Viva la difference

In sending a link to Dan Norman’s great site, I stumbled across a reference to my work that he used in an example of novel writing techniques. I include it here, because what he says has great merit and deserves attention. There is wisdom in his suggestions. Having said that, I also must add that I tend to be prolific (or at least profuse) in my use of words (couldn’t you tell?) I suffer (not painfully) from ideaphoria—the rapid generation of ideas. And then, too, Dan might understand that I felt the need to show thought processes in a bit more detail than he would choose to do. This is not to say he is wrong in his advice. It is just to say that his approach and mine are different. I still believe he is one smart cookie. Here is the link. Thanks, Dan. I love your site.

http://www.freelance-author.com/novel-techniques.html

More on Junk Science and clarity of thought and expression

While we are on the subject of clearly expressing ourselves, and on the subject of “junk science”, as in the below letter to Stephen Hawking, I thought I would add another recent letter in somewhat the same vein. You might be interested in the workings of an everyday devious mind (I do not have my “EBI” degree—Educated Beyond Intelligence). I am acquiring my CS degree, however (Common Sense). I hope the subject matter is of interest to you. I feel it is certainly timely.


Letter to Michael Masterson
Michael,

There is a lot of junk science going around today and we are constantly bombarded by the fear mongers about the environmental issues that supposedly plague us. Most of them are just MENTAL issues, not environmental issues.

For example, after the Exxon Valdez spill, you heard an enormous outcry from the Green movement. What follow-ups do you have today? None. Why? Because the coastline has healed far more quickly and miraculously than they ever imagined possible--hence, no cannon fodder for their cause.

Regarding the ozone hole over the Arctic: AOL news has just today released a prediction from Japanese scientists that say it should disappear altogether by 2050. I also recall several years ago hearing Paul Harvey report that the ozone hole had enlarged and extended a thousand miles further south, into lower regions of Russia--due to "colder than usual temperatures". A light went on in my head with that one. Where do these "holes" occur? Over the cold regions of the world--the poles. And if they extended further, "due to colder than usual temperatures", then could they not be naturally occurring phenomena? By the way, only 30 years ago, we were being told we were headed into an ice age. Now it is global warming. So, which is true?

As to the carbon dioxide emissions.... The proponents of the ban on these emissions are all "tree-huggers", if you will. What they fail to realize is that trees breathe CO2, and provide oxygen. If you deprive them, you deprive us, too. Not a pretty scenario.

What would happen if the earth had a more temperate climate (AKA Global Warming)? Well, for one, we should have fewer and smaller hurricanes, as these are caused by temperature differentials, not homogenous temperatures. The same with tornadoes. Who wouldn't be for that? That has my vote.

And a recent issue of the journal SCIENCE listed home cooking fires in SE Asia as the leading cause of the world's man-generated pollution, not the industrialized nations of the world. Far beyond that is the pollution put out daily by the world's volcanoes. We will NEVER reach that level.

Far more important than asking if the claims of these protesting groups are true would be to ask what the motive is for the group or person claiming it. What do they have to gain and who is backing them financially. In other words, "follow the money".

One more, although I could go on. When you calculate the vast ocean surface, a rise of a foot is nothing to most areas. Also, know that the "experts" cannot agree. Some claim a foot and others as much as 45 feet. When you are dealing with environMENTALists, you can usually assume they have multiplied by at least 10, to get the fear factor up into the range they want it to be.

n experiment you can do on your kitchen table should relax your mind and make for sweeter dreams. Place some ice cubes in a glass of water and mark the level on the glass with a permanent marker (comes off with acetone or hairspray), then let the ice melt and check the level again. It should be the same as before. Why? Because water EXPANDS 10% when it freezes, therefore becoming less dense and therefore it floats, being about 90% below the waterline. So, again the crazies have cried wolf and are made out to be liars. If there is a great degree of actual shelf ice melting, it may be due to increased volcanic activity in the polar regions. Take Iceland, for example. Look back over the news and see what has happened there. No man, nor mankind, could have produced such effects.

So, Michael, just relax and take a deep breath. Life goes on and there is little you can do about it--unless you want to add some CO2 when you can (to feed the trees and temper the weather patterns).

