Everyone has been complaining about the late start to the 2013 cherry season here in the Brewster, Washington area. The weather has been very moderate (and beautiful!): absolutely clear and comfortable (70’s) during the day and downright chilly at night – a far cry from the heat we’d usually expect up here by now. Some farmers are hedging their bets, gambling that they might not need to be dried at all. Heh. If they wait too long to put us on contract they may find that our ships are committed to others who know better.
The contract I’m assigned to normally begins in the middle of June. We supply one helicopter for the first two weeks, then a second ship joins the fun and we both dry until all the cherries are picked.
This year, the orchard owner said that the contract for the first ship would begin around June 20th. Other growers were saying the same thing. So there was not the usual pressure to get things ready – and you wouldn’t believe the amount of logistics that goes into fielding seven helicopters working out of four locations. There are fuel trucks and service trailers (for oil, grease, tools, etc.) and RV’s that have to be positioned. The landing zones (LZ’s) have to be prepped (mowed) and tie downs for the aircraft hammered into the ground.
Suddenly it rained the other day – big storm came blowing through! And just as suddenly, all the farmers who’d been putting us off went into Panic Mode, ringing our phone off the hook. The orchard owner I’m assigned to called up after lunch and said, “How soon can you be here?” This did not take us by surprise. We had already positioned “my” motorhome and a fuel truck at the orchard (where the owner has graciously installed hookups for power, water and sewer).
When the rain stopped and the wind finally died down I climbed into the same ship I’ve been flying for the previous two seasons, N955TC and headed out. With me was my friend Brandon, who spent the past two seasons with us as a trainee and who will be a Command Pilot this year on the second ship with me. Brandon was taking the opportunity to get familiar with "my" fields, which will soon be "his" fields too, which he'd not previously worked. We ended up drying until it was so dark we could barely see to land back in our LZ. Hey, it gets dark in these orchards!
So I’m ensconced in my RV at the LZ, looking at nothing but clear skies for the next several days. Orchard owner: happy; his cherries are looking good. My boss: not so happy if we don’t fly; we obviously make more money when we do. Brandon: not so happy as well; he’d appreciate some more flight time. But me? I'm happy! ...Happy to sit here with nothing to do and get paid for it. In fact, that is one thing that I do really, really well. Brandon and I both brought our guitars up, and so this year the hope is that I arrive as a helicopter pilot and depart as Eric Clapton. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Who Am I?
- Bob Barbanes:
- A nobody; a nitwit; a pilot; a motorcyclist; a raconteur; a lover...of life - who loves to laugh, who tries to not take myself (or anything) too seriously...just a normal guy who knows his place in the universe by being in touch with my spiritual side. What more is there?
15 June 2013
12 June 2013
Back In Washington State
Faithful readers of this blog know that I spend my summers in Washington State flying helicopters for a company that dries cherries after it rains. Only it hardly ever rains up here. If you’ve never been east of the Cascade Mountains, you might never know that the interior of Washington is so desert-like and dry, but it is. The landscape along the Okanogan and Columbia River valleys is stunningly beautiful and I marvel at it as I drive and fly around. It changes constantly depending on the time of day.
I got up here late in the first week of June. The season is starting late this year – seems everyone in the country is having a late Spring. It’s three o’clock in the afternoon as I write this, and the temperature in the town of Okanogan is only 71 degrees – very pleasant! - although the nights have been downright cold. We’re not exactly sure what this means: Will the season run long? Some cherries look bright red and ready to pick; others are nowhere near ready. The farmers are hedging their bets and not putting us on stand-by just yet. Normally they’d all be getting antsy and nervous by now.
We’ll be having seven helicopters doing drying this year: Four piston engine versions of the venerable Sikorsky S-55 and three turbine conversions (in which the old piston engine has been replaced by a modern jet engine). As an enticement to get me to come back this year (which was “iffy” to be honest), the boss called and offered me one of the turbines. They’re smoother and quieter and arguably more reliable than the old piston engines. But the fact is I like those old radial engines; makes me feel like I’m flying a bomber from WWII. And I’ve got enough “turbine time” anyway. So part of my compensation package this year was that I would have the same helicopter I've flown for the past two seasons.
We have a really great group of pilots this year, perhaps the best group we’ve had in my three seasons. Some older, more experienced guys (like me), and some young kids who are eager to learn. We all get along really well and I’m looking forward to a fun, safe season…if it ever starts.
More stories and pictures to come!
I got up here late in the first week of June. The season is starting late this year – seems everyone in the country is having a late Spring. It’s three o’clock in the afternoon as I write this, and the temperature in the town of Okanogan is only 71 degrees – very pleasant! - although the nights have been downright cold. We’re not exactly sure what this means: Will the season run long? Some cherries look bright red and ready to pick; others are nowhere near ready. The farmers are hedging their bets and not putting us on stand-by just yet. Normally they’d all be getting antsy and nervous by now.
