. I don’t know if I’m down for that. And NBC is playing around with the premier time, it’s slated for Sundays at 9pm. Which Sunday it starts on, well, that’s anyone’s guess.

Verdict: I’ll be surprised if this makes it to the air. And I’ll most likely skip it.

outnumberedOutnumbered – Fox – In the promo material, Fox admits that the family sitcom is “staid”, and rightly so. Though in the same breath they promise that this is a new take. Their pitch is the improv of Curb Your Enthusiasm meets the life of Malcom in the Middle. And if they could pull that off, it would be great. How exactly does Fox do this? Well, they’re doing the tried and true and remaking a show from the UK.

One huge advantage that this show has? Ken fucking Marino. Yup, in the age where every comedian is pulled from the Daily Show, Fox is going old school and grabbing talent from the State. And they’re better for it. If Ken improvs a “I wanna dip my balls in it” line, I will DVR the entire season.

Verdict: I’m pulling for this show, but I don’t think the odds are too high. Even with Ken Marino.

Animated Characters over Real Backgrounds...okay

Animated Characters over Real Backgrounds...okay

Sit Down, Shut Up – Fox  – Still under a working title, this animated project has drawn some rather large names – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, Will Forte, Cheri Oteri, and the freaking Fonz (Henry Winkler) and that’s just for the voices. The writing is being taken up by Mitchell Hurwitz (Arrested Development) and the team of Eric and Kim Tannenbaum (Two and a Half Men). On the talent pool alone, this looks like a real winner. But Fox is quite fickle about the animation it chooses to show. Hopefully they won’t dumb this one down to keep it on the air.

The setting is a high school in a small, northeastern fishing town. Judging by the promo materials at Fox, the plots seem to be internal struggles and full of that modern insecurities and insanities that the writers are known for on their previous projects.

Verdict: It’s a keeper. Weird mix of animation on live sets aside, I am totally down for this show.

Summary

This year’s crop of television shows has some real potential, with some obvious risks being taken in the midseason that wouldn’t be done during the fall, but perhaps show too much potential for the summer. Granted, this type of scheduling is largely old hat due to the invention of the Internet. Leverage is a hands down winner, with several other shows – Dollshouse, Sit Down Shut Up, Kings, and Trust Me – showing potential. I have a strong feeling that, if allowed to grow, Harper’s Island could be a very intelligent thrill ride.

Check back tomorrow for the returning shows which have a permanent spot in my DVR, and to learn who’s on the bubble.

But wait, there’s more… here are the new shows that I will undoubtedly be skipping:

Chopping Block – NBC – Oh look, another cooking reality TV show.

The Goode Family – ABC – Mike Judge is at it again. This time he’s not lampooning Texas suburban living (King of the Hill) or teenage metal heads (Beavis and Butthead), nope, this time it’s being morally correct. The Goode Family tries to do good liberal things, but the consequences are such that comedy will certainly ensue…

The Listener – NBC – Mind-reading paramedic. Did you hear me just sigh?

Mama’s Boys – unscripted by Ryan Seacrest (I just puked in my mouth)

Salavage & Swords: Lives on the Line – both NBC – Look, I have the Discovery Channel. I have lots of Discovery Channels, in wonderful HD. Let’s leave the fishing/ocean shows there.

Superstars of Dance – NBC – While really just a mini-series-event, this is the show that’s bumping Chuck and Heroes for January. It’s supposed to be a more global version of Dancing With the Stars, what is will be is something I refuse to watch.

Top Gear – NBC – Another British important, and one that’s been on TV for 30 years. I don’t know if NBC is attempting to remake the show, or will simply begin to air the BBC series outright. Either way, I won’t be watching.

Unholy Union – ABC – okay, that’s not the name of the show, it’s a comment on the premise of what is still being billed as the “Unnamed Ashton Kutcher / Tyra Banks Project.” I think my title aptly sums up not only how I feel about the show, but also about the principles.

What’s Your Twitter?

Posted on by

The question “Are you on Twitter?” is quickly becoming one which should be answered with a “yes” by anyone on the connected side of the digital divide. Though the service is just over two years old, the depth and capabilities of the network are such that overlooking them should be seen as a detriment to one’s own ability to operate online. But why? What’s all the big fuss about?

Neither a Blog Nor a Social Network

While Twitter is billed as both a microblogging service and a social network, it really is neither of these. Though Twitter can be lumped into either role with some amount of luck, it’s actually closer to a new communications medium – like email it can deliver written messages individually or en masse, yet the messages are maintained online in a searchable, permanent manner – like a web page. Twitter fills in as an important role, one which is supplemented by it’s portability, plugs the gaps between a quick text message or phone call to a friend and a full blown blog post; Twitter means that the message is never really out of reach, be it personal or professional.

