There's a lot I'd like to be doing right now. Not now now, but at this stage in my life now. Exercise more, pray more, read my Bible more often, get more writing done, do more work on my magazines, get more work published, work more with our business, get my home office cleaned so I have room to actually DO a lot of this stuff....
But as much as I'd like to be doing right now, I have even more excuses for not doing it. I'm busy. The kids are loud. I'm too tired. I'm beset by constant interruptions. There's no room. It doesn't matter anyway. I'll have more time, and more focus, when...
I even have excuses for my solutions. I started getting up an hour earlier in order to put in a solid block of writing each day. But, dangit, 3am is early.
But of course, each of these excuses boils down to a single, fundamental truth: I'm not really all that disciplined. If you're familiar at all with me, or with this blog, you've probably noticed I tend to get easily distracted.
Of course, that's one of the reasons I started this blog -- as a way to both hold myself accountable for my goals and to give positive direction to my split attentions.
And, of course, to help those who are in the same boat I am.
So do I have a solution to my issues? Some. The fact is, while excuses are annoying, they are often valid. There are, indeed, only 24 hours in a day, and I have to sleep during some of them. During others I have to work. I have responsibilities to my home and family. These things are unchangeable. What I can change, though, is what I do with the time I have available. Am I reading to or playing with my kids, or playing Angry Birds? Am I writing, or am I watching TV? Am I spending time with God, or surfing the internet?
It's true that I don't have a lot of extra time available -- but I do have the choice about whether I use it wisely or continue to waste it.
Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
EGN Annoyed my inner nerd, but I still wanna play this game
I've got a post about Walking Dead coming up in a day or two, but since we're nearing the end of Zombie Awareness Month, and I have yet to do any zombie-themed posts for May, I figured I'd add another. In this case, I'm also motivated by the issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly I picked up today. Cover story: Dead Island.
I normally don't bother with it, but I've been following information on this game since first seeing this:
Did you watch it? Did you?! As horrific as it is heartbreaking, this micro-family-drama-in-reverse is possibly the best game trailer ever. I'll grant you, some of my reaction to this video probably has something to do with my deep and abiding interest in all things zombie. But still. Did you watch the video?
So, of course, I had to buy this issue of EGM.
Overall, I was pleased: an interview with the developer, new screen caps... what's not to love? I'll tell you what: "John Romero."
Not Id's John Romero, of "about to make you his b*tch" fame -- though come to think of it, that may have been part of the problem in editing the piece -- but the creator of the original Dead trilogy, King George Himself. It may seem a little nitpicky to complain that an article about a zombie game accidentally called the godfather of All Things Zombie by the wrong name -- heck it happens all the time; and EGM probably has "John Romero" in its auto-correct database -- but still. All I'm sayin' is, if you're doing a piece about a game that was clearly inspired by the Dead films, in a genre practically invented by the creator of those films, and reaching a core audience of fans of those same films, George Romero is a pretty important name to get right. (Note: At least they got it right in the online 'zine.)
Again, this is forgivable. What isn't is that the writer seems not to have actually seen any zombie movies, but is instead basing all his or her comparisons to zombie movies on what he or she has seen referenced in and among pop culture. Example, references to slow zombies as "Romero" archetypes and following it up with "Think: Braaaaiiiiiiins." Maybe it's just the fanboy in me, but I have a serious problem with a write-up of a zombie game making the assumption that, A, people wouldn't understand what a Romero zombie is and, B, that those same people could get the basic 'gist' as long as they've seen footage of Dan O'Bannon's parody. Y'know, in spite of the fact that the "Living Dead" in Romero's and O'Bannon's movies were actually very, very different. Okay, yeah... I'm probably being nitpicky again.
Apart from that, the write-up and interview are well worth checking out. In the meantime, I'm still looking forward to this game.
I normally don't bother with it, but I've been following information on this game since first seeing this:
Did you watch it? Did you?! As horrific as it is heartbreaking, this micro-family-drama-in-reverse is possibly the best game trailer ever. I'll grant you, some of my reaction to this video probably has something to do with my deep and abiding interest in all things zombie. But still. Did you watch the video?
Overall, I was pleased: an interview with the developer, new screen caps... what's not to love? I'll tell you what: "John Romero."
