Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman Latest Pols In Support of Same-Sex Marriage
In the last week, two prominent politicians have come out in favor of same-sex marriage — one, of course, being far more prominent than the other.
The latter person is former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady, Hillary R. Clinton, who today endorsed same-sex marriage with a video put out by the Human Rights Campaign, while the former is Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Portman said his main reason for changing his stance from firm opposition to firm support is his son — who has told him he’s gay, and wants full rights to marry any partner he may take in the future.
This article from PennLive points out how difficult it’s been for Portman, the only Republican Senator in open support of gay marriage, since he’s made his stance public last week. And despite such well-known Republicans as former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Sec. of State Colin Powell also being in support of same-sex marriage, it’s far more easy for a Democrat like Mrs. Clinton or sitting President Obama to admit that he or she supports same-sex marriage than it is for any active Republican officeholder.
Why is this?
PennLive points out that Portman said:
Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his Methodist faith. However, he wrote, “Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.”
Yet most Republican leaders apparently met this with either stony silence or, as PennLive’s article put it, “a shrug,” while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner actually told ABC’s This Week that he’d oppose gay marriage even if his own son was gay.
It’s hard to see this particular comment as anything except a slam against Senator Portman.
Fortunately, it’s not as difficult for a well-known Democrat to let it be known she is in favor of marriage equality.
Mrs. Clinton said that her work at the State Department, including the signing of measures meant to protect long-term same-sex couples, made her reconsider her beliefs (best paraphrase from her video for the HRC, which is available via PennLive). That’s why she, too, has now come out in full support of same-sex marriage.
And, thus far, the Democratic (or democratic-leaning) talking heads on both MSNBC and CNN seem in full support of Mrs. Clinton’s stance, which is not a surprise. The titular head of the party is the President, who is also in support of same-sex marriage (though perhaps less wholeheartedly than Mrs. Clinton).
So, on the one hand we have the Republican Party, which doesn’t seem to want to budge except for a few brave individuals like Senator Portman and several retired Republicans like Cheney and Powell. And on the other, we have the Democratic Party, which has an openly lesbian sitting Senator (Wisconsin’s own Tammy Baldwin), and has embraced advocacy of same-sex marriage as a human rights issue.
Which, to my mind, it is.
Look. This is an issue that everyone should get behind, but it may be impossible for some older Americans to fully understand. Nevertheless, if two people want to marry, and both are consenting adults, the state should allow them to marry. Not stand in their way.
And as far as the religious objections go, we have separation of church and state in our Constitution for a reason — which is why individual churches may still say no to same-sex marriage without penalty.
But it’s also why our country, as a whole, should say yes.
On a personal note, I’m very pleased that Senator Portman has been willing to publicly admit that his stance has changed. This makes me believe there’s at least some hope for the Republican Party to stop making marriage equality a partisan issue — despite well-known obstructionists such as Speaker Boehner.
Just Reviewed Lackey and Mallory’s “Crown of Vengeance” at SBR
Folks, if you are looking for a compelling epic fantasy that’s never boring, features a fine, yet flawed, heroine and a subtext that heroines need love, too (yet can rarely find it), you will really adore Mercedes Lackey and James Mallory’s newest novel, CROWN OF VENGEANCE. Set in their world of Jer-a-Kaliel deep in the misty past, they tell the story of the great Elven Queen Vieliessar Farcarinon . . . and how the myths and legends that have arisen in the centuries upon centuries since her adventures are both more and less than what she actually was.
Before I discuss more of my typical “after-action report,” here’s the link to my review: http://shinybookreview.com/2013/03/17/lackey-and-mallorys-crown-of-vengeance-one-compelling-epic-fantasy/
Now, back to the AAR.
See, Vieliessar is a very complex person. She’s a mage. She’s a fighter. She’s a scholar. She’s a wise and benevolent ruler. But she starts out very much behind the eight ball, as her mother died giving birth to her, the rest of Vieliessar’s family has been killed due to infighting among the Hundred Noble Houses, and because of that infighting, Vieliessar barely knows anything about herself until age twelve or so.
Instead, she thinks she’s Varuthir, and no one special. But she hopes to become an Elven knight anyway, and win glory on the battlefield, as that’s the best way for her to gain a name, and home, of her own.