Take care, my friend,
Steven O'Dell

No, Yes or Maybe?

An Update:

Just an update regarding The Screenplay Agency, which showed interest (for a fee, of course) in my novel. It seems they are worthy of “great note” and are “award” winners (Top Twenty worst according to Writer Beware). Check this link: http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/peals.htm

Also, on a humorous note, I have recently queried the Charlotte Gusay Agency in L.A. They want books they can convert to film, which mine would do nicely. I spent a great deal of time making the very best query letter I could, included an excerpt, references to my test marketing, a handful of reader responses and a brief synopsis. I also noted that parts 2 and 3 are in the works to be expanded and fleshed out more fully. I sent this letter off and waited.

A few days later, I realized that with all the attention I had paid to the body of the letter, I had neglected to correct the contact info to reflect the new address and phone number for our recent move. I therefore sent off an amended query (this time on a nicely monogrammed letterhead, with corrected info and again waited. Our letters must have crossed in the mail—hers was a rejection letter. Oh, well, I thought. Many well-known writers were rejected a dozen or more times before making it into published status or film status. I am just one step closer to success, that’s all.

Not expecting another response after this, I was shocked to get a letter asking for me to send a synopsis and a sample of a few chapters. (Seems that monogram worked wonders.) I may have to start a line of clothing with it, to bring good luck to all my friends—hehe. Oh, there is a fee involved, but that was the only warning at the Preditors and Editors site. With this woman’s Rolodex list of director’s and screenwriters, I think it will be a great bargain if it pays off.

Also, if she has a sense of humor and this becomes a lasting working relationship, I may have the rejection letter matted and sent to her as a gift in the future. Ain’t I a stinker?

A Letter To Stephen Hawking

There are many types of writing that the aspiring author may have to address in his or her growth. The stories, poems, lyrics, etc. are the most obvious in nature. There is also the query letter and synopsis to be considered, as well as letters of thanks or of clarification. I wish to address another type of letter today.

I guess this one could bear many titles, from letter of objection to letter of instruction. The following is a letter that I wrote a few years ago to the great Stephen Hawking, considered one of the most brilliant minds of our time. He is most noted for his studies and dissertations on Time and Black Holes. The reason I wrote to him is that I found what appeared to me to be glaring difficulties with the most recent theories of the time. I spoke my mind, regarding the views that are objectionable to me, and asked for further enlightenment, if there was any to be had. I then sent the letter to his email address and waited patiently. A few years later, I am still waiting. Perhaps I am not important enough to warrant an answer, so I now leave that to you, the reader.

There are times we have to express ourselves clearly and forcibly, to vent our frustrations, our objections and our concerns. That is, I submit, as much an art as the writing of any novel or poem and deserves as much forethought and eloquence. So, without further ado, here is the letter.


The Big Bang Fizzles Out

Dr. Hawking,

My writing to you has to do with the fact that I am greatly bothered by some issues that would seem to me to be evident to one of your mental stature--certain fundamental laws of physics as introduced by Newton. I am not all-seeing by any stretch of the imagination, but these seem to be glaring problems to me. If there are further advancements that have taken these issues into account and address them adequately, please refer me to them, if you will. Otherwise, I suggest that an entire re-thinking of the theory may be in order.

We (the general population) are told that "nothing can escape from a black hole". This includes even light. Then we are told that x-rays can and do escape. Hmmmmm,...okay. The fact is that if ALL matter, energy and whatever else may have constituted the materials for the original point of focus were in fact IN one point, then that would have been the "MOTHER of all black holes" and it would seem evident that nothing COULD escape from this, thus making moot the question of a Big Bang in the first place.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the impossible did happen (maybe by an act of God) and that the singular point was indeed the origin of the event. Now we have other troubles to sort out. We are told that anything radiating outward from a single point will gradually distance itself from any other thing leaving that same point (divergence), even if they left side by side in the same general direction. Yet we are also told that there are numerous celestial bodies that cross paths and influence one another. How can these both be true--divergent and crossing?

