Monday, December 29, 2014

The Old Days


I'm not sure why I find this photo so… I don't know the proper word… comforting?

I think, Saturday… autumn afternoon… just a short walk down the sidewalk. Through the door, the scent of musty pulp, and a promise of something old but magical.

The owner doesn't quite know all that's here, but take your time looking.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Quickly – A Plug For My Newest Blog!

It's Rob isn't going anywhere – we'll be back to our regular shittle-shattle in no time!

I only wanted to let you know that my books, meaning those I've actually written (despite all the best efforts of my high school and college English and literature instructors to dissuade me) will not be cluttering things up here, but have their very own promotional outlet...

MY MIND CREATES DANGER will be updated semi-regularly – once a week, should I be able to manage it. It will feature announcements, updates and general weekly plugs for all the titles in my ever-growing library (11 so far).

Check in from time to time, to see what's new, or what's still waiting for inclusion on your reading list!

That's it – commercial done.

Now for a nap.

Friday, September 12, 2014

There's More To Read!


This blog has been my sanity maintenance zone, and it will continue to be.

I'd like to take one blogpost, however, and let you know where you can get your eyes on even more of my humor, if that's your impulsive desire!

"8 Plays That Scientifically Disprove The Existence Of Love" was just published this week!

Remember the last time you saw two people lost in the throes of love and wondered just what was the hidden backstory behind that outer layer of blithe perfection? Before you answer, please ask yourself if you know perfect love when you see it. The truth is, most people never do, while they just assume it's out there! This saucy collection of rowdy sketch comedy explores that mysterious valley between love, like... and mutual tolerance. Don't let the book's title rile you too much – a treasure trove of lovely laughter awaits, whether you are a theatrical producer, actor, or just want to read and enjoy the ride. Decide for yourself herein what is proven or debunked about everyone's favorite subject, nude skydiving. Er, uh... no. We meant love.

It's available in paperback for you tangible book lovers, and e-book format for you technology-addicts who want to keep laughing! Search for it on Amazon, and other fine online book retail sites!

Shortly I will have a separate blog for my book promotions! In the brief meantime, please give this a browse, won't you?

In a few days we'll be back to the usual shenanigans here!

Cheers, everyone!

– Rob

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Please Consider We Who Come After You

Have I ranted on this before? The guy who be-bops out of the mensroom magnetized to his iPhone, with no awareness or consideration whatsoever that he has left the facility wreaking of his gastric plumage?

It's possibly a delicate subject, I admit, but really, there are even limits to what us rugged he-guys will endure from one another.

Call our mothers a farm animal… hint that we're less than granite… question our ability to woo a mate or produce mentally stable offspring… we handle all that – though we might not relish the battle, in secret. But to assume that others enjoy being flash-swamped by your shotgun butt-whiff is taking machismo too far.

I don't wish to share your colon's chemical handiwork on those seven fish tacos you scarfed down at lunch, thank you kindly.

We tried to be nice about it. We placed a can of air freshener, and hung a demure sign in the mens: "Please consider who uses the room next."

That apparently wasn't direct enough. So we placed a larger sign, which had drawn an arrow, pointing to the air freshener. "Please use this after flushing."

Well even that wasn't sufficiently tow-headed to get the message across. Then there came the jumbo can – impossible to miss, especially placed centrally upon the toilet tank behind the bowl – with a sign that made the request abundantly clear to anyone who can decypher basic words: "Spray room after you flush. No one wants to smell you."

So today I approach the mens, in time to meet iPhone Commander coming the other way – he nearly runs into me. I enter the facility, and immediately think a nearby paint factory has exploded. I back-track out in expeditious fashion.

There sits the largest available retail family-jumbo-deluxe can of Mountain Berry Glade – untouched!

A sign as big as a movie poster, reads down to 3rd Grade level: "PLEEZ USE SPRAY AFTER YOU DO A BIG CACA! NOBODY LIKES SMELLING YOUR BIG CACA!"

"Smell big caca?" The room is like iPhone Dude has stashed a garbage bag full of week-old dead gophers in there.

