Frabjous Day

31 Jan 2011

27 Jul 2010

Book Review: Terry Pratchett’s “Nation”

I actually had this sitting around for ages – at least since Christmas, and you know, it might even have been the previous Christmas – and just recently got to reading it.

I’ve always liked Terry Pratchett, but this book is a bit of a departure for me; it’s not a Discworld book, and despite the back-cover blurb advertising “Terry Pratchett’s inimitable comic satire”, it’s not really a funny book, either. There are jokes, and it has its moments, but it’s not a comedy.

“Nation” is set in a sort of alternative-history parallel-universe, in the equivalent of the Pacific Ocean in the equivalent of the nineteenth century. It’s about a boy named Mau; one of the few survivors of a tidal wave which wipes out the primitive island civilisation he knows as “The Nation”.

As Mau tries to come to terms with what has happened, he begins to question everything around him… and why the gods brought this upon him.

In this way, “Nation” becomes something like Terry Pratchett’s fictional version of “The God Delusion”. Mau encounters and dismisses many of the common arguments in religious apologetics; when he’s told that the gods have smiled on him in allowing him to live, he responds: that just means they let everyone else die. And there are some nice Pratchett-isms in there, like “’It’s God’s Will’ is just grown-up-speak for ‘Because’”.

There are examples of how people project their expectations onto things they don’t understand; people assigning divinity to technology.

It’s also about our culture and society and the things we take for granted about our customs and our insecurities.

It’s a good book in many ways, but I felt I was reading a sort of children’s manual for skepticism – no bad thing in itself, but not what I was expecting, and I’m not sure I’d recommend it too heavily to anyone. It’s the sort of book you’d buy a young person to encourage critical thinking, and in that role it’s probably brilliant.

16 Jul 2010

Mark Twain

I’m stealing yet again from Pharyngula:

Nov. 20. 1905

J. H. Todd 
1212 Webster St.
San Francisco, Cal.

Dear Sir,

Your letter is an insoluble puzzle to me. The handwriting is good and exhibits considerable character, and there are even traces of intelligence in what you say, yet the letter and the accompanying advertisements profess to be the work of the same hand. The person who wrote the advertisements is without doubt the most ignorant person now alive on the planet; also without doubt he is an idiot, an idiot of the 33rd degree, and scion of an ancestral procession of idiots stretching back to the Missing Link. It puzzles me to make out how the same hand could have constructed your letter and your advertisements. Puzzles fret me, puzzles annoy me, puzzles exasperate me; and always, for a moment, they arouse in me an unkind state of mind toward the person who has puzzled me. A few moments from now my resentment will have faded and passed and I shall probably even be praying for you; but while there is yet time I hasten to wish that you may take a dose of your own poison by mistake, and enter swiftly into the damnation which you and all other patent medicine assassins have so remorselessly earned and do so richly deserve.

Adieu, adieu, adieu!

Mark Twain

6 Jun 2010

What I’ve learned

A first draft, because I haven’t written anything in awhile.

When I was about seventeen, I wrote a novel. It was a sort of fantasy thing, part Tolkien, part post-apocalyptic sci-fi. It was rubbish, but then, it was infinitely better than the novels most people write at that age: most seventeen-year-olds don’t write anything at all.

The plot actually had some interesting elements, and I’m always thinking of writing it again; it was the writing itself that sucked - the way the story was presented.

“So what did you learn?”

I learned not to assume my conclusions.

As a teenager, writing stuff for school is something of a hardship. I quite enjoyed writing essays, creative ones at least, but answering questions on some text or a poem was a painful process; “a whole page on that?!”.

Because of this, I always assumed that writing a book must take a colossal amount of time; if it took me so long just to finish that bloody question, it must take frickin’ years to write even a shortish book!

But after trying it for awhile, tentatively running through the first ten or fifteen pages of my story, I found it wasn’t as difficult as I thought, and I set myself a goal.

Three pages a day.

I reasoned that with three pages a day, in a year you’d have written The Lord of the Rings. And so I set about it. Big mistake.