We are informed that these bodies (some of which are called Quasars) are actually accelerating as they gain distance from their point of origin, yet they travel in a vacuum (all matter was in that single point, so there was no interfering medium to travel through) and should neither gain nor lose speed as they travel. This is simple Newtonian Physics. If they do the impossible and gain speed, then we must address that issue. Perhaps there is a repelling force at the center of the event that pushes the matter away? Yet how could this be possible, as the concentration of matter (whether it attracts or repels or is neutral) no longer exists, due to the "bang" itself. Then maybe there is an attractive force or object on the outer reaches of the universe that draw these Quasars in. That would pose the problem that NOT all matter was then in the center of the event, as well as the fact that there must now be an "eggshell" of sorts that is compelling the Quasars to accelerate as they gain proximity--this is, of course, preposterous. To think that all of the universe is contained in a gigantic eggshell, dense beyond description--shades of the ancient superstitions? Perhaps then these objects are self-propelled by some means we know not--they choose their own velocity (and trajectory)--not likely, I would say. Unless God IS interfering in some manner.

Well, there are other difficulties, too. Not the least of which is the "echoes" of the Big Bang. If there was nothing out there in the first instance, what is there to echo FROM, I might ask? I do hope you might offer some sort of clarity on this issue as it is most puzzling to me. Perhaps it is just background noise? If so, from what? And then there is that nasty problem of things happening far faster than they should in the creation of new stars and galaxies. Oh, bother!

As to the theory of an Oscillating Universe--when Quasars reach escape velocity, how will they ever be re-introduced to the system? It cannot be. One or the other is wrong.

The early Rabbis had theories (from their Torah) of several more dimensions than we even speculated on, until late. Maybe they were not so foolish as we are told? And is it not possible that all there was in the first instance was matter, space and intelligence and that the prime intelligence found a way to organize (the Hebrew word for “create” means to organize what was already there) that matter? As to intelligence--none of the major scientists (I use the term loosely in referring to evolutionists and their kind) ever addresses THAT origin and SHOWS it as nothing more than what they THINK it to be--"random or conditioned reaction to a wonderfully complex environment." Humbug!

The same "man of science" that says there is no God is trying at breakneck speed to BECOME one in his own right, is he not? There is none to become, according to that logic. And it is the height of all arrogance to think he may become such if there has never been nor ever will be. After all, is not all the universe decaying according to the "LAW" of entropy? Then why try? Not according to the brightest of our scientific minds--it is all a wonderful accident. Math, science itself, love, advances in medicine and every virtuous desire of the human heart and mind are simply the effect of random or conditioned response to our environment. Even IQ is then an illusion, is it not?

God save me from this philosophy then! I want no part of a science that breaks or ignores its own "laws" for the sake of convenience or to dumb down the masses in order to maintain some degree of imagined power or status for their own small circle of influence. This is no science--it is no more than medieval witchery. No disrespect meant to you, sir. If you honestly do see anything I have missed that could possibly enlighten me, please do so. I am not above being taught--I just object to being insulted. And perhaps I have taught you something as well. The true man of science pursues the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be in his own circles (for example--there are many individuals with HIV who have no AIDS and many with AIDS that have no HIV, yet it is the kiss of death to research funding if you suggest that perhaps HIV is not the cause of AIDS).

As to the existence of God--I know for myself that there is one, but I will be first to admit that I cannot prove it to another. It is an individual experiment and every man must choose for himself whether he will get into the test tube and be a part of that experiment or will by his choice remain ignorant of the results that others have experienced for themselves. There IS a plan and it all makes the most wonderful and supreme sense when you are privy to that knowledge. I invite you to participate in the grandest experiment of all--if He can create all of what you see, He can certainly answer a sincere prayer, can he not? It is far more wise to seek this answer than to continually try to write Him out of the equation--it will never happen because it is impossible and will only lead to frustration and madness.

Feel free to rebuke, correct, insult or whatever. I can take it. Any offense you may have taken to this is unintentional on my part, I assure you. I just think we need to hold ourselves to certain standards and not compromise them in the least degree for the sake of fame or popularity. I hope you agree.

Your friend,
Steven O'Dell

P.S. Here is one to think about--maybe what we call the Big Bang was just the White Hole on the other end of the process--a sort of "cosmic vomiting" into our regions? Maybe we are at the end of the drain pipe after all. A wonderful and complex cesspool and nothing more--doesn't that just lift your self-esteem? Take care, my friend.