Addressing the Flaws

Lore Sjoberg, blogger at Wired.com pointed out what he saw as Twitter’s greatest flaws months ago. Back then the service had already snapped up enough of the tech elite and early adopters to be draw considerable attention. To paraphrase, Lore saw two primary problems with Twitter: 140 characters is not enough to say anything interesting, and the primary question posed begs boring answers.

The Character Limit

Myself being a rather verbose writer, it’s amazing that I would come to disagree with Lore on the importance of the character limit. Lore feels that 140 characters is simply “not enough for really interesting postings, while being way too much for boring postings.” The reality seems to be that users learn that brevity truly is the soul of wit. Words are chosen more carefully, unnecessary word are eschewed, with the correct word being chosen to fill the role. To put it bluntly, Twitter distills content to the bare essentials.

The Question

Comic from PC Weenies

Comic from PC Weenies

Taken at face value, the question “What are you doing?” is a silly one, and one that will always be answered with the some version of the same answer, “I was doing something, but now I’m twittering.” Yet, this is the question which Twitter sprang from – taking the concept of Facebook’s Status Message, and removing the rest of Facebook. This is, of course, the concept that Twitter was launched to fill – a means for people to constantly update their status, perhaps under the belief that those who live the most interesting lives would in fact win.

The Reality

Of course, this isn’t to say that Twitter is a bastion of witty quips which would make Hemingway smile. Quite the contrary, there is a great deal of inane and insignificant postings of which I am as guilty of supplying as any other on the service. But that doesn’t take away from Twitter, rather it seems to cement the service as viable, as real. As a collective whole, Twitter has become a giant conversation, and like all lengthy conversations, not everything is a gem.

The Value is Where You Find It

What has set Twitter apart, and what has made the service near-necessary is that it is a giant conversation. The number and variety of users means that someone, somewhere on Twitter is talking about or interested in something of personal value to you. Truly a first, Sean Bonner used the service to propose to his wife with the oh so romantic “So…um, wanna get hitched?” She said yes, by the way. Perhaps marriage isn’t your style. James Buck’s one word tweet certainly got the attention of his friends and followers, not to mention the international media. Sent from an anti-government protest he was attending in Egypt, James was only able to get out one word, Arrested, before being escorted from the protest by Egyptian authorities. His plea for help enabled his friends to alert the authorities, and allowed him to get back out of jail. And then there’s the out of this world, like when the Mars Phoenix program twittered the discovery of ice on the red planet. Or the on the ground reporting from Mumbai. Or from President-Elect Obama’s Acceptance speech. For a service so young, it’s been used in a lot of interesting places.

The Fastest Name In News

NPR's Andy Carvin

NPR's Andy Carvin

These are, of course, extremes. Twitter cemented itself as valuable for me during the Presidential Primary season. During perhaps the most important Presidential race of my lifetime, I was working evenings at UPS, and was thus cut off from the flow of political news. The folks at NPR, spearheaded by Andy Carvin, were actively tweeting results in real time. Because Twitter is built to leverage SMS technology, I was able to get real time updates to the results sent directly to my phone. No need to surf, no need to search, Andy and the crew at NPR simply sent out short dispatches showing the play by plays.

NPR isn’t alone in using Twitter as a news medium, either. The character limit, lauded as being too short for real content, is almost tailored for headlines – able to portray the essence of a story with a link to the greater contents. Focusing Twitter in this medium allows the service to be the most heavily staffed news source in the world, with everyone from casual bloggers to major news organizations funneling their content in. Due to the viral nature of twitter, with quality postings being repeated from user to user, a story can quickly grow legs, exponential legs.

A Two Lane Road

Unlike the traditional publishing paradigm, where news moves in a largely one way flow, Twitter facilitates communication equally in both directions. As Twitter largely decentralizes it’s publishing methods, this provides a rather odd sense of actual communication, breaking the Us/Them or Mainstream/New Media scenarios associated with content platforms like blogs or websites.

He's in your Twitter, Reading your Tweets

Franks's In Your Twitter, Reading Your Tweets

The result of this switch, when paired with how easy it is to creative a searchable live stream of content on Twitter, can be shocking, as many users have discovered when twittering about Comcast in frustration. I know I was caught of guard when one day, after a rather lengthy commute, I discovered that my cable was out and fired off a bitter tweet about Comcast into what I assumed was the void of the internet. Within moments I had a reply from a user called ComcastCares asking if they could help.