It should have been very obvious right from the start what the problem was, but these things have a habit of eluding us until it’s too late.

The problem is that inspiration is unpredictable, and it comes in lumps. Some days, I wouldn’t have any ideas, I’d be sick of the whole project, but I’d soldier on anyway, you know, discipline and all that, and force myself to write three pages. Other times, I’d be plenty inspired, and fly through three, maybe even four or five pages, and, delighted with myself, I’d stop, and tell myself I’d pick it up again tomorrow. ‘Course, by the time tomorrow comes around, the magic’s gone, and I don’t know what to write anymore.

Forcing yourself to write when you’re in a bad mood only makes you write three pages of crap, and settling for three pages when you’re feeling inspired makes it seem ok to stop before your creativity runs dry. The problem is that you’re assuming your conclusions.

Before you start something, you have no idea how much you’re going to achieve. None. The facts aren’t in yet. You can’t just assume some arbitrary number - three pages, ten bpm, twenty situps, whatever - and aim for that; it’s ludicrous.

Instead, the constraints you apply should be more practical. There are only so many hours in the day, so time seems a reasonable place to start. Instead of assuming how much work you’ll complete, set yourself a certain amount of time. Say an hour. And if you sit there for an hour and all you get done is two sentences, or some kind of vague outline for where the story’s going, or you just fiddle with the font or something, then that’s fine.

Maybe we could go further, and say that some days we may get nothing done regardless of how long we spend staring at the screen. Maybe it would make more sense to force ourselves to try for a shorter time, twenty minutes or so, and we can continue for up to two hours if we’re feeling inspired. Or maybe there should be no upper limit.

Point is, you can’t assume ahead of time what you’re going to achieve. You’ll underestimate yourself, overestimate yourself, or, most likely, both.

4 Jun 2010

My new favourite word

“Ratiocinator”.

Someone who reasons methodically and logically.

12 May 2010

Recording the apocalyptic narration, part 01

So a friend was making a short film for an art college project, and asked me to contribute a voice-over-narration-type-thing.

I thought I’d make a blog post on how I went about it.

I have no proper recording equipment; the only microphone I have is a cheap-ass ten-euro-at-Argos mic whose intended use is for shouting at people on webcams. I’m plugging it straight into my computer’s microphone jack.

This does not bode well for sound quality. Those mics are of the minimum acceptable standard for anything, and the mic inputs on computers are notoriously shite - you really need a proper mic preamp if you want a good recording. I suspect this latter point is the source of the noise problems to come.

First comes the question of the script itself. Said friend wrote it, and it was good, but I gave it a few tweaks, because fairly often what seems ok on paper just doesn’t work in speech.

This is an odd phenomenon. On the one hand, having to read something aloud seems to highlight any minor awkwardness in flow or sentence structure - long sentences with big sub-clauses usually just don’t work, for example, because by the time you’ve got to the end of the sentence, the listener can’t remember how it began - but on the other hand, the spoken word is often completely incomprehensible in writing.

I heard somewhere that this first penetrated the public consciousness during the Watergate scandal, interestingly enough. Transcriptions of tape-recorded conversations appeared in newspapers and the like, and people were bloody confused by them - they were just jibberish. How could elected politicians be so inarticulate?

But of course, we’re all like that in speech, because our social interactions are largely understood through body language and inflection in the voice, rather than what we say. I find it very frustrating when people don’t recognise this; my mother, for example, thinks you’re not listening unless you’re staring straight at her.

Anyway, I tweaked a few things, and started trying to get a good sound from the microphone.

Mic placement is everything. The position of the mic, X and Y, is important, because depending on where it is it’ll pick up a different tonal spectrum from your voice. This is something the human ear seems remarkably deaf to. I guess something in the audio processing part of our brain compensates. But microphones can be a lot more senstive to this than you’d think. By placing the mic below you, looking up at the roof of your mouth, you get more high frequencies reflected into it. By placing it higher, you get relatively more bass; this is sort of counter intuitive, as you’d expect the proximity to your chest to increase bass - it doesn’t seem to. Closer to your nose, maybe a more nasal quality.

