Just Reviewed Lackey/Edghill’s “Legacies” and “Conspiracies” at SBR
Folks, if you love urban fantasy as much as I do, you really need to grab hold of these novels and don’t let ’em go until you’ve read ’em.
Mercedes Lackey and Rosemary Edghill have created a magical academy out in the middle of Montana called Oakhurst that’s both familiar and terrifying. They get all the “teen stuff” right — the “teen speak,” all the emphasis on technology, wanting to eat junk food (and hating healthy food, for the most part), “teen angst,” etc. — and they also manage to get in there a great many hints at mysteries that go back to the Morte d’Arthur . . . really nice work, and I enjoyed both Legacies (book one) and Conspiracies (book two) immensely.
So go read my review already, then go grab the books!
The Topsy-Turvy, Upside-Down NFL: Packers lose, Colts win, and Tebow becomes a “mere mortal”
Today’s slate of National Football League games held high drama, stunning reversals, and at least one game that featured the comeuppance of a highly-touted player, Tim Tebow.
First, the local news: the Green Bay Packers’ bid to go undefeated this season is over. They lost, 19-14, to the Kansas City Chiefs; the Chiefs played a very strong, ball-control offense and didn’t give up any offensive turnovers. Aaron Rodgers, who’s had an outstanding season thus far, had a rather pedestrian game with 235 yards passing, was sacked four times, and even threw one INT (though to be fair, many of his receivers, including TE Jermichael Finley, dropped many well-thrown balls, which is partly why Rodgers’ stat line read 17-35); in fact, NFL retread Kyle Orton, who’s the Chiefs newest QB, had a far better game with 299 yards passing on 23-31 attempts, with no sacks and no INTs.
Read more about the Packers-Chiefs game here; the Packers new record is 13-1, while the Chiefs are at 6-8.
Now, as for the good surprise of the day — the Indianapolis Colts have finally won their first game, trouncing the Tennessee Titans 27-13. Colts starting QB Dan Orlovsky has finally won a game (in his previous seven years in the NFL, Orlovsky was 0-9 as a starter), the Colts have avoided an 0-16 season, and Colts’ fans can finally hold their heads up high after their team played an excellent second half to deny Tennessee (7-7).
Here’s what the Titans’ coach Mike Munchak had to say about it all:
“I never would have expected us to come out, and they’re playing like the team going to the playoffs and we’re the team that’s 0-13,” coach Mike Munchak said. “We just weren’t playing well at all. The intensity wasn’t there at the start.”
That’s why the NFL has its famous saying, that anyone can beat anyone else on “any given Sunday.” Because I agree with Munchak; the Titans still have a chance to go to the playoffs, while the Colts came into this game winless and really had only one halfway decent game all year before this (and they still lost it).
Finally, the New England Patriots did something I never thought they could do: they got me to root for them.
Why is this? Well, it’s simple. I have a hard time with players like Tim Tebow, who seem to believe that God cares whether or not they win football games. (I believe the Deity cares about individuals playing the games, yes. And I think that the Deity probably cares whether the games are “clean” ones, with no dirty play, no gamblers’ interference, and no terrible injuries. But I do not believe any Deity worth His, Her, or Its salt would ever care about who actually wins these games — that’s up to the players, and coaches, and how hard everyone works, and sometimes even whether or not the ball bounces the right way.)
Tebow, you see, is not a prototypical NFL QB. So much has been written about this because Tebow runs as well as passes; he’s far from the first QB to do this, as NFL Hall of Famer Fran Tarkenton was famous for this back in the early 1970s, but there’s been so much press about Tebow of the fawning variety that I’ve had it.
So I actually rooted for New England, even though I dislike their team and don’t really care for Tom Brady as a person, either — though of course I admire his play on the field — because the Patriots, to the best of my knowledge, have never had any player whatsoever insist that his ability to play football is “divinely inspired.”**
At any rate, while Tebow did run for two TDs (and looked good doing it), and threw for 194 yards and looked halfway decent doing that (Tebow is left-handed and has an off-kilter throwing motion, though it has improved), the Patriots were by far the better team; this is why the Patriots (11-3) won, 41-23, over the Broncos (8-6). Brady had an excellent day, throwing for 320 yards and completing 23 of 34 passes with two throwing TDs and one rushing TD. (Note that many of the Broncos had “fumble-itis” for most of the second half, which is one reason why Tebow couldn’t perform any of his comeback “mojo.”)