We’ll be having seven helicopters doing drying this year: Four piston engine versions of the venerable Sikorsky S-55 and three turbine conversions (in which the old piston engine has been replaced by a modern jet engine). As an enticement to get me to come back this year (which was “iffy” to be honest), the boss called and offered me one of the turbines. They’re smoother and quieter and arguably more reliable than the old piston engines. But the fact is I like those old radial engines; makes me feel like I’m flying a bomber from WWII. And I’ve got enough “turbine time” anyway. So part of my compensation package this year was that I would have the same helicopter I've flown for the past two seasons.
We have a really great group of pilots this year, perhaps the best group we’ve had in my three seasons. Some older, more experienced guys (like me), and some young kids who are eager to learn. We all get along really well and I’m looking forward to a fun, safe season…if it ever starts.
More stories and pictures to come!
31 May 2013
Splitting Hairs
Let’s face it, at my current age a haircut is not the traumatic event it used to be. For one thing, I’m not as vain as I used to be, so if the haircut isn’t “just right” it’s no big deal. Even the best haircut only looks good for about a week, and who wants to get their haircut every damn week?
And then there’s the fact that there’s not much I can do with what’s left of my hair. The bald-on-top-long-in-the-back deal looks horrible, as does the bald-on-top-with-ponytail. Good Lord. And no, I’m not completely bald on top, but close enough at this stage. So I just have the barber cut it really short – not a buzzcut but short enough that I don’t have to part it or mess with it when I get out of the shower; just towel-dry-and-go.
I had been using one of these styling shops like Fantastic Sam’s or Cuts By Us, but the results were not always satisfactory. The cutters they seem to attract either girls with little experience who only know *one* particular men’s haircut (the one they learned in school), or gay guys who are too chit-chatty and therefore take too long to do a relatively simple job. Just cut my damn hair the way I ask you to, alright? If I say, “Don’t touch my sideburns,” I mean DON’T TOUCH MY FUCKING SIDEBURNS! I don’t know why, but many/most barbers (male and female) like to trim your sideburns up to above the top of the ear. Just leave them be, okay? I like looking like Elvis!
Another thing, my hairline in the back is goofy. It’s actually in the shape of an “m.” But a lot of haircutters obsessively want to force a straight collar hairline on me, which means it often ends up halfway up the back of my head! “Just taper it to a point in the back,” I always instruct them. Most of them either never hear it or totally disregard me.
Anyway, there is this old-fashioned barbershop in town: Four chairs, bunch of old guys sitting around reading the newspaper and watching Fox News while waiting for their turn. First time I went in there a relatively young guy cut my hair. Did a pretty good job, too, even though he ignored my “Just put a #8 guard on your clipper and mow away!” request.
So I went back there yesterday for my “Summer In Washington” haircut which I’m hoping will last me until August when I come back to Pensacola. The owner, an old guy who I believe was cutting hair in Nazareth around the time of Jesus’ birth, beckoned me to his chair. He said nothing…nothing to me after my initial greeting when I walked in the door. Just wrapped me up and went to work, never asking me how I wanted it cut. I wondered: Could he read my mind?
As soon as I sat down, one of the old guy’s regular customers walked in. There were two other barbers that were open, but this old dude wanted my barber. I figured I was in for the bum’s rush.
As he began cutting my hair, I noticed that he had some sort of palsy, perhaps the onset of Parkinsons. I kept thinking about a horrible line I once read in CAR AND DRIVER magazine. They were describing how convertibles are hard to keep from flexing because they have no roof structure. The author of the story called the latest version of the Ford Thunderbird, “the Katherine Hepburn of convertibles.” He later apologized. But that’s what I was thinking yesterday, that mine was the Katherine Hepburn of barbers. I wondered how this was going to turn out? I was worried for my ears.
When he got to the back I warned him about my hairline: He complied. On the sides, I cautioned him about my sideburns: No problemo. And I’m thinking, “I wonder what he has in store for the top?” Well I needn’t have wondered. Without so much as touching the few strands on the top of my head, he whipped the sheet (or whatever they call that thing) off me and I was done. Out the door…next! Quickest. Haircut. Ever. He didn’t even spin me around so I could see the back.
“That’s it?” says I, a little surprised.
“That’s it,” says he, adding. “Ten bucks.”
I forked over the ten and for the first time in my life did not tip my barber.
Mind you, I’m not unhappy with the haircut. It’s just not as short as I’d prefer, especially on top. But maybe I got off lucky with Shaky McFlakey there.
I often ponder the question of when to quit flying. One day in the hopefully-distant future I’ll be too old to fly safely…or maybe too old to inspire the necessary confidence in my passengers that I can handle things safely. Legally I can continue as long as I can pass a flight physical and 24-month checkride. Practically is another matter. It’s like driving: When are you too old? When you find that no one wants to ride with you?
I think it was time for this barber to quit. Only, he owned the shop and I’d bet that none of his employees had the heart to tell him his hands weren’t in it anymore.
And then there’s the fact that there’s not much I can do with what’s left of my hair. The bald-on-top-long-in-the-back deal looks horrible, as does the bald-on-top-with-ponytail. Good Lord. And no, I’m not completely bald on top, but close enough at this stage. So I just have the barber cut it really short – not a buzzcut but short enough that I don’t have to part it or mess with it when I get out of the shower; just towel-dry-and-go.