I’m not going to lie, at first I was bit disturbed that Comcast was addressing me directly, openly on Twitter. But after sitting back for a few seconds, I realized that this is actually what I wanted. I complained, and my situation was immediately addressed. The result, however, was so much more. I was able to put a face and name on Comcast, and suddenly found myself “not hating the Comcast as much.”

Frank Eliason, the Director of Digital Care for Comcast and the force behind the ComcastCares account, might not have been the first to use Twitter for this time of public relations work, but he is certainly one of the pioneers. Other companies are learning to make use of Twitter to actually engage their customers. And politicians are using Twitter to address their constituents. Once you get over the novelty of the idea – of issues actually being addressed in the open like on Twitter, the medium actually sells itself.

The Beauty is in the Simplicity

Twitter itself is not perfect. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution for communication in the ultra-connected world. But it is a powerful platform that allows for myriad types of information. Between the casual bits of banter, ideas flow, not just down, but up. People are able to connect with others, easily, and in real time. The entire thing is so oddly democratic.

NBC’s Monday Night Needs Saving

Posted on by

For those of you who have to yet to see NBC’s Monday lineup from November 24, 2008, you might want to skip this post, as I’ll be using several plot points as evidence.

As a writer, I tend to watch television with a semi-critical eye. Fully formed characters, well established settings, and plots that are realized and move – these things matter and they are what will get to me to tune in on a regular basis and push me to extol a show’s virtues both online and off. To put it bluntly, television shows should be well-crafted stories. Unfortunately, NBC’s Monday night selection seems to have forgotten this. The network’s flagship scripted drama, Heroes, is in need of some serious saving and the slow motion implosion of this property is threatening to take the rest of the night’s line up down with it. The products aren’t doomed, but they need to return to the basics of story to save themselves.

Heroes’ Hard Reboot

Last night’s episode of Heroes attempted to push the series into a hard reboot, something difficult to do mid-season, yet something that the show has needed for quite some time. The reboot, carried out in the form of an eclipse that robbed all characters of their powers, intended to return the show to where it had been in Season one. Sylar was once again a bad guy. Peter and Nathan were returned to their roles as contentious brothers. And Claire was once again in trouble. While stripping the characters of their powers can easily be written off as contrived and clichéd, it did push the series back towards a much more familiar ground, redrawing lines towards the Heroes the audience once loved. However, the reboot might have come just a bit too late. Even as Claire was being rushed to the hospital, bleeding from a gunshot wound, I found myself not able to care. Not one bit. None at all. All of the emotional capital that these characters had built up in their first season, and managed to hold onto through the short second season, had already been squandered.

The Road Ahead

The show needs some serious help to get back on its feet; the reboot, in and of itself, was not enough. Returning Heroes to the general, comfortable status of Season one will not work. In this case, the viewers are demanding blood, retribution, and they should be placated. NBC needs to show that it is willing to take serious risks on it’s flagship drama, and in doing so, get the audience to once again invest. How? It’s not easy, and perhaps the story will be kneecapped by contracts of those involved, but Heroes needs to start killing off characters. Not just second or third tier characters, but actual primary characters. The cheerleader? Dies from wounds. One or both of the Petrelli boys? Killed in the jungle. Any many more need to die. The show needs a serious cleansing.

A Map Drawn in Blood

The end results of the killings would pay dividends on multiple fronts. First, it provides a story-based motivation for those who survive to actively regain their powers. Second, it thins the cast out, allowing the story to return to a core group of characters, making the show easier for the audience to follow, and easier for your writers to craft. Third, if enables your writer to develop a believable, and seemingly insurmountable external conflict that humanizes the heroes (fear of death is perhaps the most human quality there is). And finally, and most importantly, it allows the viewers to re-invest in the characters. This might seem counter-intuitive, why would “we the audience” invest in characters that stand a very real chance of dying at any minute? Because we’re Americans, we love acts of redemption and of underdogs. Right now, your characters need to redeem themselves. Right now, they’re just wasting our time, and we’re going to stop watching.

Heroes Is Not Alone

NBC already pulled the plug on Christian Slater’s quasi-futuristic spy drama, “My Own Worst Enemy,” proving that perhaps the suits who make the decisions regarding scripted properties don’t have the heart for long, drawn out plots. Not that “Worst Enemy” was a piece of pure magic, but the premise of the show did show some serious heart, and stacked against the weakened and delirious third season of Heroes, it looked much better by comparison. As this show has been canceled, I won’t waste any bits over it. I will write about perhaps one of my current favorite television shows, Chuck.