At that point, she is instead sent to the Sanctuary of the Star — the place her mother gave birth, mind you — to become a perpetual servant. The reason this happens is because the Hundred Houses want no one of Farcarinon left able to reclaim her birthright. But because one petty, spiteful noble actually tells Vieliessar her real name and just a tad about her heritage, Vieliessar becomes both curious and angry as to why she’s been misled all this time.
The Sanctuary is a safe place for Vieliessar for a number of years. She learns more about who she is by doing various things, including learning that servants are just as important as nobles, that the status of the Landbonds (serfs tied to the land, more or less — farmers) is far below their actual worth and value, and that she actually has magical talent.
Then, after she’s resigned herself to becoming Vieliessar Lightsister (sort of a combination of mage, cleric and scholar), she has to reinvent herself again due to factional infighting at the Sanctuary. (Mind you, I didn’t have time to get into that in my review, plus I didn’t want to give too much away. Read the rest of this AAR at your own risk!) And she becomes a swordswoman.
At this point, she finds a few of her family’s old retainers — the few that were left alive after the destruction of House Farcarinon — and decides to go to war.
But she’s not going to war with the other nobles, even though they think she is due to her destiny as the “Child of the Prophecy.” (I talk more of this in my review.) Instead, she knows she must unite the noble houses behind her banner in order to fight the nasty, vicious, disgusting and evil Endarkened — blood mages of the worst sort, who don’t see themselves as evil but obviously are.
Note that Vieliessar does not know who the Endarkened are, much less what. But she does know that some sort of monstrous evil has been prophesied. She also knows that she’s sensed something really bad out there that doesn’t like Elves, and figures that this must be the evil that’s been prophesied. (She’s right, too.)
Book one mostly discusses Vieliessar’s quest to unite the noble houses. It’s an absorbing read so long as it’s fixed on Vieliessar’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations — and it’s even interesting when dealing with the petty, political one-upmanship seen in the various maneuvering of the noble houses as they try, in vain, to escape their eventual joint fate as vassals to Vieliessar.
Really, if you enjoy a good, solid epic fantasy, you will love this book. And if you loved any of Lackey and Mallory’s previous six collaborative efforts, you will assuredly love this book . . . so what’s stopping you from first reading my review, then reading the book itself? (Go pick up a copy today! Further reviewer sayeth not.)
Editorial Ramblings
Before I get into this long-overdue blog about my actual profession (writing and editing), let me say something important:
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s talk about editing.
Because I’ve been doing so much editing lately, I’ve had trouble snapping out of “editor mode” and back into whatever mode I’m in when I write. This makes it more difficult to write blogs — even short ones — as much of my energy is being applied elsewhere.
The ability to write words is something I’ve called the “alpha state,” also known as the best place to be for a writer. This is when words flow naturally, and it’s seemingly easy to tell a story. I say “seemingly” because once you’re in the editing phase, you realize how much more work there is yet to do.
That’s why I thought today might be a good day to say a few specific words about editing. Because even though I’ve not specifically talked much about editing, it’s an extremely important part of any writer’s job whether you call yourself a “writer/editor” or not.
Writers often consider editors to be a “necessary evil” even if they, too, are editors. This is one of the odder things about the whole “writing/editing” profession; you don’t start editing unless you know something about writing, and you also don’t start editing unless you really enjoy writing (or at the very least, enjoy reading).
Yet the myth of the “Evil Editor” can’t help but persist, especially among writers who are just starting out or those who haven’t worked with many editors over time. I don’t know how this myth got started, but it really needs to come to an end. Pronto.
I can guarantee to you that, as an editor, I don’t go out of my way to cause trouble for writers. I understand writers (I should, because I am one), and I also understand the worry that an editor possibly won’t understand what you’re writing, and thus won’t be of any use to you.
For those extremely nervous writers out there (I won’t call you “nervous Nellies,” as at least some of your nerves are justifiable, if not actually justified), you need to remember that a good editor helps you clarify your thoughts and clean up your manuscript. Editors exist to help writers, to help polish up that gem of a story you have that’s ready to go out into the big, wide world — otherwise, what would be the point?