Read more about the Broncos — and Tebow’s — comeuppance here.
As for next week? Who knows what’ll happen in the NFL, other than that there’ll be some great games, some good ones, some stunning upsets and some thrilling comebacks (in no particular order).
—————–
**
Note that Green Bay Packers DE and legend Reggie White (aka “the Minister of Defense”), sometimes did say that God was on his side. But he was a minister. I have a better understanding of why a minister would say this than someone like Tebow, who isn’t. And White didn’t say this from the time he was a rookie, either, nor did he come into the league and insist from the start that God was on his side to the exclusion of everyone else in the league — White believed God was on his side, sure, but he also believed that God had given him the ability to play football so White himself could help determine the outcome on the field along with the other players constituting the Green Bay Packers. (In other words, while White was a Godly man, he believed that football is a team sport. Which, of course, it is.)
I far prefer White’s attitude to Tebow’s, because I understand why someone who believes in God and is an extremely spiritual person (as White was; I met him, once, and there was no doubt) would believe God is everywhere, including on the football field. But I do not understand why any one player like Tebow would believe that God is so much on his side that this is the only reason his team, the Broncos, has won any games whatsoever — that denigrates everyone on the Broncos who isn’t Tebow, and that’s the main reason I really don’t understand Tebow’s attitude.
Just Reviewed Maya Rodale’s “A Tale of Two Lovers” at SBR
Folks, if you like originality and can handle a plot that’s extremely implausible in that it’s all supposedly happening in 1823, you’ll enjoy Maya Rodale’s A TALE OF TWO LOVERS. The writing quality is, overall, quite good. The premise is original. The romance itself between the two lovers, Lady Somerset (a gossip columnist) and Lord Roxbury (a notorious rake that Lady S. has wronged), is fine and often funny.
But I couldn’t get past the implausibility of it all; that there’s one bit of writing that echoes too closely a line from the movie Fight Club didn’t help.
At any rate, here’s the review, where I tried my best to praise the writer for her writing, while pointing out how unlikely any of this would’ve been to happen in 1823, of all times:
Enjoy!
Just reviewed Kevin Sorbo’s autobiography TRUE STRENGTH at SBR
Folks, if you haven’t read Kevin Sorbo’s autobiography TRUE STRENGTH: My Journey from Hercules to Mere Mortal and How Nearly Dying Saved My Life (co-written with his wife, Sam Sorbo), you really should. It’s an excellent memoir, well written, well-thought out, and has enough Hollywood “names” dropped to please any fan. Yet the real purpose of this book is never obscured; as the subtitle says, Sorbo had to deal with a major medical crisis and he nearly died due to many blood clots in one of his arms. During this time, he also found out that he’d suffered three strokes.
And this didn’t happen at a particularly good time, either — not that life-threatening illnesses ever do, mind — because Sorbo was at the height of his fame. He was starring on the TV show Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. And he well knew that in Hollywood, fame can be quite fleeting; due to this illness, he had to turn down at least one movie role (a lead role, at that), which just made his overall feelings of helplessness even worse.
Sorbo had no idea if he’d recover or not when all this happened. It was kept very quiet, just how ill he was, and his doctors didn’t have any idea how to help him once his initial arm problems were fixed. So he suffered as anyone who’d nearly died would suffer — he dealt with despair. Depression. Feelings of worthlessness. And as he’d not been with Sam all that long when the health crisis happened, he had to be concerned that she’d maybe not want to stay with him, too.
The upshot of Sorbo’s tale is that he got in touch with the Higher Power. He learned to enjoy his family, his faith, his friends, and value them above his work — because no matter how enjoyable (or lucrative) his TV series was, he was still going to be there at the end of his, providing he survived in the first place. (That’s why he subtitled the book the way he did.)
The way this book is written is refreshing; Sorbo is candid but in a way that doesn’t reveal as much as it seems. His wife, Sam, reveals more in the passages she wrote — what she was thinking at the time, what she noticed about her soon-to-be-husband, and the fact that living through this with him was important to them both.
This is an excellent book, so even if you hate Hollywood and couldn’t stand either of Kevin Sorbo’s TV series (as he also was in Andromeda), you should read it. The quality of the writing is outstanding, as is the craftsmanship. And the overall message — that it’s people who are important, not things (even “things” such as your own profession) — needs to be stated far more often.
Here’s the link to my review:
Have at!