Chuck

I was apprehensive about this show from the beginning. Why? It had ample opportunity to go wrong. And NBC has a history of not allowing most of its properties to get things right before pulling the plug. The show, however, has proven to be quite the success, due in large to the chemistry of the actors involved, and has become the highlight of my television week. Last night’s episode, the close of a three-story arc, showed a bit of self-awareness that crept beyond the fourth wall, and could have been seen as a plea from inside the writer’s room. The title character, very bluntly, asked if everyone in his life was actually a spy.

Exposing Flaws

Chucks question, while providing a means to reveal the doubts and frustrations of the character, also highlighted a weakness in the show’s formula – how many people can one person know who are actually covert agents on either side of a secret war? To answer the question, “Chuck, I think you’re pretty close to knowing all of them.” This means that the show is quickly coming up on a moment where it has to decide where exactly it’s going.

Remember the Basics

As I noted in the introduction, the basics of a good story, be it a short story, a novel, or a television series all revolve around three main areas: character, setting, and plot. So far, Chuck has pushed furthest into character and left the setting understood, and seems to have mined a bit too far into its general plot, using premise points as specific points, and in doing so, the show itself is in need of some serious guidance.

Embrace the Plot

The current plot formula is quickly running out of room to operate in. Right now, the two largest external forces which drive the plot are Chuck’s competing lives – that of a spy, and that of a hapless civilian. The character is leaning more towards hapless civilian, yet, his moments of spy ascension are the ones that get the audience to cheer. The powers that be need to move Chuck more on the path of breaking from his civilian life and towards being the spy, coming to grips with the role of reluctant hero.

Reinvent the External

The best means to do this is to allow the repeat antagonist to become something more than an ephemeral idea. Some work needs to be done on Fulcrum, the evil spy organization that serves as a string of cardboard baddies. Who is Fulcrum? What are their motivations? What is Fulcrum’s history? And what does that have to do with Chuck? The measure of a hero isn’t who he is, but that which he fights. Chuck is in dire need of an adversary.

Embrace the Backstory

Several Chuck episodes have paid more than lip service to Chuck’s being kicked out of Stanford. The Bryce Larkin character was used as a device to show him saving Chuck from the life of an analyst in the intelligence community, while single-handedly dooming Chuck to his current situation. Jill, Chuck’s old girlfriend, was also recruited at Stanford. The humiliation of being kicked out, wrongfully accused of cheating, has time and time again, been a motivating factor in Chuck’s personal arc. And thanks to Sarah,  Chuck’s spywork, he has been granted his degree, partially closing the book on perhaps the single most humiliating time in his life. The “what” of Stanford has been discussed, but the over-arcing “why” has largely been untouched. Why were both the Intelligence community and Fulcrum recruiting at Stanford? Was Stanford unique? Was Chuck’s story unique? Is there a group of similar recruits, a virtual spy class of two thousand and X out there, right now, fighting an unseen battle? These are questions that should largely be answered to move the plot of the show forward.

Grow the Characters

Last night’s “Unleash the Casey” line brought a smile to my face, and was mentioned over a dozen times on Twitter, a sure sign that the primary character trait of the show’s pit bull (played marvelously by Adam Baldwin), resonated with the audience. Casey, who’s largely a foil for Chuck, shows that they know how to handle at least some of their assets.

The character of Sarah Walker, who’s primary trait seems to be the mystery surrounding her past, largely remains an unknown. Other than the knowledge that she dated Bryce, and that her high school life as a nerd was a cover, not much has been established about her. Her relationship with Chuck is constantly flirted with, and it’s generally understood that she has definite feelings for him. By keeping her sense of mystery, that relationship isn’t done justice, and her character should either have her backstory exposed, or have a her current story grown. This isn’t just a desire to have more screentime for Yvonne Strahovski, it’s a desire to keep one of the principle characters as a character and not mere a lighting rod for the title character’s failed and frustrated romantic interests.

It’s About Chuck

The character who perhaps needs the most work, is Chuck himself. Though numerous attempts have been made to qualify the character as a nerd, none have been fully embraced. The fact that he “likes and knows computers” is established by his job at the Buy More. However, the measure of a nerd is not a mere “like” or a normal measure of knowledge paired with wearing a pocket protector; nerds embrace their chosen medium like a true artist. That is to say that nerds find their true love and they follow it to the point of obsession. Nerds are rarely the socially awkward Jack of All Trades that Chuck has been made out to be, they’re typically single-field specialists, and it is their single minded obsession that renders them socially awkward.