I mean, if editors were out there hoping for “perks,” the profession would’ve died out long ago.
Smart writers want editors to look over their work and give suggestions for improvement — at least, I know I want as much editorial help as I can find. Because while my writing is sound, and my ideas are fresh, why not run it by an editor and make my book even better?
Also, remember that even if you, the writer, don’t always agree with your editor, usually some sort of consensus can be reached if the lines of communication remain open. And if you’re willing to trust in the process — and not just eschew all editing because your book is perfect as it is, thank you.
Bottom line? You need to stop fearing the editor, or at least fearing the editorial process. Because your editor — whomever he or she may turn out to be — can help you improve your manuscript.
And really, isn’t that what it’s all about?
————
Note: For those of you who would prefer not to deal with editors, and think your work is perfect as it stands, thank you very many — I have news.
It isn’t.
We all need editing. Every single last solitary one of us.
So rather than fearing the editorial process, or worse, disdaining it as unnecessary, you need to work with it.
Because it’s part of being a professional writer.
And if you’re in this business to be an obnoxious boor, and are insistent that you do not need editing or editors because you are perfect in every conceivable way and the words you’ve written don’t need editing because of your self-same perfection . . . and you then proceed to denigrate editors and editing whenever you can . . . all I can say to you is this:
Grow up. (Seriously.)
Biased Judging Rears Its Ugly Head Again in Figure Skating
Folks, when I turn on the World Figure Skating Championships in any year, I expect to see great competition. I expect to see artistry, athleticism, dynamic performances, and proper, unbiased judging that’s based on what the figure skater in question actually does, rather than whether or not the judges in question like the figure skater.
I don’t always get it.
In 2010 at the Vancouver Olympics, United States figure skater Johnny Weir, a three-time U.S. champion, was denied a place on the podium. There was never any explanation given for this, even though Weir arguably skated the best and cleanest program of any of the top male skaters. Other skaters who finished in front of him included Patrick Chan (5th), who fell, Stephane Lambiel (4th), who fell, and Daisuke Takahashi (3rd), who also fell but received the bronze medal anyway. Nobonari Oda, who had a skate lace break, necessitating a break in the action while he went to get a new one and a mandatory deduction taken off his score, finished just behind Weir.
Weir was able to rise above this unfair result, and has become one of the most popular, visible, and undoubtedly flamboyant figure skaters of his era. But he shouldn’t have had to do so.
Instead, he should have won the bronze that night, and be known forever after as an Olympic medalist.
Today, there were two biased and inexplicable judging events at the 2013 Worlds. (Note that Weir, being injured, did not compete in the U.S. Nationals, much less this particular competition. But he did take in the action. More on that later.)
The first problematic judging was seen in Friday afternoon’s pairs event, held in London, Ontario, Canada. German pair Aliona Savchenko and Robin Szolkowy skated a flawed, yet entertaining program that normally would’ve landed them in fourth or fifth place if the skating alone had been judged. However, they were instead held up by remarkably high program component scores — what used to be called the “artistic presentation” scores — and won the silver medal over two more deserving Canadian pairs, Meagan Duhamel/Eric Radford and Kirsten Moore-Towers/Dylan Moscovitch. The Canadian pairs had to settle for third and fourth place, respectively.
Universal Sports Network’s color commentator, Peter Carruthers (himself a silver medalist at the 1982 Worlds and the 1984 Olympics in pairs), couldn’t believe it. He even said — rare for a commentator — that he felt the PCS scores had been “padded” to help Savchenko and Szolkowy out.
But that, bad as it was, paled compared to tonight’s fiasco in the men’s singles competition.
Denis Ten of Kazakhstan went out and skated the performance of his life in the men’s long program. He was by far the best and most entertaining skater, and — more importantly — he didn’t fall. And Ten won the free skate . . . but somehow still finished second to Patrick Chan of Canada. Despite Chan’s two outright falls, three double-foot landings, and several jumps that looked to the naked eye as if they were under-rotated in Chan’s long program, Chan — just like Savchenko and Szolkowy before him — was “held up” by overly inflated PCS scores.