Not Id's John Romero, of "about to make you his b*tch" fame -- though come to think of it, that may have been part of the problem in editing the piece -- but the creator of the original Dead trilogy, King George Himself. It may seem a little nitpicky to complain that an article about a zombie game accidentally called the godfather of All Things Zombie by the wrong name -- heck it happens all the time; and EGM probably has "John Romero" in its auto-correct database -- but still. All I'm sayin' is, if you're doing a piece about a game that was clearly inspired by the Dead films, in a genre practically invented by the creator of those films, and reaching a core audience of fans of those same films, George Romero is a pretty important name to get right. (Note: At least they got it right in the online 'zine.)
Again, this is forgivable. What isn't is that the writer seems not to have actually seen any zombie movies, but is instead basing all his or her comparisons to zombie movies on what he or she has seen referenced in and among pop culture. Example, references to slow zombies as "Romero" archetypes and following it up with "Think: Braaaaiiiiiiins." Maybe it's just the fanboy in me, but I have a serious problem with a write-up of a zombie game making the assumption that, A, people wouldn't understand what a Romero zombie is and, B, that those same people could get the basic 'gist' as long as they've seen footage of Dan O'Bannon's parody. Y'know, in spite of the fact that the "Living Dead" in Romero's and O'Bannon's movies were actually very, very different. Okay, yeah... I'm probably being nitpicky again.
Apart from that, the write-up and interview are well worth checking out. In the meantime, I'm still looking forward to this game.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Who did what to whom: a question of grammar
There is the added irritation that, logically, you can't even lash out at the perpetrator of incorrect usage, because it simply isn't his or her fault. Chances are very good that he or she was taught it incorrectly, or else not really taught it at all.
The word in question: "whom."
How many times, while you were growing up, did you use the word "who" only to be curtly corrected with "whom?" And of those times, how often was it really explained to you? The problem is, as children we were made aware of the word's existence, but never taught how to correctly apply it.
It's like the sea gull in Disney's "The Little Mermaid," WHO is aware of the existence of a fork (or, TO WHOM the existence of a fork is known), but, left to make his own assumptions, decides it is a hair care product.
The result of this semi-education seems to be that many intelligent people -- very many of WHOM are otherwise excellent writers and speakers -- wind up throwing "whom" around with nary a thought as to whether or not it actually belongs. Usually, it doesn't.
So, for those underserved by their teachers, I have a very brief primer on the usage of "who" versus "whom."
Remember: Who did what to whom.
WHO failed in teaching us the proper use of "whom?" Educators.
They failed WHOM? All of us.
Who is ACTIVE
Whom is PASSIVE
If it comes after a preposition (in, to, by, at, etc...), the word is "whom."
If it comes before a verb or verb phrase (including forms of the word "is"), the word is "who."
Who is it? To whom am I speaking?
Grammar Girl puts it this way:
I highly recommend reading her whole piece as well, as she dives a bit deeper than I into the subject.
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, pass this on to your friends. Heck, copy it and paste it in an email. I don't care. But if I keep seeing people using "whom" incorrectly on facebook, I'm gonna snap.
 |
| Who's on First, indeed! |
I'm more and more convinced that educators, well-meaning though they may be, are doing a massive disservice to the English language. This crime against grammar consists of a single word. A word which, when used correctly, is merely a little boring; but when used incorrectly it grates on the ears (or your mind's ears) like the first round of American Idol.
There is the added irritation that, logically, you can't even lash out at the perpetrator of incorrect usage, because it simply isn't his or her fault. Chances are very good that he or she was taught it incorrectly, or else not really taught it at all.
The word in question: "whom."
How many times, while you were growing up, did you use the word "who" only to be curtly corrected with "whom?" And of those times, how often was it really explained to you? The problem is, as children we were made aware of the word's existence, but never taught how to correctly apply it.
It's like the sea gull in Disney's "The Little Mermaid," WHO is aware of the existence of a fork (or, TO WHOM the existence of a fork is known), but, left to make his own assumptions, decides it is a hair care product.
So, for those underserved by their teachers, I have a very brief primer on the usage of "who" versus "whom."
Remember: Who did what to whom.
WHO failed in teaching us the proper use of "whom?" Educators.
They failed WHOM? All of us.
Who is ACTIVE
Whom is PASSIVE
If it comes after a preposition (in, to, by, at, etc...), the word is "whom."
If it comes before a verb or verb phrase (including forms of the word "is"), the word is "who."
Who is it? To whom am I speaking?
Grammar Girl puts it this way:
...you use whom when you are referring to the object of a sentence. Use who when you are referring to the subject of a sentence.
I highly recommend reading her whole piece as well, as she dives a bit deeper than I into the subject.
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, pass this on to your friends. Heck, copy it and paste it in an email. I don't care. But if I keep seeing people using "whom" incorrectly on facebook, I'm gonna snap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)