Chuck works best when he’s taking advantage of his specialized knowledge, and when he readily displays his intelligence he is allowed to not be awkward, but to be shown taking steps on the hero’s journey. This needs to be both highlighted and contrasted. Though the character is ultimately human, he often feels boxed in and two dimensional under the weight of the current plot formula. The point of Chuck seems to be his growth from the emotional destruction of being kicked out of college and his descent into a sad, flat, nerdy lifestyle. Establish the lifestyle, and let Chuck take steps towards becoming a true hero in the fight against something, anything.

Know the Future

Though Chuck does not need to become a heavy serialized drama like 24, Lost, or even the first season of Heroes, the future of the show needs to be established. When the future is known, the characters can move forward, they can grow, and the audience can further invest in them. Doing so will hopefully ensure that Chuck the show gets to grow into the full potential that Chuck the idea has. And that should keep what is perhaps my favorite current show on the air from become stale and tired. However, this it the time where Chuck needs to really start making moves. With Heroes failing, and the audience starting to bleed away, the coattails timeslot and chemistry of the crew are not going to keep the show on the air forever.

NBC, if you need help with any of this, let me know. I’ll lend my pen your way.

Hey, Neil Young!

Posted on by

On November 13th, Neil Young put forward an open letter outlining his proposal for how to fix the failing Detroit-based American automobile industry. NPR picked up the story on the 17th, and what proceeds is largely based on a comment I planned to reply with on NPR.org regarding the story. However, NPR’s comment system limits comments to 400 words, and the comment I had drafted tipped the scale above 1000. I clipped my entry down to 400, and am instead redrafting the initial piece here. That is, of course, the point of owning your own website. And fair warning ahead of time, I cut this thing short at 1400 or so words.

-PBR

In his letter “How To Save A Major Automobile Company,” Neil Young states a desire, his desire, that every auto manufacturer who accepts bailout money from the federal government must agree to sweeping, radical changes the govern how these companies are run. Mr. Young’s plan calls for top down changes, a general cleaning of house at the managerial level, sweeping out the ineffective and replacing them with forward thinkers, non-specifically those who have experience guiding more technologically focused fields.

However, Mr. Young’s plan also proposes a set of very strict guidelines that would halt the production of the classic, internal-combustion automobile. His general desire is to drastically shift the entire industry towards the production of Self-Charging Electric Vehicles, or SCEVs. Mr. Young’s plan to do this is to produce the vehicles as they currently stand, but to leave these vehicles as what he calls “transition rollers.” That is a vehicle produced almost to completion though lacking a transmission and an engine. These vehicles would then be fitted to run on current-state electric, or gas-electric motors capable of serving as a stop-gap until the technology exists to produce true SCEVs.

I should say that I support the motivation of Neil Young. Unlike the picture so often presented of a the musician or actor taking advantage of their public profile to espouse their personal beliefs, Mr. Young actually does put his money where his mouth is. He is one of the larger backers and an active participant in a company called LincVolt. LincVolt’s entire mission is to take classic, American cars, remove the internal combustion system, and instead replace these systems with electric power plants. LincVolt works largely because of it’s scale, it’s small, and thus able to capitalize on the relative level of demand for the type of service that it offers.

The concepts that LincVolt has are all very proper solutions to the current situation that the American people, not just the automobile industry, face. However, Mr. Young’s more drastic approach is not. His approach isn’t wrong for wishing to drastically change the cars that Detroit is producing. He’s not wrong for wanting to sweep out the leadership that has largely been deemed ineffective by the woefully unsympathetic judge that is free market capitalism. And he’s not even wrong in proposing that we adapt a stop-gap technology before finally settling on a permanent or semi-permanent replacement for fossil fuel based internal combustion systems. No, Mr. Young is wrong on two very important areas – scale and timing – and how these areas have been models of change in other areas of our day to day life. His scale is too vast and his timing is too poor.

Mr. Young’s proposal is doomed by what Joseph Heller termed “catch twenty-two” – the only time that the federal government could realistically pass such demanding legislation is now, when our country is marred in an economic catastrophe. However, it is this economic situation which would also doom such a plan. The reason is that even if the government were to follow Neil Young’s plan to the letter, there would be far too few buyers to enact the type of change he wishes to bring about.