And what’s so silly about this is that Chan had a very good short program. That gave him a lead of nearly ten points going into tonight’s free skate. Due to Ten’s brilliant program, Chan’s lead would’ve evaporated if he’d been judged fairly. Especially considering all the times Chan fell, double-footed jumps and otherwise looked like he was sleepwalking through his program. Which was pretty much all of the final three minutes and thirty seconds.
Sure, Chan landed two quadruple jumps early on. (Ten, to be fair, did only one.) But other than that, Chan did not look like he deserved to be on the podium tonight, much less win the gold medal.
Much less be what he is right now — a three-time gold medalist at the World Figure Skating Championships, despite falling several times during his 2012 long program as well.
The only way I can reconcile Chan’s standing with the judges compared to what Chan actually does on the ice is this: The judges seem to have a love affair with Patrick Chan. They believe he has superb skating skills — which, to be honest, he does. (Not better than several others in the field tonight, but I’ll grant that he’s among the top five or six in the world among current, competitive “amateur” skaters.) They appreciate his artistry, far more than anyone outside of Canada does, and they reward him for it.
To the detriment of other skaters.
What’s really frustrating about tonight’s judging fiasco is that, lost in the shuffle, Brian Joubert of France skated a powerful, clean program that should’ve landed him in the top five — if not garnered him a place on the podium with a bronze. But the judges put his PCS marks down and did not give him credit for what he actually accomplished — shades of what they did to Weir in Vancouver in 2010.
Which is why Joubert, who skated very well — much better than many others, including Patrick Chan — landed in an undeserved spot, finishing in ninth place.
That’s just not right.
Other than that, Max Aaron of the United States came in seventh — good for him, especially considering tonight’s abhorrent judging — and Ross Miner did not do well at all, finishing in fourteenth place. (The crew at Universal Sports didn’t even show his long program, more or less conceding that it wasn’t very good.) This may have been Miner’s only shot ever to skate at the World Figure Skating Championships, as both Weir and former Olympic, World and U.S. Champion Evan Lysacek plan to compete for the two spots available for the 2014 Sochi Olympics in addition to three-time U.S. Champion Jeremy Abbott (who finished third at this year’s U.S. Nationals, barely missing a chance to compete at the Worlds) and, of course, reigning men’s champ Aaron.
At any rate, it’s not just me who’s frustrated and upset by the men’s event tonight. Here’s Johnny Weir’s take, from Twitter:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirThis judging is ridiculous and the only reason people buy it is because it’s in North America. Imagine the outcry if it were Russia+Plush!?
Then Weir posted this:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirMy world champion is
@Tenis_Den. No question. Congratulations. Everyone should be feeling some Kazakh pride!#Молодец
Earlier in his Twitter feed, Weir also had kind words for Brian Joubert:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirBrian Joubert’s performance was the most encouraging of the night. Our generation can still do it. 🇫🇷
Weir wasn’t the only well-known figure skater publicly left scratching his or her head regarding tonight’s judging. Here’s what United States figure skater Christina Gao had to say:
Amazing skate,
@Tenis_Den!#inspiring
Then, after Ten was inexplicably robbed of his rightful gold medal, she posted this:
Wait what? I’m confused by my own sport.
#somethingswronghere#FSworlds13 more like#BSworlds13
So if two really fine figure skaters think there’s something wrong, there probably is.
Clean it up, International Skating Union. Or soon, figure skating as a sport will be considered no better than World Wrestling Entertainment.
Fun to watch, sure. But . . . dare I say it . . . fixed.
World Baseball Classic Game Turns Ugly as Teams Canada, Mexico Brawl
Baseball fans will remember March 9, 2013.
Why?
Because today, of all days, the World Baseball Classic actually had a game that contained a nasty brawl. As the WBC is meant as an international showcase, and as baseball rarely has brawls, the juxtaposition of the two things did not go over well.
Here’s the situation. It’s the top of the 9th. The setting is Phoenix, Arizona. Team Canada leads Team Mexico by a score of 9-3. Canada’s Chris Robinson bunts for a base hit, which isn’t something usually done when your team is up by six runs.
This bunt upset Team Mexico. (Though perhaps the word “upset” is a bit of an understatement.)
And a brawl broke out.