And he's plunking more money into the breakroom vending machines, for select junky snacks to diversify his next exertion's savory nuance.

Am I unkind? Does someone really need to confront this self-distracted walking contaminant, about the fact that his bowel movements are not grunted out in a galactic vacuum, that other living things must endure his rancid rectal greenhouse effect? Can anyone this obsessed with technology be so disconnected from his own biology?

Does he just not smell it himself anymore? Is he so used to his own inner rot that it no longer registers on his olfactory meter? Even a beer-and-chili addicted trucker knows to exit a bathroom with a warning along the lines of "don't go in there for a few minutes."

Or are there people who actually derive personal satisfaction out of being such a – literal – huge asshole?

What the hell must his home bathroom smell like? How many patient girlfriends has this human debris factory melted like they'd fallen into a vat of nuclear solvent?

Maybe the next sign would be better, were it poetic, and uncaring whether its readers were educated or not. "Please consider we who come after you, or we'll come after you."

Friday, August 15, 2014

How Surreal Did My Friday Morning Become?

Friday morning went from normal to nutty-as-a-circus-elephant-turd, in record time today.

The first abnormality that confronted me, was the two near-full, refrigerator-chilled bottles of Mountain Dew standing side-by-side at the bottom of the waste paper basket. This sight, to put it mildly, was completely left-field level unexpected.

I extracted the two bottles of cold soda, and placed them on the desktop above the basket, to fully absorb the twisted reality of such a discovery. I then got a suspicious notion. Was the liquid inside the bottles, really their original contents? I lifted one of the bottles, which became instantly sweaty in my hand, from the transition to room-temperature. I shook it, to see if the liquid would fizz with carbonation. It didn't.

It appeared to be yellowy Mountain Dew… that wouldn't bubble. I immediately suspected the worst.

I put the bottle down as fast as I could, and trotted to the supervisor. "Someone put two bottles of URINE in the department trashcan, and it looks like they even got them cold in the refrigerator for who-knows-what reason, before they did," I cried!

My boss then chuckled, and said "I put those there."

My eyes wouldn't blink. "YOU did??"

"They'd been in the fridge for weeks, they'd been opened, they were old. I threw them away," she said, laughing more.

"So they're really just two old bottles of soda," I asked, to double-check my own senses?

"Well, you could have opened one and tried it, if you had doubts," she grinned.

I left her office, and headed back to my work area, to discover that the entire department had heard me yell "two bottles of URINE!" And… as I made my way to my chair, I saw a city policeman enter the building, his attention distracted over toward us… because an interdepartmental discussion had arisen on the benefits of drinking one's own urine – inspired by my loud scream of the two chilled bottles of tinkle.

Someone was apparently practicing survival techniques… at work.

The cop, across the room, attending to some benign business at the subscription window, stared in a daze at the discourse raging at fever pitch amongst the employees… about the pros and cons of ingesting pee-pee.

"You guys," said the supervisor, seeing my pleading gaze and stepping onto the floor to address the group, "it was just old soda in those bottles, really."

But the argument by then had reached a crescendo. Now they were quoting pop-culture reality show stars who'd drank piss on TV, and distant relatives who'd survived for days in desolate locales around the globe, quenching their thirst for self-preservation's sake – guzzling their own self-generated salty gatorade.

"You people shut up, please," the boss finally said, fighting to keep her eyes from rolling as she saw the staring officer. "It was two old bottles of soda. They'd been opened a long time ago by someone, and they were flat."

The pee-drinking debate subsided momentarily, but throughout the rest of the morning, the day's overall theme had been thusly set. Whispered points and counterpoints of piss-chugging's benefits and side effects raged back and forth randomly, past lunch and into the afternoon.

And I had started it. Everything said from that moment on, upon this unfortunate workday, was mentally weighed by each worker for its worthiness of urination innuendo. I dared not enter the breakroom for a second cup of coffee for dread of stinging satire directed my way with 50 shades of yellow.

I mean… gee whiz, everyone!

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Robin Williams and...

