Sunday, July 6, 2014

July 6 2014: How to be inspired—plant a lupin bush outside your study window—and throw in a strutting bantam cock. Oh, and by the way, be living in a thatched cottage in West Waterford, Ireland

I'm home a lot. Because I live in Ireland, we can live under the celebrity radar. I might go missing for a whole year.

Bono

Geographically, Ireland is a medium-sized rural island that is slowly but steadily being consumed by sheep.

Dave Barry


When I’m doing serious book-writing I don’t really want or need a glorious view (or so I pretend). I tell myself it would be too distracting—and I may be right at that. Certainly, being totally focused—being in the zone, if you will—is a wonderful thing.

Yet I do hark back to my cottage in Ireland during the time the lupin bush just outside my study window was in full flower—and I miss it greatly. When it was in flower, it seemed to make the whole world a better place. I absolutely adored the thing.

All in all, I’m a pretty lousy person to advise you as to whether your surroundings—and your view in particular—will make you a better, or a more productive, writer. On balance, I favor the ascetic approach of no view—but full focus on your work.

But, by god, I miss that lupin.

As for my bantam cock, he liked to parade up and down my window sill until I was appropriately smitten by his beauty—and then he would ignore me. I became very fond of the little monster and christened him Yul Brynner—because no other human could strut quite like him, the man.

He, the bantam, had a sex life to die for. If you are a cock.

Funnily enough, Brynner’s son went to my old university, Trinity College, Dublin, and dated a former girlfriend of mine. So much for degrees of separation.


June 6 2014: “National Living Treasure!” You have got to admit, it has a ring to it.

“Genius means little more than the faculty of perceiving in an unhabitual way.”

William James

“The creative person wants to be a know-it-all. He wants to know about all kinds of things-ancient history, nineteenth century mathematics, current manufacturing techniques, hog futures. Because he never knows when these ideas might come together to form a new idea. It may happen six minutes later, or six months, or six years. But he has faith that it will happen.”

Carl Ally

“Creativity is inventing, experimenting, growing, taking risks, breaking rules, making mistakes, and having fun.”

Mary Lou Cook


I love the Japanese title, NATIONAL LIVING TREASURE, and believe we would do well to adopt it here—if only we could confine it to creative people and keep it separate from business, politics, and commercial success generally. The thought of some political hack getting the title makes my stomach churn. On the other hand, the prospect of Maria Popova receiving it pleases me greatly—and there are many other great creative people, some successful, some less so, who deserve such recognition.

Ideally, I see it being focused on the less well known—the kind of people who are widely respected in their individual fields for both the quality of their work and their integrity, but who probably don’t have national recognition. In fact, they may not even be particularly successful commercially—but their work speaks for itself.

I tend to think of Maria Popova as a one person guardian, explainer, appreciator, and advocate of creativity and artistic endeavor generally—and it is a role which she clearly loves and in which she really excels. She is a true and consistent champion of creativity.

She works through her website, BRAIN PICKINGS which I mainly encounter through her weekly newsletter, which arrives every Sunday. Actually, her website is worth visiting independently of the newsletter—but I confess I didn’t make that extra effort until recently.

Though she writes with vigor and clarity herself, she tends to spearhead her work with quotes from others—and they tend to be reinforced with truly spectacular (and often unusual graphics). This is a woman who has made tracking down the less predictable, the evocative—the visually striking, but unsettling—into an art form in itself.

The following are examples of the kind of quotes she excels at locating. n this case, they are from Julia Cameron:

Art is a spiritual transaction. Artists are visionaries. We routinely practice a form of faith, seeing clearly and moving toward a creative goal that shimmers in the distance — often visible to us, but invisible to those around us. Difficult as it is to remember, it is our work that creates the market, not the market that creates our work. Art is an act of faith, and we practice practicing it.

No matter what your age or your life path, whether making art is your career or your hobby or your dream, it is not too late or too egotistical or too selfish or too silly to work on your creativity. . . . I have come to believe that creativity is our true nature, that blocks are an unnatural thwarting of a process at once as normal and as miraculous as the blossoming of a flower at the end of a slender green stem.