As the Miami Herald’s account of the game pointed out:
Under normal circumstances, Robinson’s bunt would be considered a serious breach of etiquette and not attempted out of professional courtesy. But the WBC rules are different.
Run differential is the first tiebreaker when two teams have the same record, and with only two of the four countries in each pool advancing to the next round, chances are good it will come down to that.
As a result, piling it on is not only permitted in the WBC, it’s advised.
At any rate, Team Mexico was furious. Third baseman Luis Cruz clearly indicated to relief pitcher Arnold Leon that the next batter for Team Canada should get hit. It took Leon three tries to hit Rene Tosoni, though Leon was warned after his second close pitch that he’d be ejected if he continued to throw at Tosoni.
After that, things just went wild on the field. (To see the melee in progress, check out this link, courtesy of USA Today, for further details.)
From the Miami Herald’s account of the brawl:
Benches cleared immediately, and the situation deteriorated quickly.
Unlike most baseball skirmishes, tempers in Saturday’s disagreement resulted in fisticuffs, as a huge throng of players for both teams congregated at home plate and began throwing punches, hauling each other to the ground, and putting their opponents in headlocks.
“It’s part of the game that you don’t see all the time,” Canada first baseman Justin Morneau said. “Usually it’s just words being said. There’s not always punches being thrown. But there’s a point you’ve got to stand up for yourself.”
The upshot of the melee was that seven players were ejected: Tosoni, Pete Orr, and Jay Johnson of Team Canada, and Leon, Alfredo Aceves, Oliver Perez and Eduardo Arredando for Team Mexico. Surprisingly, the umpires did not feel that Cruz deserved to be ejected even though he’s the one who instituted the whole thing.
Then, the fans got into the act. From the USA Today’s account:
It turned ugly from the stands, too, when someone threw a water bottle that hit pitching coach Denis Boucher. Canadian shortstop Cale Iorg fired the bottle back into the stands.
Minutes later, someone threw a baseball at Walker, causing another stop in play. Whitt went to home-plate umpire Brian Gorman and told him that he would pull his team off the field if another incident occurred. Gorman went to Team Mexico and said the game was in danger of being forfeited.
The public address announcer informed the pro-Mexico crowd that any further disruption would cause a forfeit.
So, did you catch all that?
In case you didn’t, here’s what occurred: First, the pitcher for Team Mexico was told to throw at the second batter for Team Canada after the first batter had bunted for a base hit. It took Team Mexico’s pitcher three tries, but he eventually hit Team Canada’s second batter.
Team Canada’s batter went after the pitcher. (Too bad he didn’t go after the third baseman who started it all, but that’s another story.) So those two, normally, would be the only ones fighting.
However, in this case, two outfielders from Team Canada came off the bench and gleefully joined in the melee, while two relief pitchers plus one of Team Mexico’s outfielders also joined in the melee and hit numerous people, including Canada’s first base coach Larry “the Hat” Walker.
And somehow, the guy who started it all — Luis Cruz — not only didn’t get ejected, he didn’t even get fined. (Though this may change once the replays are viewed.)
The joke usually goes in hockey that a brawl was scheduled, but a hockey game broke out. It’s shocking to realize that baseball, too, can have such an occurrence happen — all because of this quirk in the WBC rules that says you need to run up the score, or you have no chance to advance in the case of a tie.
And because of one man — Luis Cruz — who was offended that Canada’s Chris Robinson did what he was asked to do by his manager, Ernie Whitt, and bunted for a base hit in the top of the ninth.
One would hope that down the line, Cruz will realize that not only was this unnecessary, it was an extremely stupid decision.
But for now, all Team Canada can do is wait to see if anyone ends up getting suspended. As Team Mexico is out of the tournament, further enforcement of WBC rules probably will not apply.
And if that seems unfair to anyone else, do let me know. Because I seriously hope I’m not the only one disquieted by Cruz’s actions.
First Sign of Spring: Milwaukee Brewers, Bob Uecker on Radio
Today, while driving around and doing errands, I finally felt the approach of spring.
What was it? (Hint, hint: if you’ve read the title, you already know.) Was it that the days are getting longer and the nights a wee bit shorter?
Nope.
Was it that the snowfall we just got a few days ago started to melt today?