Also, the distance of the mic from the source is important. For some reason, mics tend to exaggerate distance; if you’re six inches away, you sound like you’re three feet away. If you’re three feet away, you sound like you’re speaking from the wrong end of a cave. To get a good, hard, radio-presenter sort of quality, you need to be really close.

This creates another problem. When you speak right into a microphone, breath noise becomes a real issue. Again, we don’t hear these things in speech, but the microphone sure does. If you’re not careful, every plosive T and P, and every sibilant S and fricative F smacks the mic with twice as much volume as the vowels, and makes for a completely bizarre sound, likely distorting your recording in the process.

Oh, that’s the other problem; you need to control the input volume somehow.

Signal-to-noise ratio is important. The noise, any hiss or hum in the background, is constant, so if you can increase the volume of the main signal - your voice - you can make the noise seem relatively quieter. So the louder the input signal, the better. Until it distorts. The problem here is that you’re sitting on an unfortunate knife-edge; too quiet, and the noise seems too prominent; too loud, and you distort the recording with a big crunch. There are various clever studio tricks to cope with this. I don’t have the ability to use any of them.

I ended up sitting my guitar amp on the table, the mic on top of that (oh I’ve no useful mic stand by the way…), and keeping it a few inches from my mouth. I leaned in and out a little as the voice got softer and louder, respectively.

Next came the actual recording itself.

16 Apr 2010

Very long and brilliant interview with George Carlin. See previous video for who he is…

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better interview - it’s fantastic.

16 Apr 2010

George Carlin was a fucking genius. I really must watch more of him.

23 Mar 2010

Been awhile since I posted one of these. I was experimenting with my voice again, got pissed off at sounding crap, and went all You-Shall-Not-Pass on it. Didn’t work, of course, and I must apologise most profusely to any English people for the dodgy accent, but it… well, it’s a bit of fun.

18 Mar 2010

An Ungrateful Child (written 2005)

I wrote this in 2005. I was probably 17 at the time; probably a school essay. It’s unfinished, for some reason, but it’s an interesting history lesson for me. You can sort of see me playing with language, like a big English bouncy-castle. “An Ungrateful Child” was the essay title I was given.

Some completely mind-buggering height above the surface of the Earth there is, or will be, a spacecraft.

Now, this, you might think, is a completely moot point given the title, but crucially the ‘ungrateful child’ in question, or rather ‘it which will soon be ungrateful,’ is at the moment in another spacecraft on the way to the first spacecraft at a speed which, until quite recently in the big scheme of things, would have been considered very unhealthy.

The child in question would be ungrateful at this very point, if only it wasn’t so preoccupied with being terrified, what with the intense noise and g-force with which it is being propelled through, and out of, the upper atmosphere.

It would now be ungrateful at this point, if only it wasn’t so preoccupied with being stunned by the sudden silence caused by the rocket motors stopping.

In actual fact there isn’t anything like silence right now, because everyone in the spacecraft is shouting or screaming or a combination of both, but everyone will be too out of breath, by the time their hearing returns, to notice.

Anyway, after a long period of quiet acceptance, the child and its parents is and are released from the cursed space-borne shuttle-bus and into the arrivals section of the space station.

This improbably large structure is a tourist centre, if you like, because at some point in history people realised, or will realise, that no one who wants to leave the planet wants to do so in a small and pretty cramped capsule.

The small and pretty cramped capsule is still in service, but as has been mentioned, its only job now is to shuttle people to and from this giant revolving space station and is usually the least-enjoyed part of space travel.

Although, in fact, not as much of it is enjoyed as might be imagined, at least not for any length of time. As usual the tourist board gets the last laugh. You see, most people go only for a short time, a few hours perhaps, so that, of course, they find out whether they’d like to go again for a longer period. Invariably the answer to this is yes, and so they choose to go again for maybe a week. It is only then that they become aware of the problems associated with, for example, having a shower in zero gravity, owing to the rather prominent problems of A) not being able to stay “under” the water, and B) the water not wanting to go “downward” with any great conviction.