Ryan Braun, MVP, Tests Positive for Steroids; Will Appeal
Milwaukee Brewers player Ryan Braun, who is also the 2011 Most Valuable Player for the National League, has apparently tested positive for steroids — or, as Major League Baseball (MLB) likes to call them, “performance enhancing drugs,” or PEDs.
See this link for further details:
Note the word “apparently.” This is because there is no confirmation from MLB as to whether or not this actually happened.
Here are a few paragraphs from the article; please note that the Yahoo Sports blog is referencing an earlier report at ESPN that I wasn’t able to find:
The “Outside the Lines” report goes on to clarify that elevated levels of testosterone in Braun’s sample are what triggered the positive test. Further tests showed that the testosterone was synthetic. In other words, Braun’s body did not produce it naturally.
MLB went on to consult the World Anti-Doping Agency lab for a second opinion to confirm the results. The WADA conducted a secondary test to see whether the increase in testosterone could have been produced by Braun himself or if it came from a secondary source.
The test confirmed MLB’s original results. The extra testosterone came from outside Braun’s body.
So, if this is all to be believed, Braun apparently tested positive for having too much testosterone in his bloodstream. And MLB insists that it’s of a synthetic nature, meaning Braun couldn’t have produced it himself. So that means that it’s possible that Braun’s outstanding 2011 season, which produced 33 HRs, 111 RBIs, and a .331 batting average, wasn’t produced naturally.
But here’s the thing. Braun has been an outstanding player from the time the Brewers brought him up. He won the Rookie of the Year Award in 2007. His lifetime numbers are comparable to his MVP numbers; over his last five seasons, he’s averaged 36 HRs and 118 RBIs a season, and has hit over .300 every year except 2008 (when he “only” hit .285); his lifetime batting average, over five complete seasons, is .312.
So I don’t really see where Braun could’ve been taking anything that was of an enhancing nature, especially if he’s never tested positive before (and indeed, he hasn’t).
According to this article at USA Today, Braun plans a vigorous defense. He also called the “Outside the Lines” report “B.S.”
A spokesman for Braun said (quoted in both articles referenced):
“There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan’s complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program. While Ryan has impeccable character and no previous history, unfortunately, because of the process we have to maintain confidentiality and are not able to discuss it any further, but we are confident he will ultimately be exonerated.”
All I know is, the Brewers had an odd situation a few years back where centerfielder Mike Cameron tested positive for a “performance enhancing drug” — and you know what it was? He took an over the counter cold medicine, which happened to have something like Sudafed in it — that’s something that can raise your blood pressure because it allows you to breathe better. But it’s not something you take unless you’re ill, and Cameron was ill, and had doctors’ notes (more than one) to prove it.
And a few years ago during the World Baseball classic, there was a pitcher who was denied use of his albuterol asthma inhaler because apparently, being able to breathe is a “performance enhancement.” (This was a pitcher who was known to be asthmatic. As I am also asthmatic, I fail to see how being able to breathe, rather than succumbing to a fatal asthma attack, is a performance enhancement. Does MLB prefer healthy, vigorous baseball players who have asthma to drop over dead rather than take their albuterol in order to save their lives?)
And even with the players like Manny Ramirez, who have tested positive for something that can be called a “performance enhancement” — well, Ramirez was taking a very odd drug that enhanced, of all things, his estrogen levels. (A female fertility drug that is quite legal in many jurisdictions.) I never did understand what the benefit of that could possibly be, even though various chemists weighed in saying this, that, and the other. (The only thing I ever figured out is that this particular drug could’ve possibly been masking other drugs that really did make a difference in Ramirez’s on-field performance.)
But as baseball Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt (a third baseman, and a power hitter, for the Philadelphia Phillies) said in his book CLEARING THE BASES, baseball players have been trying to “gain an edge” since the beginning of time. Trying to legislate that away will never work (not that I think Braun did anything wrong here, but if he was trying to gain an edge, so what?). And if the players are harming themselves down the line to gain big bucks now, that should be their prerogative — all I ask is that if someone is taking something like that, they watch what happened to Oakland Raiders’ star Lyle Alzado (who died young, and horribly, from cancer that may have been prevented if Alzado hadn’t admittedly taken many, many steroids over time).
In this, particular case, my view is that Braun’s statistical performance was well within his own normals. So it’s very hard for me to believe that Braun actually did take anything illegal of the PED variety; because of that, and because of my admittedly laissez-faire attitude toward baseball players and legal drugs, I believe Braun should be considered innocent until and unless he is proven guilty.