I had been using one of these styling shops like Fantastic Sam’s or Cuts By Us, but the results were not always satisfactory. The cutters they seem to attract either girls with little experience who only know *one* particular men’s haircut (the one they learned in school), or gay guys who are too chit-chatty and therefore take too long to do a relatively simple job. Just cut my damn hair the way I ask you to, alright? If I say, “Don’t touch my sideburns,” I mean DON’T TOUCH MY FUCKING SIDEBURNS! I don’t know why, but many/most barbers (male and female) like to trim your sideburns up to above the top of the ear. Just leave them be, okay? I like looking like Elvis!
Another thing, my hairline in the back is goofy. It’s actually in the shape of an “m.” But a lot of haircutters obsessively want to force a straight collar hairline on me, which means it often ends up halfway up the back of my head! “Just taper it to a point in the back,” I always instruct them. Most of them either never hear it or totally disregard me.
Anyway, there is this old-fashioned barbershop in town: Four chairs, bunch of old guys sitting around reading the newspaper and watching Fox News while waiting for their turn. First time I went in there a relatively young guy cut my hair. Did a pretty good job, too, even though he ignored my “Just put a #8 guard on your clipper and mow away!” request.
So I went back there yesterday for my “Summer In Washington” haircut which I’m hoping will last me until August when I come back to Pensacola. The owner, an old guy who I believe was cutting hair in Nazareth around the time of Jesus’ birth, beckoned me to his chair. He said nothing…nothing to me after my initial greeting when I walked in the door. Just wrapped me up and went to work, never asking me how I wanted it cut. I wondered: Could he read my mind?
As soon as I sat down, one of the old guy’s regular customers walked in. There were two other barbers that were open, but this old dude wanted my barber. I figured I was in for the bum’s rush.
As he began cutting my hair, I noticed that he had some sort of palsy, perhaps the onset of Parkinsons. I kept thinking about a horrible line I once read in CAR AND DRIVER magazine. They were describing how convertibles are hard to keep from flexing because they have no roof structure. The author of the story called the latest version of the Ford Thunderbird, “the Katherine Hepburn of convertibles.” He later apologized. But that’s what I was thinking yesterday, that mine was the Katherine Hepburn of barbers. I wondered how this was going to turn out? I was worried for my ears.
When he got to the back I warned him about my hairline: He complied. On the sides, I cautioned him about my sideburns: No problemo. And I’m thinking, “I wonder what he has in store for the top?” Well I needn’t have wondered. Without so much as touching the few strands on the top of my head, he whipped the sheet (or whatever they call that thing) off me and I was done. Out the door…next! Quickest. Haircut. Ever. He didn’t even spin me around so I could see the back.
“That’s it?” says I, a little surprised.
“That’s it,” says he, adding. “Ten bucks.”
I forked over the ten and for the first time in my life did not tip my barber.
Mind you, I’m not unhappy with the haircut. It’s just not as short as I’d prefer, especially on top. But maybe I got off lucky with Shaky McFlakey there.
I often ponder the question of when to quit flying. One day in the hopefully-distant future I’ll be too old to fly safely…or maybe too old to inspire the necessary confidence in my passengers that I can handle things safely. Legally I can continue as long as I can pass a flight physical and 24-month checkride. Practically is another matter. It’s like driving: When are you too old? When you find that no one wants to ride with you?
I think it was time for this barber to quit. Only, he owned the shop and I’d bet that none of his employees had the heart to tell him his hands weren’t in it anymore.
24 May 2013
Nearly Retired
I’ve actually been trying to quit flying since the late 1990’s. I’d been flying commercially since 1982...had been with Petroleum Helicopters Inc. since 1987 and was really “done” with the whole flying for a living thing. In 2001 at age 45 I finally did quit, with no real plan for what I was going to do with the rest of my life other than “not flying.”
That didn’t work out so well. You see, flying gets in your blood. It's hard to walk away. Sometimes you just have accept your fate...that you're destined to do something whether you want to or not. And with me, that "something" appears to be flying.
Shortly after leaving PHI, a guy called me up who just happened to be starting up the production line of the FH1100 helicopter, a model from the 1970’s that he felt was still viable if it were modernized it a little. And he happened to be doing this in a town right near Pensacola. Did I want to come to work for him? Did I! (You can go back to the very beginning of this blog for that story.)
Unfortunately, we just never could get someone to give us a “launch order” for ten...oh, maybe five helicopters. That’s all we needed to start the production line again. Five lousy orders for new ones. Five years later we were running out of steam.
Ironically we did get an order from one guy for two refurbished FH1100’s. One of the ships would stay here in Florida and the other was slated to go down to Honduras. At the very last minute, the pilot who was to fly the Honduras ship bailed, and I slid into that job. (Again, my exploits were chronicled in these pages.)
After the gig in Honduras ended, I came back to the states determined that I was done with helicopters. There had to be more to life, I thought.
I hadn’t been back for two weeks when my former Honduras boss called and said a friend of his here in the Pensacola area was looking to buy a helicopter – would I help him find one? I said I would, but my intention was to find him a pilot to fly it as well – someone other than me. However as fate would have it I not only found him a good ship but like a dummy I agreed to stick around and fly it. That was in 2007.
