TETSUJIN.ORG

I won’t be seeing the movie Angels and Demons when it is released. I plan to avoid it, as I did The DaVinci Code a few years ago.

This is not a boycott based on religious sentiment. I happily explore controversies of all types, and if your story is good you can use the Pope, the President, the Dalai Lama or Betty Crocker as your bad guy and I’ll keep reading. No, my reason for avoiding Angels and Demons is that even I have a limited tolerance for bad storytelling.

I slogged through the novel The DaVinci Code, but quit reading Angels and Demons after a few chapters. Putting aside the mediocre writing,* I just could not stand to continue a book that revels in ignorance.

Here’s the line that finally got me to put the book down:

Langdon had spent his career studying religious history, and if there was one recurring theme, it was that science and religion had been oil and water since day one…archenemies…unmixable.

I don’t recall where Robert Langdon is supposed to have studied, but wherever it was he got ripped off. An expert in religious history, but he knows nothing of the history of scientists in religious life? Does not know that the Vatican has maintained an astronomical observatory for centuries? Never heard of Jesuit priest George Coyne or scores of other scientist-priests? Never heard of Gregor frikkin’ Mendel and the dawn of genetic science?

There is plenty of room and reason for discussion about the positive or negative effects that religion has had on scientific progress. But for Dan Brown or his hero to suggest that religion and science are always and utterly “unmixable” is absurd.

It would be interesting to think that Brown has intended a farce, a story about a supposed expert who really knows very little about his subject. Inspector Clouseau Meets the Illuminati might be a fun movie. Sadly, I understand from reading The DaVinci Code that this is not the author’s aim. Brown seems to portray Langdon as a genuine expert.

This leaves us with two possible explanations:

1) Dan Brown is writing on a subject about which he knows very little and which he has not bothered to learn, or
2) Dan Brown thinks so little of his audience that he believes he can put howlers like “religion and science never mix” into the mind of his religion expert and no one will notice the error.

Sadly, if option 2 is correct then the success of his books suggests that Brown is justified in his low opinion of his potential readership. But either way, for me, this kind of sloppiness or cynicism means that a writer is not worth my time.

—
*Two novels, and each one introduces the same main character by having him examine his own reflection? Really?

Tags: movies, writing

NBC’s Life was one of the best new television series of 2007 - 2008. I’m grateful it survived its strike-shortened first season to return even stronger for 2008 - 2009.

When I first heard of Life I was not especially interested. I’m not all that big on cop shows. Then I heard it involved a detective who had survived 12 years of wrongful imprisonment by adopting and practicing Zen Buddhism. This made me really determined to avoid it. I expected yet another half-baked pop culture abuse of the word and concept of “zen.” Something like “Zen and the art of homicide investigation” to go along with Zen and the Art of Vampires or Zen and the Art of Steel Boat Building.

Then I happened to see a bit of the show while Darling Wife was watching, and after a few minutes I realized this was something special. The characters are interesting, original and cleverly written. The performances are sharp and brilliant, not only from stars Damian Lewis and Sarah Shahi, but also from a great supporting cast including Brent Sexton, Adam Arkin and (new in 2008) Donal Logue. It’s also well shot, with camera work and editing that increases the drama and enhances the storytelling but never distracts.

And then there’s the music. Life makes excellent use of some incredibly good music, with selection and placement of songs that truly serve the story. Comments by Rand Ravich, the show’s executive producer, to Vanity Fair last year highlight how carefully the music is selected, and the importance of music to the show’s style. I’ve discovered a number of new artists and purchased a number of songs and albums because of tracks that I heard on Life, including great songs like Down Boy by Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Little Toy Gun by honeyhoney

If you’ve never seen Life, I wish I could suggest that you take a look at some recent episodes on hulu.com — a site that offers free streaming episiodes of programs from NBC and other networks.

I also wish I could recommend that you buy the first season on DVD. Hell, I’ve even been known to drop an Amazon affilitate link from time to time — solely for your convenience, you understand, dear reader.

Sadly, I can’t do that. Sure, the first season has been released on DVD, and Hulu has the last few episodes. But I won’t suggest that you go watch them. To do so would be to steer you toward a diminished, bastardized product that does not well represent the production I came to enjoy so much.

In the version of Life available on Hulu, and on DVD, the songs that were so important to the original production are replaced with bland, generic-sounding stand-ins. It sounds like some effort has been made to provide a vaguely similar sound, but generally the effect is just sad.

I suspect the reason is that it is less expensive for NBC to use the inferior replacements in the online and DVD versions than to use the music originally selected by the show’s creators. I have no doubt that the replacement songs are cheaper, considering how much they cheapen the impression made by the show.

This all leads me to think that someone is being stupid.

Maybe the artists or the record companies holding the rights to the original songs are being stupid by refusing to license them for use online and on DVD. Or may be they are just being stupid by holding out for an unreasonable amount of money for the additional use. It seems to me that they are throwing away a great opportunity for exposure and marketing. I doubt I’m the only person who has purchased music specifically because it appeared on Life or another series. And I don’t see what the rights holders are possibly risking by allowing the use of the songs. I do not believe anyone who might otherwise buy a song would decide not to buy it because they can hear a part of it on a DVD or an online TV show.

Or maybe NBC is being stupid by refusing to pay a reasonable license fee to use the songs on DVDs and online. They may be saving a little money, but at the cost of unhappy fans, diminished DVD sales and an inferior product to showcase on Hulu.