Therefore, all the talk of Braun being stripped of his MVP award should stop already — it’s nonsense. Nothing’s been proven yet. Braun may have a good reason for why this happened, and I, for one, am willing to wait and see what it is, especially as his on-field performance hasn’t changed one whit since he was brought up to the big leagues to stay in 2007.
Music, Remembrance, and Observations
Folks, this is a difficult blog to write, mostly because I’ve been struggling with my grief process over the loss of my good friend, Jeff Wilson, all week long. (Well, really since he died, but this week it hit hard and fast, and just hasn’t really let up for very long.) Couple that with the holidays, and with missing my late husband Michael something fierce, well . . . let’s just say that I haven’t really had an enjoyable few weeks and save steps, shall we? (The sinus infection I’ve been dealing with hasn’t helped, either.)
What keeps me going despite these difficult and frustrating times? My music, that’s what. Music has a profound resonance for me, partly because I’ve spent most of my life studying it, and partly because I think better in music than words. (Strange, but true.)
Next Tuesday, I’ll play the first concert since making a bit of a comeback as a musician out at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside in Kenosha. The UW-Parkside Wind Ensemble and Community Band will perform, both singly and together; as first chair alto saxophone in the Community Band, I will be playing an extended solo in a piece called “Roma.” I’m looking forward to the concert, and I hope those of my friends and family who attend will enjoy it.
That being said, it feels very strange to me to be playing a concert at this time. I’m not one hundred percent right, not physically (even without the sinus infection, my hands continue to give me fits due to my carpal tunnel syndrome), and certainly not emotionally due to the recent loss of my friend Jeff. But that’s not any sort of excuse to keep me from doing whatever I can; I refuse to sit on the sidelines just because I am not in the musical shape I’d rather be in, or the physical shape, either.
The last time I played a concert, it was before I had met my late husband Michael — while Michael heard me practice many times, he never got a chance to hear me play in a concert, something I will always regret. Now, Jeff is also gone; while he was there encouraging me through both rounds of occupational therapy in the last year, which helped me regain enough of my abilities to again be able to play my saxophone (and play reasonably well), he is no longer able to hear me tell him how things are going, much less get a chance to hear a recording of the concert itself. (With his health issues the last five weeks of his life, that would’ve been the only way for him to hear me play unless I’d been able to get out there and play for him in person. Which of course I also wanted to do.)
So the two people who were the most important to me in this life are gone. I can’t do anything about that, other than wish with all my heart and soul that they were still here . . . and that’s not enough. (I’m sorry. I wish it was, but it really isn’t.)
What I’m going to try to do, therefore, is play and hope that wherever they are, they’ll hear it and know I’m doing everything in my power to regain my musical abilities. That meant a lot to them, and I’m sure that wherever they are now, it still does — so for the moment, all I can do is save up my experiences and hope that down the line, I’ll again be able to share with them how I felt about what I was doing in some sort of meaningful way (even if it has to be in the positive afterlife, not here).
Music, ’tis said, is a great healer. All I know is, it helps me to be able to play right now, even though nothing is going to be able to take this pain away because I miss my husband. I miss my good friend. And I wish very much that they were still with me in this life, because I really would’ve liked to see their faces after I finished, triumphantly, playing my solo in “Roma.”
Thoughts Regarding Editing (and Editors)
While continuing to recover from the latest sinus infection (nastier than most), I thought I’d blog about something I know a great deal about: editing, and editors.
See, some writers tend to think that editors “have it in” for them. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but you wouldn’t know it by what little tends to get said about editors — most of it being unflattering in the extreme.
Editors work hard to make sure manuscripts make as much sense as they possibly can before they get turned in. This can mean anything from fixing minor errors to asking questions about important plot points — though some places split the editing job up into three parts (proofreading, copy editing, and “straight editing,” the latter being more about the “macro-edit” of any given piece, while the first two deal with the more mundane particulars), other places don’t. I tend to call all three things “editing” even though if I’m asked merely to proofread, I don’t tend to bring my skills of “macro-editing” (looking at the piece of writing overall as a gestalt, then trying to improve it to the best piece of writing of which I can conceive), while if I’m being asked to copy-edit, it’s more likely that the “macro-edit” has been done by someone else.
But because all three of these things can be called for on one job (this happens quite often with one of the places I regularly edit for), it helps to get the particulars of any given job narrowed down. Do not feel silly if you ask questions, because without being willing to look silly at times, you cannot learn.