By late 2010 I’d had enough. I really, really, really didn’t want to be a full-time helicopter pilot anymore. I stuck it out for nearly four years. Finally, due to certain, um, circumstances (long story) I ended up leaving. The boss was incredulous; it was not a good time to be quitting any job. “You’re quitting?!” Yeahhhh, I just don’t want to fly for you anymore – sorry!
Once I was free of full-time employment my friends Scott and Mikey began urging me to come up to Washington to do some cherry-drying. Read about that HERE.
And so indeed I did. I called up Golden Wings Aviation and…long story short…I’ll soon be going back up to Washington State for my third season of cherry-drying.
I’m not a full-time pilot anymore, so that’s good. Part-time is good. On certain helicopter internet discussion forums I call myself “nearly retired.” Perhaps one day I will be fully retired for sure.
But it’s not likely.
That didn’t work out so well. You see, flying gets in your blood. It's hard to walk away. Sometimes you just have accept your fate...that you're destined to do something whether you want to or not. And with me, that "something" appears to be flying.
Shortly after leaving PHI, a guy called me up who just happened to be starting up the production line of the FH1100 helicopter, a model from the 1970’s that he felt was still viable if it were modernized it a little. And he happened to be doing this in a town right near Pensacola. Did I want to come to work for him? Did I! (You can go back to the very beginning of this blog for that story.)
Unfortunately, we just never could get someone to give us a “launch order” for ten...oh, maybe five helicopters. That’s all we needed to start the production line again. Five lousy orders for new ones. Five years later we were running out of steam.
Ironically we did get an order from one guy for two refurbished FH1100’s. One of the ships would stay here in Florida and the other was slated to go down to Honduras. At the very last minute, the pilot who was to fly the Honduras ship bailed, and I slid into that job. (Again, my exploits were chronicled in these pages.)
After the gig in Honduras ended, I came back to the states determined that I was done with helicopters. There had to be more to life, I thought.
I hadn’t been back for two weeks when my former Honduras boss called and said a friend of his here in the Pensacola area was looking to buy a helicopter – would I help him find one? I said I would, but my intention was to find him a pilot to fly it as well – someone other than me. However as fate would have it I not only found him a good ship but like a dummy I agreed to stick around and fly it. That was in 2007.
By late 2010 I’d had enough. I really, really, really didn’t want to be a full-time helicopter pilot anymore. I stuck it out for nearly four years. Finally, due to certain, um, circumstances (long story) I ended up leaving. The boss was incredulous; it was not a good time to be quitting any job. “You’re quitting?!” Yeahhhh, I just don’t want to fly for you anymore – sorry!
Once I was free of full-time employment my friends Scott and Mikey began urging me to come up to Washington to do some cherry-drying. Read about that HERE.
And so indeed I did. I called up Golden Wings Aviation and…long story short…I’ll soon be going back up to Washington State for my third season of cherry-drying.
I’m not a full-time pilot anymore, so that’s good. Part-time is good. On certain helicopter internet discussion forums I call myself “nearly retired.” Perhaps one day I will be fully retired for sure.
But it’s not likely.
26 April 2013
Thoughts On The Boston Bombing
There’s been a lot of stupidity that’s come out of this bombing at the Boston Marathon. The way the various media outlets were falling all over themselves in a desperate, frantic effort to be "first" with the "facts" was pretty friggin' hilarious. Makes people like me just turn the TV off.
I think most of us are pretty sick and tired of the media’s overwhelming coverage of this event. They’re acting as if it’s a national tragedy, which it isn’t. Tragedy? Yes. But as tragedies go, the scale of this one was pretty small. Even if these amateurish boys planned on “bombing” Times Square in New York City, the “bombs” they were using were pretty ineffectual. Yeah, they hurt a bunch of people, but let’s remember that only three were killed in Boston. Yet the nation cried as if it was a fully-loaded 747 crashing. Into an orphanage. Which was built on an old Indian burial grounds.
What troubles me more than the media overhyping this story is the reaction of some Americans. I keep hearing people say that the surviving boy (if not all Muslims) should be the object of horrible violence. It’s really quite disturbing. Even another blogger said this:
This particular blogger happens to be a helicopter pilot so I’d expect more from her. But she is also an avowed atheist so I guess we have to forgive her incredible lack of compassion (and possibly intelligence). But what is unforgivable is her stance that our Constitution/Bill of Rights should arbitrarily not apply to people, even American citizens. It is a position that is as astonishing as it is chilling.
Look, we are a nation of laws. It’s what separates us from other, uncivilized nations. Either we have a Constitution or we don’t. We cannot suspend it when we feel like it, because to do so would render it invalid. Bomber-boy is entitled to every protection under our Constitution, no matter what his crime was. We should expect nothing less.
Finally, there is a cynical side to me that just won’t quit. Isn’t it funny how the nation’s focus suddenly shifted from “gun control” to “Boston bombing?” I had to scroll waaaaay down my Yahoo News feed today to find even one story about gun control. Sometimes I wonder if this wasn’t intentional. Yeah, I know, “Take off your tin-foil hat, Bob. Governments never do anything like that to their own people!”