The law of supply and demand has Mr. Young’s proposal over a barrel. Why? It’s obvious that there is demand for alternative vehicles. The Toyota Prius has been known to actually gain value after being sold and the Chevy Volt is in high demand a year before it’s slated to even be sold. However, that level of demand is hampered by the large scale credit freeze and slow down in overall spending. The perceived demand is more accurately described as a desire. Actual demand, that which is measured in actual buyers, comes nowhere close to the levels which would allow these automakers to continue to make and sell cars while maintaining a positive margin required to continue the process. Though the modern American automobile is weighed down with the pension and benefits of workers present and past, implementing a sweeping change such as this would mean that the new American auto would also be saddled with the cost of new technology.

The concept of starting from a clean slate is appealing in theory, but would prove to be a nightmare in practice. A much more fitting example would be to look at the same industry which Mr. Young proposes the new auto industry talent be culled from – technology. The computer industry, specifically the personal computer industry, serves as an apt analog for the model that the car of tomorrow should be modeled from.

Truth be told, the alternative fuel industry is in much the same situation today, that the personal computer industry was in at the dawn of the 1980s. Back then, computers were slow, large, expensive, and were stacked against an alternative that worked “well enough” – that of paper, pencils, and calculators. But, business as a whole, and a few leaders individually, took to using computers. The competing technologies were judged based on their own merits, and eventually standards arose. The more adopters that a particular computer company had, the easier it was to overcome the initial research costs and the more practiced the producers became. As expected, prices fell. Businesses, which had the most to gain from the computer revolution in terms of increased productivity, shouldered the initial risk and production costs. As that cost was reduced, more and more people started to adopt computers. Soon they made the jump from the office to the home. And the home to the lap. Then the lap to the pocket and to near ubiquity.

The cell phone followed much the same path. And the industries that have formed as off shoots of the computer industry? Like the iPod? The original device was roughly the size of a deck of cards, only came in stainless steel, held a scant 5gb of data, worked with less than 5% of the world’s computers (those running either OS 9 or OSX) and cost an astounding $399. Again, Apple started with a specific subset of buyers, early adopters willing to pay a premium for the initial risk, essentially backing a desired winner. As the price of risk is reduced, the number of people making the change from old to new is increased, often exponentially. And this change isn’t limited to technology, it’s the basis for our entire universe. The reason everything is made of matter instead of anti-matter is due to an imbalance of just one atom.

Mr. Young’s proposal is an attempt to solve two problems with one solution. And because of this, it appears that neither would really get solved. Rather, these two problems need to be addressed independently. The automobile industry must find a way to become economically viable, and America as a whole will have to settle on what the successor to gasoline-based internal combustion will be. The first problem could be legislated into being by attaching strings on a bailout package, the other not so much. To solve the problem with alternative fuels, we must look for who would benefit most and compel them to take the risk of early adoption. When the eventual cost does come down, when the research tax has been paid and production has been sorted out and established, the demand will be there and hopefully the economy will be in a state more willing to buy.

Luckily, there are myriad businesses which would benefit greatly from a sharp reduction in fuel costs, even at the price of an expensive initial investment. The package shipping industry, both private like Federal Express and UPS, or federal like the Postal Service, are obvious candidates for Neil Young’s SCEVs, provided they can overcome the distances that these vehicles travel on a daily basis. And they’re not alone. Taxi and limousine companies, public transportation, long-distance truckers, even restaurants that deliver would all stand to benefit greatly from alternative fuel vehicles. Any one of these industries have the ability to shoulder that initial investment that the American people are too cash-strapped as a whole to endure.

The solutions are out there, they just aren’t in the letter that Mr. Young wrote.

It Started with an Armistice

Posted on by

There’s a distinct chill in the air that marks as official the descent of fall onto central Virginia. I know this because today I am not in one of 130 other countries around the world, countries ranging from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, countries which all have American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen stationed there. Today I am not hunched under a poncho while on guard duty. Today I am not sprawled out on a cot as comfortable as concrete trying to grab some shuteye. Today I am not patrolling through the streets of a foreign town with a rifle in my hands. Today I am not subjected to any of these things because there are millions of others who volunteered to take my place.

Today, Veteran’s Day, is that day in which we thank those who have served on our behalf, those who volunteered, those who fought. And though I cannot speak on behalf of the rest of the veterans out there, I can speak on my own behalf. You see, five years ago, I was those boots on the ground. I was patrolling those foreign streets with a rifle in my hand. I did learn to sleep on those cots that seemed to have concrete

Self Portrait August 2003

Self Portrait August 2003

aspirations. I learned a great deal. About war. About death. About life. About friendship. About meaning.