I am about to become, hopefully just temporarily until the wave passes, the most unpopular man on the Internet.

But all I'm going to do is pose a question, presented solemnly, earnestly, despite its potentially outlandish premise. As I write this, the world is into the fourth day of mass mourning, over the untimely suicide of über-comic Robin Williams. I'd be remiss here not to say at the outset that I was a fan, though I'm sure, not the ultimate fan. There are people who outright worshipped this man, and do still. The joy and laughter he brought to an entire world in dire need of it is undebatable. And I'm certainly not about to attempt such.

Yet when I ponder Williams's depression-soaked demise, against the level of fame and fan adoration he achieved – an epic grandiosity, much like Bob Dylan's in the world of music; a level unearned by any three of Williams's contemporaries combined – one not-so-humorous scene pops into my head. I've heard it referenced before, regarding a few others who also acquired an almost Christlike status within their spheres. I already mentioned Bob Dylan; he's one of them.

The name I am about to mention will tell you exactly where I'm going with this. Maybe you'll want to stop reading now, out of respect for Robin Williams. I don't blame you. But I've committed myself to explore this dark alley. Here we go.

In the early part of the 20th century, the late 1920s and early 30s to be exact, there was an obscure blues guitarist and singer who plied his craft mainly on street corners and occasionally in dangerous "Jook Joints." As an entertainer, he was deemed at best, unremarkable. Some considered him mediocre.

His own idol was another Bluesman named Son House. But perhaps it was not House's talent he envied necessarily, but his success. House commanded respect where ever he performed, and had all the money and women that he could possibly desire, and keep track of. He made phonograph records, music that was played on the radio, that would survive him. The young man greedily craved the same life.

The young blues musician was named Robert Johnson.

As legend has it, the south then was robust with backstreet voodoo and superstition, much like certain quarters of it still are today. Johnson learned of a certain fast-track approach to the success he yearned for.

He came to a lonely crossroads one midnight, and made a bargain. He fell to his knees and surrendered his guitar to a mysterious "someone" who proceeded to tune the instrument, and ask Johnson if he wanted to remain a lonesome singer on a street corner, or produce a sound that would mesmerize all who heard it – a sound that no one had ever experienced before – and enable him to bask in a level of renown he could not imagine.

Johnson's answer was the latter.

Whether he actually did it, or the tale is merely a fantastic oral tradition survived to the present day, is still debated. It could be partially true: Johnson ventured forth and only believed in a fever dream that he'd really done it. Whichever the case, it apparently worked.

Overnight it seems, Johnson was suddenly an untouchable, musically. His hands were at once wizard-like on the guitar that he'd previously just strummed a ragged beat upon. He wrote songs that demonically possessed joint crowds, and had other men's women swooning over him. He was a blues pied piper.

The songs he produced, like Son House, he was asked to record – which he did over the course of 1936 and '37. Most of them have attained genre anthem status and become the darlings of modern collectors and audio restorationists. “Hellhound On My Trail,” “Sweet Home Chicago” and the enigmatic “Cross Road Blues” are among approximately 30 songs that Johnson committed to phonographic recordings.

In 1938, enjoying the highlife that his acclaim produced, perhaps a little too flamboyantly, Johnson was poisoned with bad hooch, by a jealous rival. His untimely death was exactly what his legend needed to skyrocket.

Modern music critics seem in colluded consensus that Robert Johnson was the single most important forefather of Rock-n-Roll. No less than such Rock giants as Keith Richards and Eric Clapton agree. No Robert Johnson would have meant no rock music, at least as we came to know it.

Now, back we come to Bob Dylan. Hate me yet?

Perhaps the single most influential songwriter of the post World War II world, the likes of which unseen since Woody Guthrie and Irving Berlin, Bob Dylan's music took charge of not just the direction of modern folk music, and of rock music, but literally an entire chunk of Americana.

Like Johnson, he first appeared on the scene as a somewhat unremarkable commodity. All that changed, seemingly overnight. Dylan's transformation into an untouchable, came as suddenly, it would appear, as Robert Johnson's.