But there are a lot of things about this Boston bombing that seem kind of…strange. Like, did you notice how easily Americans submitted to martial law? Did you notice that nobody really objected to military troops being used in the hunt for the bombers? In the future, all the government has to do is utter the word, ”Terrorism!" and Americans will cower and let them do anything.
We have become a nation of fearful, paranoid, vindictive people since 9/11/2001. We are afraid of our own shadows now. We will gladly give up our rights to ensure our “safety.” We will gladly give up the rights of others, too. And by God, when somebody harms us we don't just want justice, we want revenge!
You know what? I’m not sure that I like the country the United States of America is turning into.
I think most of us are pretty sick and tired of the media’s overwhelming coverage of this event. They’re acting as if it’s a national tragedy, which it isn’t. Tragedy? Yes. But as tragedies go, the scale of this one was pretty small. Even if these amateurish boys planned on “bombing” Times Square in New York City, the “bombs” they were using were pretty ineffectual. Yeah, they hurt a bunch of people, but let’s remember that only three were killed in Boston. Yet the nation cried as if it was a fully-loaded 747 crashing. Into an orphanage. Which was built on an old Indian burial grounds.
What troubles me more than the media overhyping this story is the reaction of some Americans. I keep hearing people say that the surviving boy (if not all Muslims) should be the object of horrible violence. It’s really quite disturbing. Even another blogger said this:
I don’t care about the Miranda rights issue, either. The guy purposely set off two bombs that killed or maimed fellow Americans. He might have information that would prevent future attacks and save lives. As far as I’m concerned, he gave up his rights when he committed an act of terror against Americans. While I respect the ACLU, I wish they’d just realize that this goes beyond an American citizen’s rights. An act of terrorism is a game-changer.
This particular blogger happens to be a helicopter pilot so I’d expect more from her. But she is also an avowed atheist so I guess we have to forgive her incredible lack of compassion (and possibly intelligence). But what is unforgivable is her stance that our Constitution/Bill of Rights should arbitrarily not apply to people, even American citizens. It is a position that is as astonishing as it is chilling.
Look, we are a nation of laws. It’s what separates us from other, uncivilized nations. Either we have a Constitution or we don’t. We cannot suspend it when we feel like it, because to do so would render it invalid. Bomber-boy is entitled to every protection under our Constitution, no matter what his crime was. We should expect nothing less.
Finally, there is a cynical side to me that just won’t quit. Isn’t it funny how the nation’s focus suddenly shifted from “gun control” to “Boston bombing?” I had to scroll waaaaay down my Yahoo News feed today to find even one story about gun control. Sometimes I wonder if this wasn’t intentional. Yeah, I know, “Take off your tin-foil hat, Bob. Governments never do anything like that to their own people!”
But there are a lot of things about this Boston bombing that seem kind of…strange. Like, did you notice how easily Americans submitted to martial law? Did you notice that nobody really objected to military troops being used in the hunt for the bombers? In the future, all the government has to do is utter the word, ”Terrorism!" and Americans will cower and let them do anything.
We have become a nation of fearful, paranoid, vindictive people since 9/11/2001. We are afraid of our own shadows now. We will gladly give up our rights to ensure our “safety.” We will gladly give up the rights of others, too. And by God, when somebody harms us we don't just want justice, we want revenge!
You know what? I’m not sure that I like the country the United States of America is turning into.
19 April 2013
Criticizing Other Writers
I don’t like to criticize other writers. It’s like one pilot looking at another and saying, “I’m better than him.” This may be true but nevertheless should only be thought to oneself and never spoken aloud. I’m not the world’s best pilot, and God knows I’m not the greatest writer in history either. However I am a “published author” in that I have made money from my words, though I hasten to admit they were only magazine articles and not full-fledged books or self-published “novellas” or anything. But I don’t make any money from the crap you’re reading here. So while it’s easy to snipe at another writer, it’s not really fair.
One of my friends recommended a book on his Facebook page. Said book was in turn recommended to him by one of his friends. My friend put his own recommendation up before actually reading the book. I was skeptical about this, and said so in a Comment. This started a lengthy, funny/snarky back-and-forth thread on his FB page which oddly enough included the author of the aforementioned book!
The author seemed funny on Facebook and the synopsis of the story on Amazon was compelling. The two customer reviews of the book were positively glowing. So on a whim, I bought the book, and then downloaded the Kindle reader app to my phone. The book is actually a “novella,” which is something that is too long to be called “a short story” but is not long enough to be called “a book.” A kind of in-between thing that author Stephen King called, “an ill-defined and disreputable literary banana republic.” Whatever that is. Kind of like my posts here, I guess. In any event I figured the book wasn’t going to be “War And Peace.” I read it with great expectations.
Cut to the chase: I did not like this book. The author used a number of amateurish techniques, one of which was to use two narrators. The main one was herself, in the first-person. But there was also another one. From the start there were passages that were “spoken” by some unidentified entity with a third-person perspective. I initially wondered if it was the female protagonist’s cat? Dog? But no, it couldn’t be, and it turned out not to be. It was very confusing.
