Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

And just as fascinating and compelling, (as long as you are interested in the publishing industry anyway,) Anna Louise (who works for Tor) has a really informative essay about some of the numbers involved in selling a book.

P.S.

Plus, I like her, because once upon a time she did me a huge favor regarding Nina Kimberly the Merciless, the closest I've come so far to actually getting the thing published.

.

Dean Esmay pointed me to a really amazing, compelling essay. Read this, and trust me, you owe it to yourself to read it all the way to the end.

.

Hey everybody!

Just made up a new 1-minute promo for Nina Kimberly the Merciless!

Check it out:



Or download it direct!

Nina Kimberly the Merciless 1-minute Promo (mp3)

.

Check out (via Dean's World) this video.

Nothing fancy, just a kid playing a rockin' electric guitar arrangement of Canon in D Major by Pachelbel, but dang... it sure is sweet.

.

I posted yesterday about the guy who is looking for science to explain the miracles of the Bible. I find it interesting to think about that sort of thing.

Another fascinating, and perhaps unanswerable, question is whether or not free will is real or an illusion.

Well, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert), asserts the latter on his blog, and there is some amazing discussion there.

I found that post, however, when it was linked by a post on Dean's World, and in the comments of that post, I read this comment, which really summed up my own feelings on the subject almost perfectly.

Deep, eh?

.

Okay, so there's this guy, who thinks that Jesus didn't really walk on water, but that he was actually walking on a floating piece of ice.

Jesus may have walked on ice, scientists speculate

The scientists note that Galilee has warm, salty springs along the western shore, an area Jesus frequented. The water above the springs does not convect when it is cold. If air temperatures fell below freezing, ice could have formed thick enough to support human weight. From a distance, the scientists suggested, a person on the ice might appear to be walking on water.

hmm...

This is an odd story. I mean, right on the face of it, it assumes that everything about the Biblical account is 100% true, except that the witnesses were simply too dumb to tell the difference between someone walking on water and someone just standing on a floating piece of ice. That seems an odd perspective to take. That's like saying that the pillar of fire witnessed by the Isrealites in their wandering in the desert was actually a natural gas geyser that had been ignited by a bolt of lightning, and that it appeared to move around due to unusual air currents.

Now, I do find it interesting to speculate on ways that miraculous things could have been caused by natural processes, (which, by the way, does not necessarily mean that they aren't miracles in my opinion,) but this one just seems kind of silly. I mean, maybe Jesus did attend the wedding and did appear to turn water into wine, but all that really happened was that there were some grapes that had fallen into the well and began to ferment and nobody noticed because they ususually use a different well and decided to open this one up just for the wedding party because they had all the extra people there.

I am a Christian, and that's based on faith and some personal experiences that I've had. I also tend to be a skeptical person towards supposed "miracles". Especially those modern ones like the virgin Mary appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich and so on. To some extent, my faith and my skepticism could be seen as contradictory, and you know what, I'm comfortable with that. I don't know what really happened back then. To be sure, walking on water or turning water to wine or whatever are not things that happen very often. If I heard someone claiming to have seen that happen today, I would be really skeptical. Because I believe in the divinity of Christ, I grant stories about him some extra leeway.

Still, it seems to me that if you are inclined to be skeptical and not grant him that leeway, going all the way to the point where Jesus and the deciples were all there in the boat and that everything else in the story happened just the way it says in the Bible, but that he wasn't really walking on water, but just ice, and that they couldn't tell the difference? Doesn't it seem more likely that someone would have just made it up altogether before they would have made a mistake like that? Doesn't assuming that all the miracles were really just optical illusions or tricks speak pretty poorly of the intelligence of the people back then? I mean, to me, the way that story reads in the Bible, the ice is not a satisfactory explanation.

Okay, so I just thought that was a little weird.

.

It's a serious question here, not a sarcastic one, or one that's only a superficial attempt to get you to listen. (Though it could be that, too, if you want.)

I spotted this over at podcastingnews.com, and it states that while 25% of polled online consumers were "interested" in podcasts, only 1% actually listen to them.

Now, obviously (to anyone who's known me for a while, online or off,) I'm a believer in podcasting. Even podcasting my fantasy novel: Nina Kimberly the Merciless. I worked really hard writing that novel. I wouldn't be podcasting it for free if I didn't believe that it was going to pay off by helping me to build an audience and attract attention to my writing career. I'm an avid podcast listener too, with dozens of shows that I listen to regularly.

Why do I listen to podcasts? Why do I do my own? Well, first of all, the "DIY" (Do It Yourself) nature of the medium makes it possible for almost anyone with internet access to do their own show. Naturally, this results in a lot of crappy shows, or shows that come out with three episodes and then disappear forever. But it also allows for some really unique voices and content that would never have made it through the mainstream media filter.

Then there's the nature of "time-shifted" media. It's the same principle as TiVo or any DVR. VCR's began this trend, but the ease of use in today's devices change the way we consume media. We no longer have to be sitting in front of the TV at 8PM on Sunday to watch the Simpsons. You just tell your DVR that you want to watch the show, it's recorded, and then you watch it whenever you want! Podcasting is the same, only with audio (and some video) content, but completely free and with the DIY stuff to boot.

Anyway, I'm not writing this post to explain what I like about podcasts, but rather to ask the question in the title. That 25% from the story above does not, I suspect, include people who might be interested in podcasting if they knew more about it. For starters: You don't need an iPod to listen to podcasts!!! But the point is, why is there such a gap between people who are interested and people who actually listen?

Obviously people who aren't interested won't listen. But why, if someone is interested, wouldn't they listen? What if you saw some sort of "Basics of Podcasting: How to listen and how to do your own" discussion at your local bookstore or coffeeshop, would you go?

.

Frankly my dear, do you think I give a damn?


That is all.

.