And in the years since, I’ve learned that it is not easy being a veteran, especially not at this time of year. Veteran’s Day sits at the onset of a very dark stretch of time for deployed service members, that bit of the calendar in which families start to gather for Thanksgiving, and generally stay in touch the New Year. As a vet, as someone who has been there, it’s painful to know throughout the globe there are those who are walking in the same boots I walked in are also going through that longing for friends, family, cheer, warm drinks, Christmas lights.

There is an empathy of common suffering that exists between soldiers, an understanding that starts with basic training. Soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen know that despite what might appear to be differences, despite personal quibbles, that two people in uniform have endured the same general hardships, they’ve passed the same tests, and they stand together as general equals. It is this sense of suffering that separates a veteran from a civilian when that uniform eventually comes off. That empathetic bond is something that veterans are better off for having, and when push comes to shove, it’s what gets us through wars.

You see, the men and women on the ground are brutally aware that war is not about politics. It might seem that way when viewed through a television screen or a newspaper but that’s because war is something that’s far too abstract to understand if you haven’t actually been to war. For those on the ground, the reason to fight is much more easily defined; it is to maintain the bond that exists between those to their left and their right, those who have suffered like they have, and those they have shared experiences with. Those are the only things that matter when war puts lives on the line.

So today Americans are supposed to thank our veterans. We’re supposed to think of the myriad romantic sacrifices, the moments of great hardship, the speeches. But, as just one vet, I say don’t do that. Yes, by all means, say thank you to a veteran. Understand that after seven years of constant war, that there are likely veterans all around you. Many of us have come home, some with open scars, some missing limbs. Some have deep psychological demons. Some managed to make it out without so much as a scratch. Each of us fought a different war, no two experiences seemingly the same. Yet we are all joined by that bond of common suffering, especially those of who have yet to return.

As just one of the twenty five million or so living US veterans, I guess all I can really say is that you’re welcome.

The Eve a Million Moments Coming

Posted on by

Twenty-one months is a lifetime in this, the age of the ten second soundbite. Twenty-one months is forever in the world of the twenty-four hour news cycle. Twenty-one months is essentially a million moments, any of which can prove to be the point of disaster. And yet those string of moments, a million strong and stretched out in a line, represents the current race for the President of the United States of America. The votes to be cast tomorrow surely represent fate, having the ability to decide the direction that this nation, and possibly the world, will follow for the next four years and the millions of moments that will stretch out from there. The race to become the forty-fourth President of this blatantly imperfect union has been less a race and more a war of attrition, tapping into the true military definition of the word campaign. It has been a battle, first within party, and then between parties. And that war has worn down not only those participating, but those of us who have been following. But at long last, we stand on the precipice of a decision.

In my lifetime, this election serves as a first. This election marks the first where I truly care who wins, and the first I’ll actually vote in.

My first adult Presidential Election was the infamous and ill-fated 2000 Election. I, like so many others, did not vote in this election. At the time I was a young man a few days on the other side of twenty years-old. I was living in Georgia but on Election Day I was in California, in the Mojave Desert, at the National Training Center. I was, for lack of a better term, busy. I had a Walkman with me, smuggled out into the active training area, The Box for those familiar with the locale, in the hip pouch that carried my gas mask. Said Walkman had an FM radio on it, and I was instructed by my squad leader, before sacking out for the night to not fall asleep before finding out who won the election.

We were, down to nearly a man, pulling for George W. Bush. Our reasons largely bore down to two primary reasons. The first was that Republicans historically give more money to the military. And when you’re forced to skip training exercises because your unit can’t afford ammunition, having a Republican in the White House is a rather important matter. The second, and this one might surprise people, is because Bush had made bringing the troops home a part of his campaign. Yes, George W. Bush had stood against nation building, and my unit was out in the Mojave preparing for a deployment to Kosovo in the Spring.

These two points were the primary reasons that I, and I believe much of the military, supported Bush’s run for President. They were not huge reasons, but soldiers are people. They have lives and families, and the thought of leaving loved ones for a year at a time can be a major determining factor in anyone’s live. When that decision is not yours to make, you exercise your preference in favor of those likely to decide in ways you approve. We didn’t like Bush anymore than we dislike Gore. Neither, using the military definition of the word, was a leader. At least not in 2000.

Me in Iraq sometime around Feb 2004

Me in Iraq sometime around Feb 2004

As even the most casual historian will point out, nation building did become a focal point of the Bush presidency, but not the reduction of it. September 11th happened. Afghanistan happened. And Iraq happened. I happened with Iraq, resigning from West Point to be there.