The book also jumped a lot between timeframes. The main character in the book was relating in the present tense about thinking back on the night she was going to get pregnant. She was sitting by a window looking out the window at the rain and thinking back to an earlier time when they were having a Father’s Day barbecue in the backyard and... Good God, flashback within flashback! What timeframe are we in? Now it wasn’t just “very” confusing; it was totally confusing.
Okay, I know enough about writing to understand that it’s not so much about being technically, grammatically correct all the time. It’s about the story, right? If the story is compelling enough, then we can overlook amateurish (let’s be kind and say “non-conventional”) writing styles. This woman most certainly did have a unique writing style. And she is desperately in need of an editor.
Unfortunately, the overly-romanticized story in the novella we’re talking about here was not really all that interesting to me. It concerned a young woman who got pregnant by her “love-of-my-life/soulmate” boyfriend of a different race. Ultimately the woman lost the child prior to its birth. The boyfriend didn’t stick around long either, we’re told in a postscript. The "other" narrator (along with the author's first-person account) turned out to be her unborn baby, speaking and intellectualizing as a fully-grown adult.
No doubt, losing a child to a miscarriage is a horrible, traumatic experience for any woman and it obviously was to the author of this novella too. But the way she told the story was so incredibly complicated and cloying that it just lost me. In the end I “got it,” but I wasn’t sure it was worth the trouble. In the end I said, “Damn. Glad that’s over!” On the other hand, the FB friend who recommended the book to me (eventually) read it and loved and was very moved by it. So there ya go.
Back in another lifetime when I was a disk jockey, the radio station owner always urged the air-staff to never let the listener in on the technicalities of what we were doing. For instance, if something went wrong…say a commercial failed to start on cue due to faulty equipment or maybe a record miscued or the needle skipped we were to just move on smoothly and not explain it. Radio is “theatre of the mind” and if you break the barrier between listener and programmer it destroys the magic of what you are trying to create. At least that’s one theory.
And so it is with the relationship between writing and reading. Unless you’re taking a course in creative writing, or unless you’re a professional editor, then you should probably just read a story for the story. If it’s good enough, then you get the message and walk away happy. But a writer should not let the writing itself interfere with the story.
And ultimately I think that’s what happened with this novella. The story wasn’t all that strong and the writer’s style definitely turned me off. As I said, I don’t like criticizing other writers, but there are some bad ones out there. After reading this poorly-written book, it was a little troubling to realize that, hey, maybe I'm one of them. Hmm, maybe I’m not as good a pilot as I think I am either!
One of my friends recommended a book on his Facebook page. Said book was in turn recommended to him by one of his friends. My friend put his own recommendation up before actually reading the book. I was skeptical about this, and said so in a Comment. This started a lengthy, funny/snarky back-and-forth thread on his FB page which oddly enough included the author of the aforementioned book!
The author seemed funny on Facebook and the synopsis of the story on Amazon was compelling. The two customer reviews of the book were positively glowing. So on a whim, I bought the book, and then downloaded the Kindle reader app to my phone. The book is actually a “novella,” which is something that is too long to be called “a short story” but is not long enough to be called “a book.” A kind of in-between thing that author Stephen King called, “an ill-defined and disreputable literary banana republic.” Whatever that is. Kind of like my posts here, I guess. In any event I figured the book wasn’t going to be “War And Peace.” I read it with great expectations.
Cut to the chase: I did not like this book. The author used a number of amateurish techniques, one of which was to use two narrators. The main one was herself, in the first-person. But there was also another one. From the start there were passages that were “spoken” by some unidentified entity with a third-person perspective. I initially wondered if it was the female protagonist’s cat? Dog? But no, it couldn’t be, and it turned out not to be. It was very confusing.
The book also jumped a lot between timeframes. The main character in the book was relating in the present tense about thinking back on the night she was going to get pregnant. She was sitting by a window looking out the window at the rain and thinking back to an earlier time when they were having a Father’s Day barbecue in the backyard and... Good God, flashback within flashback! What timeframe are we in? Now it wasn’t just “very” confusing; it was totally confusing.
Okay, I know enough about writing to understand that it’s not so much about being technically, grammatically correct all the time. It’s about the story, right? If the story is compelling enough, then we can overlook amateurish (let’s be kind and say “non-conventional”) writing styles. This woman most certainly did have a unique writing style. And she is desperately in need of an editor.
Unfortunately, the overly-romanticized story in the novella we’re talking about here was not really all that interesting to me. It concerned a young woman who got pregnant by her “love-of-my-life/soulmate” boyfriend of a different race. Ultimately the woman lost the child prior to its birth. The boyfriend didn’t stick around long either, we’re told in a postscript. The "other" narrator (along with the author's first-person account) turned out to be her unborn baby, speaking and intellectualizing as a fully-grown adult.
No doubt, losing a child to a miscarriage is a horrible, traumatic experience for any woman and it obviously was to the author of this novella too. But the way she told the story was so incredibly complicated and cloying that it just lost me. In the end I “got it,” but I wasn’t sure it was worth the trouble. In the end I said, “Damn. Glad that’s over!” On the other hand, the FB friend who recommended the book to me (eventually) read it and loved and was very moved by it. So there ya go.