Again . . . no.
Instead, it was hearing Bob Uecker (along with partner Joe Block) call a Milwaukee Brewers game in Spring Training that reminded me that spring will soon be here. Uecker is a Wisconsin institution, as he’s announced for the Brewers since the early 1970s — not to mention being enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY, due to his skill as an announcer.
Hearing Uecker’s voice went a long way toward alleviating the otherwise cold, drab and somewhat dank day. This despite the fact that I only recognized the name of one player from last year — Alex Gonzalez, who’s trying to make the team as a backup shortstop and utility player after suffering a season-ending ACL tear in early 2012 — and only a few of the names of the prospects, either. (I recognized relief pitcher Johnny Hellweg, though — he came over in the Zack Greinke deal last year from Anaheim.)
Uecker’s voice was enough to remind me that soon, Corey Hart’s injury will be healed. He’ll join Rickie Weeks, Aramis Ramirez, Nori Aoki, Yovani Gallardo, John Axford and others, probably by the end of April (which is Hart’s timetable, not the Brewers’, as the latter is sticking to the end of May initial diagnosis until Hart proves otherwise).
And because of the recent purchase of DirecTV in the household, I’ll once again be able to watch games (perhaps listening to Uecker on the radio, as I enjoy his call of the game so much), which I hadn’t been able to do since the earliest part of 2012.
(Short answer as to why: I needed a break from TV. I got it. Now it’s back. We’ll see how it goes.)
Anyway, it’s time to give three cheers for Bob Uecker, Joe Block, and the Milwaukee Brewers — harbingers of spring.
Hip, hip . . . hooray! (Repeat as needed.)
Just Reviewed Lenore Applehans’ “Level Two” at SBR
Folks, if you’re looking for a unique and different take on the afterlife, Lenore Applehans’ debut novel LEVEL 2 has you covered. This is a young adult dystopian romance featuring good and bad angels, a distinctly different take on Purgatory, and an interesting young woman, Felicia Ward.
The main reason I picked up LEVEL 2 (spelled out in the titles, both here and over at Shiny Book Review, for ease of reference) is because of its take on Purgatory. I thought, This sounds interesting. No one’s done that in a long time, particularly not in the context of a young adult dystopian romance.
And I wasn’t disappointed, either, as LEVEL 2 was original, suspenseful (despite its inherent nature, which meant flashbacks were a must), and had the nearly obligatory “love triangle” — except that the bad boy, Julian, was far more interesting than good boy, Neil. (Which is closer to what happens in real life, actually.) Even though Felicia didn’t seem to realize it, at least in this novel.
(LEVEL 3 will be out next year, so perhaps this will change.)
Anyway, I just reviewed LEVEL 2 over at SBR — go take a look! (Further reviewer sayeth not.)
Twilight Times Books to Offer Free E-Books Between March 3 and 9, 2013
Folks, I have three pieces of information to impart today regarding Twilight Times Books (TTB).
First, there’s a giveaway going on next week (March 3 to March 9, 2013) over at Twilight Times Books for “Read an E-Book Week.” Several books will be given away, including Stephanie Osborn’s THE CASE OF THE DISPLACED DETECTIVE: THE ARRIVAL (book 1 in her Displaced Detective series). Read all about it here.
Second, there will be a concurrent sale over at TTB on their most popular e-books. The sale will take place at TTB’s own site, over at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and other fine e-book outlets. So there’s never been a better time to read an e-book — or a cheaper one — than March 3 to March 9, 2013.
Third — and most personally relevant — is that I’ve been named to the TTB Editorial Board. (Check this link for further details.) Publisher Lida Quillen let me know she was going to do this, which I truly appreciate.
There’s really no better way for a publisher to show her appreciation of what you’re doing as an editor than by public acknowledgement of this type. So I’m quite pleased to be able to point this out. (I’ve known about it for a week, but wanted to discuss it now to coincide with the “read an e-book” promotion.)