I learned to turn my creativity over to the only god I could believe in, the god of creativity, I learned to get out of the way and let that creative force work through me… I learned to just show up at the page and write down what I heard. Writing became more like eavesdropping and less like inventing a nuclear bomb. It wasn’t so tricky, and it didn’t blow up on me anymore. I didn’t have to be in the mood. I didn’t have to take my emotional temperature to see if inspiration was pending. I simply wrote. No negotiations. Good, bad? None of my business. I wasn’t doing it. By resigning as the self-conscious author, I wrote freely.

If you think of the universe as a vast electrical sea in which you are immersed and from which you are formed, opening to your creativity changes you from something bobbing in that sea to a more fully functioning, more conscious, more cooperative part of that ecosystem.

The heart of creativity is an experience of the mystical union; the heart of the mystical union is an experience of creativity. . . . Creativity is an experience — to my eye, a spiritual experience. It does not matter which way you think of it: creativity leading to spirituality or spirituality leading to creativity. In fact, I do not make a distinction between the two. In the face of such experience, the whole question of belief is rendered obsolete. As Carl Jung answered the question of belief late in his life, “I don’t believe; I know.”

Do most of us regard creativity this way—as a force of this power? I fear that most of us do not. Most of us have been conditioned not to think this way—but to conform.

We are living with the consequences.


Saturday, July 5, 2014

July 5 2014: The U.K. is getting aircraft carriers again

In the development of air power, one has to look ahead and not backward and figure out what is going to happen, not too much what has happened.

Brigadier General William 'Billy' Mitchell, USAS.

That idea is so damned nonsensical and impossible that I'm willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit if from the air.

Newton D. Baker, U.S. Secretary of War, regards Billy Mitchell's idea of airplanes sinking a battleship. In July 1921 Mitchell got his experiment and sunk the captured German battleship Ostfreisland. Newton was not on the bridge. 1921


An aircraft carrier is an extraordinary capability—but also an extremely expensive one. The 65,000 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, will cost close to double their original contract cost of $6.2 billion each.

A single carrier is designed to be capable of 72 fast jet sorties per day based upon 36 aircraft—but it seems highly likely that the standard carrier air wing will be confined to 12 F35B aircraft and 14 Augusta Westland EH101 Merlin Mk2s. Still, plans are afoot to surge extra aircraft if necessary.

The British are doing interesting things regarding their services. Though carriers are clearly Royal Navy assets, the Royal Air force will supply most of the staffing capability for the fixed-wing strike capability of the F35Bs.

This raises a question near and dear to my heart. Should we—the U.S. continue with a service structure which spends a great deal of time on internecine warfare—or do some fundamental re-thinking?

Warship construction has now become so expensive, I have to wonder whether we shouldn’t be looking more closely at militarized versions of the kind of civilian ships that are built in volume—so vastly less expensive—for many roles.

Will they be as advanced and as militarily suitable? No—but they should be able to carry our many naval tasks just as well—and we will be able to afford more of them.

Right now, we are in danger of not having enough ships.


Friday, July 4, 2014

July 4 2014: Copyblogger.com is a great site if you want to write a superior blog (not an easy task however easy it looks). Highly recommended for those seeking blogging wisdom—and how to improve your writing generally (like myself). Some fascinating, and little known, details about the art of blogging—and a challenge.

My blogging life is basically goalless. I like the zen nature of that, and paradoxically, it improves results.

Seth Godin


Apparently the actual research was done by Orbit Media Studios. Be that is it may, here are some of the details courtesy of Copyblogger.com The results are based on a survey of more than 1,000 bloggers. Let me quote:

  • 54 percent of bloggers spend fewer than 2 hours on a typical post
  • Just 5.5 percent of bloggers spend 6+ hours per post
  • Only 15 percent of bloggers have a formal editing process
  • 4.9 percent of bloggers write 1500+ words in a typical post
  • Less than half of bloggers use multiple images
  • 14.7 percent are adding video

In case you’re curious, on Copyblogger, the typical post takes about 5-7 hours to create (sometimes quite a bit more), but that work is spread out over several content creators. Because we have the luxury of an editorial staff, we have a multi-stage editorial process in addition to the time that the original writer spends on each post.

If you don’t have a team of writers, don’t worry. Solo content creators can absolutely create excellent content, and some of the most wonderful blogs on the web are produced by individuals.

One key is to give yourself enough time to create quality work. Strong writing is a product of many factors, but those factors always include time for proofreading, editing, fact-checking, and rewriting.