Dylan's music redrew the boundaries that it did not obliterate, of folk, then rock – and ultimately all of popular music. His legend is nearly unparalleled today, matched by an elite few but even then, only arguably. Recounting his biography is hardly necessary here. Except for one tiny moment…

Dylan was once interviewed for the show 60 Minutes, by the late television journalist Ed Bradley. At one point, a cryptic little exchange occurred between them, and it was left in the final edit of the segment – in which Bradley brought up Dylan's career longevity, and his uniquely lofty perch in the cultural psyche.

Bradley: You still do these songs; you're still on tour…

Dylan: I do but I don't take it for granted.

Bradley: Why do you still do it? Why are you still out here?

Dylan: Well it goes back to that destiny thing. I made a bargain with it, you know, a long time ago, and I'm holding up my end.

Bradley: What was your bargain?

Dylan: To get… um… where I am now.

Bradley: Should I ask who you made the bargain with?

Dylan: (Nervous chuckle) With… the Chief… The Chief Commander.

Bradley: (Mirroring Bob's chuckle) On this earth?

Dylan: On this earth, and in the one we can't see…

The 2nd Book of the Corinthians, refers to a specific individual as "The Lord of This Earth," and it isn't Jesus. Bob Dylan went through a "Christian" phase of his career, and likely knew to whom he was referring as well, but never mentioned a name, merely a sheepishly spoken title: The Chief Commander. Bradley did not, in the final cut anyway, press the issue further.

A bargain. Just like Robert Johnson's. With practically an identical outcome, all but for the untimely end. Maybe that part is optional, if one hold's up one's end of the deal properly. Still, it doesn't bode well for one's potential in the hereafter.

You hate me now. You're about to double down.

One might add Elvis Presley to this elite list, but the level of godlike fame in the possession of Johnson, and Dylan, is echoed by only two persons in late 20th and early 21st century popular culture: music icon Michael Jackson, and comedian Robin Williams. They are not just famous, but cosmic in the minds of their fans.

They are Draculas, holding spellbound an entire population, even in death, on a level that most cultural critics would call psychologically impossible. In the 1930s, Charlie Chaplin and Adolf Hitler were the two most famous, most visible men on the planet – and oddly in physical appearance they were good-vs-evil mirror twins.

Only religious icons hold greater sway, over much longer periods of history.

Please agree to hate me less as time wears on. My question is simple.

I was witness to the formative years of Williams's stand-up career, though perhaps not as closely as his peers were, I admit. Still, as a set of eyes and ears in the audience, I did not think Robin Williams would be the untouchable that he suddenly became – in overnight fashion.

In private, he was the gentlest, most unassuming of souls – hardly a man one would think turned into a manic sorcerer of spontaneous insane comedy – at will, as if… yes, possessed – onstage.

Williams once said that his depression did not kick into high gear until his 2009 heart surgery… and it dawned upon him, that he was mortal.

Very early on, did Robin Williams ever, in utmost secrecy, meet someone at the crossroads? Did the realization of what he'd "purchased," at the start of his career, finally sink in?

I'll leave this perhaps frivolous subject open for debate. With due apologies.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

The Evolution of Your Style: Writing vs. Journaling

There are built-in speed bumps when one's unique writing style is in its formative stages.

First, you are inevitably rewriting. At first, what you may be rewriting, has already been written and rewritten, by someone else.

It may be reworded passages by other authors, or from your mental bag of favorite movie quotes, or catchy phrases you've heard spoken elsewhere. It isn't really plagiarism, but definitely a derivative process, though perhaps at times subconscious. The writers who resonate with you, help shape your voice as a writer. Even stream-of-consciousness prose is the byproduct of a filtered mentality. If it is not, it will become so in the editing process, as you "rethink" those wild notions in the name of marketable presentation.