Back in another lifetime when I was a disk jockey, the radio station owner always urged the air-staff to never let the listener in on the technicalities of what we were doing. For instance, if something went wrong…say a commercial failed to start on cue due to faulty equipment or maybe a record miscued or the needle skipped we were to just move on smoothly and not explain it. Radio is “theatre of the mind” and if you break the barrier between listener and programmer it destroys the magic of what you are trying to create. At least that’s one theory.
And so it is with the relationship between writing and reading. Unless you’re taking a course in creative writing, or unless you’re a professional editor, then you should probably just read a story for the story. If it’s good enough, then you get the message and walk away happy. But a writer should not let the writing itself interfere with the story.
And ultimately I think that’s what happened with this novella. The story wasn’t all that strong and the writer’s style definitely turned me off. As I said, I don’t like criticizing other writers, but there are some bad ones out there. After reading this poorly-written book, it was a little troubling to realize that, hey, maybe I'm one of them. Hmm, maybe I’m not as good a pilot as I think I am either!
25 March 2013
Commenting On Guns
Cynthia Tucker is another one of these smug, liberal, black columnists whose sophomoric ranting regularly appears in our local Pensacola newspaper. Her columns are usually extremely one-sided and racist, perhaps even more so than the other smug, liberal, black columnists like the aforementioned Dewayne Wickham who think they're better or smarter than me and you. I must point out that Cynthia Tucker has won a Pulitzer Prize. For...are you ready?...Commentary. That’s right, commentary. Which…and I know you’re going to say that I’m the one being horribly racist…but it just goes to show you how smug, liberal, black writers can leverage their blackness into awards if they know how to write well. Society is still so impressed with educated black people that they hand them Pulitzer Prizes just for...you know...commentating. Hey, where's my Pulitzer?!
Recently Cynthia Tucker weighed-in on the issue of guns. She is, naturally enough, against them. She, like many other of her misinformed, misguided ilk, blames the weapon…the “assault rifle”…i.e. the AR-15 on recent killings. She wants it banned. And she wants high-capacity magazines banned as well.
But they won’t be banned, she notes, because politicians are afraid of the NRA (National Rifle Association). She seems to think that when it comes to their position on the issue of guns, politicians listen only to the NRA. This is a huge and irrational oversimplification. I suppose it never occurred to Ms. Tucker that politicians also listen to their constituents?
And this is the trouble with liberal newspaper columnists: They simply cannot conceive of a society that tolerates guns. It is beyond their comprehension that some of us do not see guns as evil…that some of us believe we have enough gun laws right now, thank you very much. No, in Ms. Tucker’s world, everyone acknowledges that guns are bad and would not mind seeing them restricted and/or (in the case of DiFi) eliminated completely. Poor misguided Ms. Tucker!
Ms. Tucker correctly notes that gun restrictions are no cure-all for society’s ills. But then she goes off the rails. “But banning at least some assault-type weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them would be a step in the right direction. Why can't we take that step?”
Whoa. What? Who said that it would be a step in the right direction?? Where does she get that from? Hey sweetie, maybe we can’t "take that step” because it doesn’t make sense?
Then Ms. Tucker gets further “out there.” In talking about the last ban on so-called “assault weapons” (i.e. “the Clinton-era ban”), she says, “But many law enforcement officials nevertheless supported it, declaring that it helped. It didn't end gun violence or stop mass murders or prevent suicides (which account for two-thirds of gun deaths in this country). But it prevented some killings. Isn't that worthwhile?”
Hmm, Tucker declares definitively that the Clinton-era ban “…prevented some killings.” Oh yeah? Prove that one to me. Prove it! Prove that some killings did not happen because of “the Clinton-era ban.” Only a true idiot…and I say this with all due respect…but only a true friggin’ IDIOT would make a claim that such-and-such did not happen…and further, that such-and-such did not happen because such-and-such did happen. "Dog didn't bite man today! New law prohibiting dog bites is responsible. No film at eleven."
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Research Council both ended up concluding that the Clinton-era ban had a negligible or indeterminate effect on killings. So for Ms. Tucker to say such a thing is a downright falsehood if not a bold-faced lie. It is wishful thinking taken to an extreme.
Of the Clinton-era ban Ms. Tucker goes on to state, “The civilized world did not come to an end during those 10 years; the Second Amendment was not besmirched.” Uhh, yes it was. And anyway, if that was the case, if that ban on “assault weapons” was so great, why then was it allowed to expire? Maybe because it was ineffective?
Before closing her column, Ms. Tucker throws one more dig at the NRA and the politicians she thinks are afraid of it. “Yet, the vociferous -- nay, deranged -- leadership of the NRA has persuaded Congress that an assault-weapons ban is akin to totalitarianism.”
Deranged? No, sweetie, the NRA leadership is not deranged. It represents its members…people like me and the millions of others like me who happen to not think like people like you. You, Ms. Tucker, obviously do not like guns. I do. I don’t see anything wrong with people owning guns, and I appreciate our Founding Fathers for putting on paper and into law that we American citizens have a RIGHT to own them…a RIGHT which shall not be infringed.