Also, please check out the Advanced Reader Copies (ARCs) currently being offered by Twilight Times Books. I edited SAILING UPHILL by Gerald Mills, a fine and funny book about sailing and life. I also edited ANSELM: A Metamorphosis by Florence Byham Weinberg, an excellent literary fantasy set in 1965 about a flawed Catholic priest and a flawed literary professor, and how they intersect. And I edited LUCID by Natalie Roers, a young adult literary fantasy about lucid dreaming with a sweet romance at its heart. (I’m also currently in the midst of editing two other books for TTB, but those three are done and in, so I can talk about them.) Please go to this page to order the ARCs for these three fine books right now.
And do, do check out Stephanie Osborn’s free e-book next week. She deserves a much wider audience.
Thus ends this public service announcement.
Pianist Van Cliburn Dies at 78
Very few classical musicians ever become known worldwide. Van Cliburn was one of those few.
Cliburn, who died at age 78 of bone cancer earlier today, was the first American ever to win the Tchaikovsky International Piano Competition in Moscow (then part of the Soviet Union) in 1958 at the age of 23. He was a Cold War hero ever after, as well as being a symbol of how powerfully music can communicate when, seemingly, nothing else can.
Here’s a link to the Associated Press article about Cliburn, written by Angela K. Brown (courtesy of Yahoo.com). It gives further information about Cliburn’s life, career, touring and popularity, and is an excellent overview of what Cliburn was all about.
But to musicians, Cliburn was about much more than mere symbolism. He played in an extravagant, romantic way that nevertheless effectively communicated any style of music he cared to play. He believed that people should be able to tell if music made sense whether or not they were trained classical musicians, because music was and is intended to move others — and it’s been that way ever since we lived in caves and played prehistoric instruments.
Cliburn played so well that nearly all of his “signature pieces” were recorded. Amazon.com has a list of his recordings, including a compilation of all of his known albums. Mostly, he played well-known pieces from the Romantic period — composers like Brahms, Beethoven, Schumann, and Lizst — but he also enjoyed Debussy, Ravel, and some 20th century composers.
The Washington Post obituary for Cliburn reveals more information about why Cliburn rarely played in public after 1974. Apparently fame was quite difficult for him to bear, as was the constant touring of his chosen profession. Cliburn needed time to rest and recharge his batteries.
After that, Cliburn’s talent was still apparent, but his playing wasn’t as sharp or clean. He sometimes forgot passages, which proves how human he could be (all pianists must memorize their pieces, and when you’re memorizing three or four pieces of at least twenty minutes in duration for a concert, even the most brilliant person with the best memory can make mistakes). He was still a great pianist, but no longer in his prime — yet he continued to play, and give the audience excellent musical experiences, which was a testimony to his professionalism.
See, even a musician past his or her prime can still thrill an audience. We tend to forget that, as a society, because we celebrate youth, sometimes to the exclusion of all else. But Cliburn was able to prove that a musician of great gifts can still give something back in his performances, even into what most would consider to be an advanced age.
Cliburn’s recordings should help everyone remember just how much talent a young man from Texas had, once upon a time. And how he did his best to convert upon that talent, even if not all music critics believed that he’d fully lived up to his potential.
Cliburn leaves behind many friends and a long-time male companion, as well as many people who adored his music and couldn’t get enough of it, to honor his memory. Thanks to the magic of sound recording, we’ll be able to remember Cliburn and his major musical talent for decades to come.
Really, all any artist can ask for, upon his or her death, is that people remember him and what he did. That’s the standard of success, when it comes right down to it . . . and Cliburn met that.
May his eternity be ever-bright.
Snow Days, Snow Days . . . .
As of this moment, there’s about eight inches of snow on the ground — all of which fell in the past twelve hours or so. More snow is expected to fall, which begs the question: “So, Barb. What do you plan to do with yourself, now that you’re going to have a snow day?”
Ha!
I plan to write, as I’ve done a little of that every single day for the past week. My word count over time isn’t great — my high day was 1100 words, my low was about 300 — but I’m glad I’m making some forward progress again after being so ill.
I also plan to edit, as I’m working on two big projects right now (the third major one having wrapped up late last week).
And, finally, I’ll watch the snow fall . . . because really, it’s much better to admire the snow from the inside, where you’re not having to walk (or worse, drive) on it, than to be out in it.
Especially when the wind is blowing the existing snow sideways (as it has been for most of the day) . . . anyway, stay safe, everyone.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 