Of course it’s also possible that all parties involved are being stupid, by refusing to negotiate reasonable licensing terms. It seems to me there may be plenty of stupid to go around. I just don’t see how the end result is good for anyone.

So here’s what I do now, with regard to Life:

• I watch every episode on Tivo, skipping commercials as I am wont to do.
• If an episode is especially good, I keep it for future viewing.
• I purchase music and discover new bands based on what I hear on the show. I’ll happily keep doing so, if the music on the broadcast continues to be as amazingly good as it has been.
• I will NOT watch the butchered episodes on NBC.com or Hulu — which, by the way, have non-skippable ads I would actually sit through.
• I will NOT buy the DVDs, because they don’t really contain the program that I so admire.

Good luck with that model, NBC. The outlets that would actually get people to view commercials, lay out hard cash, and forego unauthorized distribution channels are being saddled with inferior content. If people do find another way to get copies of the excellent, original versions of the episodes, it will probably be be from a source that provides no compensation to the show’s creators. And that’s just stupid.

Tags: copyright, music, TV

With the iPhone and the App Store, Apple has introduced not only an excellent device for reading, but also a powerful new distribution channel for writers and publishers. However, this combination gives Apple a lot of power, and they may be exercising that power to make decisions they have no business making: decisions about what kind of material people should and should not read.

Smartphones and PDAs can be terrific devices for reading. I’ve been enjoying novels and book-length nonfiction on handhelds since I started using a Sharp Zaurus in 2002. Most of my e-reads have been classics from Project Gutenberg, and a few free titles released under Creative Commons licenses.

Palm and other platforms have had commercial ebooks available for purchase before now. Amazon is building an enthusiastic audience for its Kindle ebook reader. Even so, the iPhone and App Store offer a whole new level of accessibility and ease of use for people who are not interested in carrying yet another device just to read ebooks, but who might take advantage of the chance to buy and read books on the phone they’ll be carrying anyway. I count myself among that group — I love ebooks, but the last thing I want is another piece of hardware to carry.

A number of app developers have jumped at this opportunity. Hundreds of ebooks are available on the iTunes App Store. Most are classics going for $0.99, while others are contemporary commercial works costing more.

But there’s a problem with this model of selling stand-alone ebooks via the App Store. It’s the same problem application developers have run into. Before an application can go on sale on the App Store, it has to get Apple’s approval. Because stand-alone ebooks are considered applications in their own right, they need approval as well.

All of which means that Apple is in a position to approve or reject novels and other books based upon their content.

The iPhone SDK agreement states that “Applications must not contain any defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found iPhone or iPod touch users.” So, you want to publish a novel that contains adult themes or language? Watch out.

This is not just some speculation about what Apple might do if it wields this power badly. Apple has already rejected at least two novels from the App Store: David Carnoy’s Knife Music and Mur Lafferty’s Playing For Keeps. The case of Playing for Keeps is especially strange, because Apple initially approved this novel. In fact it’s still available on the App Store for $4.99. A later version, with additional blurbs added, was rejected.

Now, I hesitate to call any of this censorship. And before anyone gets lathered up, this is not a First Amendment issue. (Few things enrage me quite as much as people citing the First Amendment in situations that don’t involve government action.) Apple is free to sell what they like on their own store. But users are free to vote with their actions and their dollars, and I think it’s high time for that.

For those interested in selling and buying ebooks, there is an alternative to selling books as stand-alone applications: selling ebooks as files to be used with ebook reader software.

The best ebook reader I’ve used is Stanza by LexCycle. In addition to a comfortable user interface, Stanza provides access to direct downloads from a growing library that includes free books from Project Gutenberg, Feedbooks and Book Glutton, and materials from major magazines and newspapers.

More recently, the Stanza online catalog has added sections that allow users to buy books for actual money, some of which presumably goes upstream to help compensate the authors. Through Fictionwise, readers can purchase books from well-known publishers — and contrary to the “Fictionwise” name, their offerings include hundreds of major nonfiction titles as well. Stanza also allows readers to purchase books from Smashwords, a digital self-publishing service.

Whether Stanza will secure a place as the leading iPhone ebook reader, and whether Fictionwise, Smashbooks, and other stores will find success as content providers, we can’t yet tell. But they already demonstrate that there are ways to sell books for the iPhone other than as stand-alone apps.

The important point here is that because the books themselves are not sold through the iTunes App Store, they do not require approval from Apple. If they did, I doubt we’d see 358 titles in Fictionwise’s Erotica category.

Only the reader software need be approved by Apple. This lets Apple keep its attention where it belongs: on ensuring that their store sells well-constructed software that won’t start crashing iPhones. It also leaves the decision as to what constitutes acceptable reading with the right parties: publishers, authors and — most importantly — readers.

UPDATE: A version of David Carnoy’s Knife Music is now available in the iTunes App Store. Apple approved the book for sale after Carnoy removed words Apple found objectionable.

The original, uncut version of the book is available in the Stanza reader from Smashwords.

Carnoy seems happy with this arrangement, and believes that distributing books as stand-alone apps in the App Store is superior to other options such as Stanza with Smashwords. Maybe that’s true, but it’s not worth giving Apple control over an author’s choice of words. Until Apple finds a way to distribute novels without interfering in their content, Stanza and its variety of distribution channels is the better way to go.

Tags: Apple, ebooks, iPhone, publishing