It boils down to this: Ms. Tucker sees only the rare, random tragedies like Newtown, Connecticut and the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooting and thinks guns are awful and ought to be outlawed. The old, “If it prevents just one killing it’ll all be worthwhile!” justification.
Me, I see the bigger picture. I see an armed America as a strong America. I see my ability to defend myself as sacrosanct. I see a government that fears…and should fear…an armed citizenry. Finally – and not for nuthin’ - I see the leaders of other nations (China, hello?) who look at the number of guns in this country and go, “Ehhhhh, let’s not invade the U.S.” (We know that Japan considered invading the U.S. during WWII; they wisely decided against it due in part to the number of guns owned by us.)
It bothers me that uninformed people like Cynthia Tucker are held in some position of honor for their thinking simply because they’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary. She clearly has no objectivity when it comes to guns and failed miserably to do even the slightest bit of research on the subject. Now that is a sad commentary.
You can read Ms. Tucker's latest column HERE.
Recently Cynthia Tucker weighed-in on the issue of guns. She is, naturally enough, against them. She, like many other of her misinformed, misguided ilk, blames the weapon…the “assault rifle”…i.e. the AR-15 on recent killings. She wants it banned. And she wants high-capacity magazines banned as well.
But they won’t be banned, she notes, because politicians are afraid of the NRA (National Rifle Association). She seems to think that when it comes to their position on the issue of guns, politicians listen only to the NRA. This is a huge and irrational oversimplification. I suppose it never occurred to Ms. Tucker that politicians also listen to their constituents?
And this is the trouble with liberal newspaper columnists: They simply cannot conceive of a society that tolerates guns. It is beyond their comprehension that some of us do not see guns as evil…that some of us believe we have enough gun laws right now, thank you very much. No, in Ms. Tucker’s world, everyone acknowledges that guns are bad and would not mind seeing them restricted and/or (in the case of DiFi) eliminated completely. Poor misguided Ms. Tucker!
Ms. Tucker correctly notes that gun restrictions are no cure-all for society’s ills. But then she goes off the rails. “But banning at least some assault-type weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them would be a step in the right direction. Why can't we take that step?”
Whoa. What? Who said that it would be a step in the right direction?? Where does she get that from? Hey sweetie, maybe we can’t "take that step” because it doesn’t make sense?
Then Ms. Tucker gets further “out there.” In talking about the last ban on so-called “assault weapons” (i.e. “the Clinton-era ban”), she says, “But many law enforcement officials nevertheless supported it, declaring that it helped. It didn't end gun violence or stop mass murders or prevent suicides (which account for two-thirds of gun deaths in this country). But it prevented some killings. Isn't that worthwhile?”
Hmm, Tucker declares definitively that the Clinton-era ban “…prevented some killings.” Oh yeah? Prove that one to me. Prove it! Prove that some killings did not happen because of “the Clinton-era ban.” Only a true idiot…and I say this with all due respect…but only a true friggin’ IDIOT would make a claim that such-and-such did not happen…and further, that such-and-such did not happen because such-and-such did happen. "Dog didn't bite man today! New law prohibiting dog bites is responsible. No film at eleven."
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Research Council both ended up concluding that the Clinton-era ban had a negligible or indeterminate effect on killings. So for Ms. Tucker to say such a thing is a downright falsehood if not a bold-faced lie. It is wishful thinking taken to an extreme.
Of the Clinton-era ban Ms. Tucker goes on to state, “The civilized world did not come to an end during those 10 years; the Second Amendment was not besmirched.” Uhh, yes it was. And anyway, if that was the case, if that ban on “assault weapons” was so great, why then was it allowed to expire? Maybe because it was ineffective?
Before closing her column, Ms. Tucker throws one more dig at the NRA and the politicians she thinks are afraid of it. “Yet, the vociferous -- nay, deranged -- leadership of the NRA has persuaded Congress that an assault-weapons ban is akin to totalitarianism.”
Deranged? No, sweetie, the NRA leadership is not deranged. It represents its members…people like me and the millions of others like me who happen to not think like people like you. You, Ms. Tucker, obviously do not like guns. I do. I don’t see anything wrong with people owning guns, and I appreciate our Founding Fathers for putting on paper and into law that we American citizens have a RIGHT to own them…a RIGHT which shall not be infringed.
It boils down to this: Ms. Tucker sees only the rare, random tragedies like Newtown, Connecticut and the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooting and thinks guns are awful and ought to be outlawed. The old, “If it prevents just one killing it’ll all be worthwhile!” justification.
Me, I see the bigger picture. I see an armed America as a strong America. I see my ability to defend myself as sacrosanct. I see a government that fears…and should fear…an armed citizenry. Finally – and not for nuthin’ - I see the leaders of other nations (China, hello?) who look at the number of guns in this country and go, “Ehhhhh, let’s not invade the U.S.” (We know that Japan considered invading the U.S. during WWII; they wisely decided against it due in part to the number of guns owned by us.)
It bothers me that uninformed people like Cynthia Tucker are held in some position of honor for their thinking simply because they’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary. She clearly has no objectivity when it comes to guns and failed miserably to do even the slightest bit of research on the subject. Now that is a sad commentary.
You can read Ms. Tucker's latest column HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)