I had been back from the war and out of the Army a scant two months when the 2004 election happened. My mother and step-father were both ardent democrats. I, having only recently returned from war, had a natural distrust for Kerry. It was a spot of contention at many a family meal. I had been there, I had been the much clichéd boots on the ground. I been the living example of democracy via a rifle barrel, and I could not bring myself to possibly vote for the man who seemed to have quickly apologized for the war he had fought in for the promise of political silver.

George Bush, however, was not going to get my vote. While I had been in Iraq, and I had known those who claimed up and down to have spent time guarding WMD sites, I had never seen them with my own eyes. What I had seen were a string of moments both miraculous and terrible. And I had seen a situation in which I knew we could not yet afford to leave. Then, in the fall of 2004, Iraq was in a very fragile situation, only recently emerging into statehood of its own and potentially at a risk to collapse at any moment. It was important for the kids and for the future, that we stay in the nation.

Like 2000, there was not a leader available and running to fill the role as President. More so, I found myself unable to trust Kerry, having a hard time even saying his name. My extreme dislike of him forced me by default into the Bush camp. But even as I was in his camp, I could not vote for him. No, I couldn’t bring myself to make a decision between two tragic choices.

Early in this political season, I made the statement that if Obama and McCain each won their party’s nomination, I would have a hard decision ahead of me. Unlike the prior to top-level elections of my adult life, these two men were in fact leaders. Or they seemed at the onset.

Obama possessed the kind of charisma and the ability to construct words in such a fashion that men would charge up hills and gladly take on a nest of machine guns because he said to. Furthermore, Obama possessed the kind of leadership that suggested he would never ask us to charge that machine gun nest lest it were absolutely necessary. Beyond that, he would likely be at the front of the charge. He seemed measured, he seemed passionate, he seemed certain. In a word, Obama seemed to be a natural leader.

McCain had the benefit of coming from a military background. When you’ve served in uniform, even if you never made it through basic training, you have been exposed to this bond. That bond, which we veteran and active duty personnel seem to take for granted, is deep and it’s strong. It’s unspoken not because words are lacking, but because words are unnecessary. McCain also brought to this election a history of being a pragmatist. He, as he so often points out, has a history of crossing party lines.

Each candidate seemed to be a near ideal choice for President in these trying times. One so clearly represented unflinching ideals, tapping into the romanticism that had been lost on Oval Office since Kennedy. The other was practical and realistic, a man’s man, a straight talker, who had somehow been untouched by the Washington Way.

Alas, only one image would survive intact through those million moments. And just the same, only one can be elected. The tolls of the campaign seemed to have drug McCain down from that pragmatic position and worn him down to his most bitter parts. While this tactic can be considered common in a war of attrition, when a soldier is forced to rely on the basest functions to stay alive, the reality is that a President needs to be stronger than that.

I won’t go into a line-item criticism of John McCain out of respect for him, but I will say that despite these million moments, I am still excited about Obama. Yes, at times my affections for him have wained. At times he did drift too close to the center for my taste. And his lack of a filibuster on the FISA amendment did hurt. However, the man does still represent something that I strongly believe in – a drastic change. President Obama will be the polar opposite from that of a President Bush, something that a President McCain could not hope to possibly say. Obama’s campaign has been one of hope and change.

Frankly, President Obama represents the American dream – that of a new beginning.

Yes, that might be a bit of wishful thinking. After all, he is just a man. In the morning Obama puts his pants on one leg at a time. He has the same hopes and fears and apprehensions that the rest of us deal with day in and day out. But he also has an inner strength, a character that says “I am like you, and I can be scared, but when push comes to shove, you can count on me to make the right decisions.”

There is, of course, one very selfish reason why I am proud to cast my vote for Obama tomorrow. As I noted previously, I was in the first year of the modern Iraq war. I served with an amazing group of men the likes of which I could never possibly assemble again. Yet, my contract with the Army expired after the war, and I chose not to reenlist. Many of those that I had the pleasure to serve with were not so lucky. Some thought they were getting out only to be grabbed by the reserves and sent to Afghanistan. Others were locked in and have served their second or third tours in one theatre or another. And yes, some have lost their lives overseas. I have seen the kindest souls I have ever known turn bitter and cynical. This all has taken a very sound toll on me. I am, frankly, tired. I am ready for my brothers and sisters to come home. Barack Obama is the man to do that.

And that is the kind of man I will gladly cast a vote for. That is the kind of man that I want for President.