All that being said, editors often have last-minute changes from a writer (or, in the case of an anthology, writers) to incorporate. Sometimes, these changes come in after the layout process has started; that can be a particular challenge, one that makes you want to tear your hair out as an editor, but seems to be par for the course in our new, hyped-up digital age. Writers expect editors to just “go with the flow” and mostly, we do — but when we perform heroic actions to get a book to market despite delays on the writing end, it can get old.
So the next time you think about your editor (or editors), try to remember that editing skills are every bit as important as those a writer employs — and that many editors (if not most) are (or were) writers first. Editors have a really good understanding of what makes a writer tick, and we’re completely uninterested in stopping the creative process cold — what questions we ask are meant to spur something from you, the writer, that may not be in your manuscript as it stands but that you, the writer, may have thought was there. In short, editors are there to help you, and most if not all will work with you to improve your manuscript because any editor being employed has the best interests of the manuscript (story, novel, you name it) at heart. Period.
So if you were one of those I referenced above who thought that editors were “out to get you,” please do yourself a favor and think again. Because refusing to work with editors is not only counterproductive, it’s unprofessional, and will mark you out as a neophyte sooner than just about anything else. So do yourself a favor, and work with your editor rather than insisting your manuscript is so wonderful it needs no oversight whatsoever. (Please?)
——-
Edited to add: My late husband Michael was one of the best editors I’ve ever been around. I learned a great deal from him — what to do, what not to do — and it improved my writing immensely because I listened to him and didn’t automatically throw his suggestions out. I knew Michael was more accomplished than I was when I first started showing him my work — this was before we started dating, much less got married, mind — and from the beginning I was impressed by the depth and breadth of his knowledge and expertise.
You see, editing does not need to be a “zero sum game.” You don’t need “scorched earth tactics” to get the point across; you can instead use wit and humor, which is what Michael did with anyone he ever edited for — and it worked amazingly well.
Me, I am much more blunt than Michael ever was. But I try to use some humor as well as pointing out the good points of a manuscript when I edit; this is my ideal. But when time is short, sometimes the good points don’t get discussed — and that’s when writers get frustrated.
I can see any individual writer’s point, for the most part; he or she has worked very hard on a manuscript (whether it’s a story, novelette, novel, etc.) and here comes Ms. Editor to mark it all up in red. Then there are the balloons to the side if you’re using MS Word, and if you don’t see any words of encouragement from Ms. Editor, it can seem extremely disheartening and make writers go, “Now, why did I take up this profession again?”
But you must persevere and listen to your editor. If you have questions regarding an edit, ask your editor — I can’t say this often enough. Most if not all of us are glad to explain what we’re asking for — we may do it in a blunt way if we’re pressed for time, but we will explain it, and we will not be rude. (There’s a big difference between “rude” and “blunt.”)
Remember what my late husband Michael did, if you’re editing and can employ this strategy. It’s not only good manners, but it makes the maximum amount of sense — approaching someone’s manuscript gently, if you have enough time that you can do so, is almost assuredly the best way to go. (But even Michael, if he were pressed for time, would not explain as much or crack as many jokes during the explanation of his edit. Because that’s the nature of the job; you need to first get everything taken care of, then you can frame it a little bit so the writer can understand. But without first taking care of all of the problems, framing is impossible . . . does this make sense?)
Sinus Infection Here
Folks, right now I’m mostly down for the count. The review I’d hoped to write for Shiny Book Review didn’t get done, and all I’ve managed to do thus far is get up and have something to eat (in order to take my antibiotic, as it can irritate the stomach).
I’m also re-reading one of my favorite “comfort books,” this one being A MAN RIDES THROUGH by Stephen R. Donaldson. (Hard to believe that Donaldson had problems writing this one; he’s said in speeches — one witnessed by my niece — that he agonized over the “Mordant’s Need” duology and that it did not come easily. Can’t tell that by the quality of the writing or plot, that’s for sure.)
Nothing else of consequence got done today, unless you count me watching the second quarter of the Big Ten Championship game (the Wisconsin Badgers won the game overall, but the second quarter, they lost — didn’t score any points at all — to their opponent, Michigan State. Good thing games are decided by the total score, not by the “quarter-by-quarter” score or the Badgers would’ve been in trouble.)
Tomorrow must be better . . . as is, right now I’m about to go and stare at the insides of my eyelids, again.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 