Make the commitment to producing your content in several phases — a draft phase, an editing phase, a fact-check phase, and a final “picky” proofreading phase.

The Rule of 24 is an excellent one for every writer. Allow at least 24 hours between your draft phase and your editing phase whenever humanly possible.

  • 54 percent of bloggers are publishing at least weekly
  • 32 percent publish more than once per week
  • 3.3 percent publish daily
  • Only 4.3 percent of the bloggers who publish weekly are spending 6+ hours per post. In the trade-off between quality and quantity, they’ve made a choice.
  • Most bloggers spend around 2.5 hours writing 800-word posts and publish weekly. They share it on social media (94 percent) and move on to the next post. Only half check analytics on a regular basis.

Make sure to head over to Orbit Media Studios and read Survey of 1,000+ Bloggers: How to Be in the Top 5 Percent.

Copyblogger’s main point is as follows: Maybe it’s time to publish less, but write more.

The internet wants quality.

It doesn’t want more … it wants more original.

I try and blog daily (which puts me among the 3.3%)—and normally succeed—because I find the discipline helpful. I like to have to write every day—and have the facility to do so.
 
Is that frequency optimum for a thoughtful piece of maximum
quality?
 
Probably not—but that is not exactly what I’m trying to achieve. Primarily, I’m seeking to interest, entertain, amuse, inform—and keep in touch.
 
Should I strive for a higher purpose—even if only from time to time? That is worthy of the most serious thought?
 
Copyblogger.com have a talent for making you think—and work!

 

 

Thursday, July 3, 2014

July 3 2014: Robots are currently parking cars. Soon cars will drive themselves (in fact, they are already doing it experimentally). When will robots take over writing—and get fan mail? When will robots take over us? When will we become bionic robots and live vastly longer lives?

The job market of the future will consist of those jobs that robots cannot perform. Our blue-collar work is pattern recognition, making sense of what you see. Gardeners will still have jobs because every garden is different. The same goes for construction workers. The losers are white-collar workers, low-level accountants, brokers, and agents.

Michio Kaku


Travelers at Dusseldorf Airport in Germany don’t even have to park their cars anymore. Last week the airport begin a using self-driving robot that resembles a forklift to deliver some cars to and from an appropriate parking space.

The idea is to get business travelers in and out of an airport as quickly and easily as possible. A driver can pull into a transfer station at the parking lot entrance and leave their car after checking in on a digital touchscreen. Sensors in the station measure the dimensions of the vehicle, and send that information to one of the robots. The robot, called Ray, adjusts its arms to fit the new vehicle, then drives to the transfer station and slides its arms around the tires to lift the vehicle off the ground.

The electric-powered Rays travel at speeds up to 6 mph. Each Ray drives autonomously, guided by laser navigation and mapping software. The Ray knows its exact location thanks to its lasers that bounce off reflectors positioned throughout the garage.

Chief executive Rupert Koch claims using the Ray can increase a parking structure’s capacity by 40 percent. He credits this to more efficiently parking cars, by putting small cars with small cars, and large cars with large cars. For travelers, the convenience costs $40 a day or $5.50 an hour. The current pricing for the parking service, called Premium Plus, is fairly comparable to other options at the airport (full prices here).

Actually, robots—well, software, to be more precise (though it might be rather fun to construct an appropriately hard drinking, angst ridden writer robot) is already parsing financial reports and the like—and turning in quite acceptable functional text.

Will it progress to formula genre books—think Romance; Westerns; Porn etc. ? I think it probably will—and you can include formula TV screenplays and movies.

Will it progress to the well-written novel? Well, I doubt it will in the balance of my lifetime (I’m 70 as I write this). After that, I guess I’ll have other concerns.

Frankly, I have no idea. Best guess is that really good writing will always find a place—but I also think intelligent software is going to truly amaze us.

Front CoverKeep an eye out for Ray Kurzweil’s great book THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR. What is ‘The Singularity?’ This is what Wiki says.

The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization, and perhaps human nature.[1] Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence (akin to a gravitational singularity) beyond which the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable.[2]

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann. In 1958, regarding a summary of a conversation with von Neumann,Stanislaw Ulam described "ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue".[3]

The term was popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity.[4]

Futurist, and inventor of the portable reading machine for the blind, Ray Kurzweil cited von Neumann's use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain.

Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an "intelligence explosion",[5][6] where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.

Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045[7] whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.[8] At the 2012 Singularity Summit, Stuart Armstrong did a study of artificial general intelligence (AGI) predictions by experts and found a wide range of predicted dates, with a median value of 2040. Discussing the level of uncertainty in AGI estimates, Armstrong said in 2012, "It's not fully formalized, but my current 80% estimate is something like five to 100 years."[9]


Wednesday, July 2, 2014

July 2 2014: My sister Lucy in Australia—and photography

To me, photography is an art of observation. It's about finding something interesting in an ordinary place... I've found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.

Elliott Erwitt

I have long admired Elliot’s work and finally got to meet him through my first editor, Rose Marie Morse. They had once been an item. Small world. Great people. Fantastic photographer—one of the Magnum Photos greats.

Magnum is a photographic cooperative founded by such greats as Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson in Paris in 1947.

Elliott introduced me to Murray Sayle who, at the time was living in Japan. Meeting and becoming friends with Murray, the kind of classic war correspondent and thinker you couldn’t invent, was one of the great experiences of my life.  What a man—and what a lovely family! Sadly he died not so long ago.


This is my sister Lucy—the beautiful mother of five attractive and talented children, the youngest of my siblings, now the matriarch of the family—and a talented photographer.

Does she have any vices? None of any significance that I know of. She is a credit to the family—and I am vastly proud of her.

I think this photo was taken by my sister, Hermione, when Lucy was visiting her in Australia last year. It’s a great shot, which shows the setting to great advantage, but leaves Lucy’s face in shadow. Is that something I can remedy with software? I have no expertise in this area but feel compelled to tray. Lucy looks at least a decade younger than her age—and should, I feel—be shown off to best advantage.

I’ve been seeing a lot of faces in shadow recently—they are one of the curses of automatic exposure meters—and truly regrettable. Sometimes, there is something to be said for separate meters and the manual approach. That said, would I go back to my expensive, but heavy, Nikon? Probably not.

Still, I loved my Nikon and took some great pictures with it. It was a commendably tough camera. On once occasion, when doing a story on the French Foreign Legion in Corsica, it got jolted out of my hands after the military truck I was in hit a bump—such trucks aren’t strong on suspension comfort and we were up in the mountains near Clavi—and the camera flew from my hands and crashed to the metal truck-bed. In short, I didn’t just drop it. I practically flung it—albeit unintentionally.

I was appalled. It had to be broken. Not a bit of it. The body was scraped, but the camera itself worked on like a dream.

There are good reasons why so many professionals opt for Nikon. The things work regardless—and Nikon lenses are magnificent.

The trick with a camera—as with a weapon (or any tool, I suppose)—is to know it so well, you don’t have to think when you use it. I got that way with my Nikon.

Writing is what I do, and it is a demanding discipline—but I have a yen to get back to photography again—if only for the occasional foray.

Not an impossible dream.

Yes, it was, of course, a Nikon F.


 

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

July 1 2014: To be or not to be—an intellectual, that is.

“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.”

Aldous Huxley

“...the danger that American society as a whole will over-esteem intellect or assign it such a transcendent value as to displace other legitimate values is one that hardly troubles us.”

Richard Hofstadter


‘Man as Industrial Palace,’ by Fritz Kahn, 1926—courtesy of that brilliant site, www.brainpickings.org

Every now and then (not too often to be painful, let me stress) I feel a pang of guilt that I don’t think more deeply about issues like the meaning of life. Somehow, I feel that as a thinker and writer, I should. After all, if I did, I might just qualify for “intellectual” status—which, I like to imagine, would do wonders for my ego.

Or do I have to be French to be an intellectual? It’s not a term that is much in use in the U.S. We prefer to classify by occupation—albeit accompanied by a token adjective (“successful businessman,” “distinguished academic” etc.). To grant a group of our fellow humans superior intellectual status seems to be un-American. Besides the word “intellectual” implies success—and how can one be genuinely successful in this Great Nation without making money—or, as a minimum, by being a celebrity?

By acquiring power? Very true—but it is increasingly rare today that the acquisition of power doesn’t lead to money (and vice-versa). It is how the game is scored in these United States.

I have the strongest sense that this situation does not work to our advantage. But relax—I say that as a thinker and writer, not yet with the authority of an intellectual.

I’m working on it.

Asimov: antiintellectualism