Simply restructuring a sentence for clarity can dampen its original, uninhibited personality. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Improv comedians are scored poorly in training classes for a reflexive trait called "self-editing." It's the act of policing one's ideas mid-thought – usually either for reasons of moral stifling, or self-doubt. An Improv instructor, or any art teacher for that matter, would have you believe that to inhibit yourself is an artistic sin. The well kept secret truth is that all the great comedians rehearse, hone and rethink like pathological control freaks behind the scenes. All great artists preliminarily sketch their subject with tedious repetition until they have captured the essence of what they hope to include in the final work.

They take the process seriously and intentionally use its science, rather than simply let the "magic" use them.

Improv unchallenged is for beginners, with no thought to actual stagecraft or showmanship – things that must be mastered, rules that must be learned before one can intentionally break them and make a living with it. A structured, well honed (read edited) comedy act, is what professional comedians offer. A writer is on a similar journey.

Writing with a free, loose, unfettered spirit certainly sounds idyllic, poetic and enlightened. But in truth, it is what neophytes practice. It requires no actual discipline, and therefor no commitment, no sacrifice. It's what journal-keepers do, not writers. Those who make writing their living, do so with the injection of strict self-regulation.

A trained actor sacrifices his freedom for hours at a time to offer a structured performance to an audience who are sacrificing time in kind, to watch it. A person on stage acting out of self-gratification, with no thought toward an audience's edification, is deservedly performing gratis… and ultimately alone.

Long walks on a beach, tossing sticks for your labrador, thinking about writing, is not writing. Writing without an end goal is not writing. Sitting in a coffee shop jotting down whatever pops into your head, into a notebook, is a preliminary act that may lead to actual writing, but is not itself writing. All of these are certainly relaxing, and mind palate cleansing, but none of them are writing.

It's journaling. Only writing is writing. I speak here of "writing," the artform, not just the mechanical act of writing letters into words.

Staring out a window, rerunning a problematic phrase through your head until it sounds right, is writing. Reworking something shallow into something substantial, is writing. Drudging up painful concepts and restating them on paper into something insightful, educational or even shocking, is writing. Making sense out of past chaos, boiling it down into a clear declarative missive, is writing.

Journaling is fun. Writing is work. Journaling is expounding to one's satisfaction, writing is analyzing to an end whether or not that end is gratifying. Journaling is motivated by whim, writing by an ethic. Journaling produces insight occasionally, but is never completed. The sense of closure is artificial. Whereas writing is a journey with a finish line, that brings elation. And a desire to embark on the next journey, whether or not it expounds on the previous one, or one much earlier.

The expository difference between a writer and a word-hobbyist, is that a writer writes when he'd rather not. Inspiration may spark a sudden wave of frantic productivity, but a writer makes himself write when he is not in the mood – when he feels nothing. For writing is not just a favorite pastime, it is a desire that will not go away with enough distraction.

Journaling can go either before or after a game of bowling, dinner, that phone call about the cable TV bill… or wait 'til the weekend. What's the difference? It has its use as a conduit, and an organizational influence for one's thoughts, but not necessarily as an outward expression meant for consumption by an audience. When nothing else is less important, that's journaling. That's a hobby.

To write, a writer must separate his private, innermost self-coddling from his presentational style. If your brave protagonist begins to whine about his fight against foreign spies in the same tone you do yourself about constantly having to wipe down the inside of the microwave after those enchilada casseroles you love that tend to explode when overcooked... Unless you are writing about a whiney spy-catcher, and tapping into your own self-aware whininess, you have no excuse. You are selling improvisation as a rehearsed act.

Like the community theater troupe staging a play with a scene in a barroom, when someone suggests that they drink real alcohol to make the performance "real," you are really just flirting with incompetence. The "realism" is only in the performer's self-sealed perception. The audience has its own viewpoint. They don't pay to watch people get drunk and unpredictable – i.e. experiment with their own foolhardy self-centeredness. That exploration should have occurred well before the troupe began charging an admission price.

Explore your writing voice before merely typing out words and assuming that your "style" is self-evident. You do not decide on a style, you discover it – you WORK toward it. Journaling is where you reflect against your own inner critic. Writing is where one creates a style for presentation to an impartial critic who does not have to live in your head after the final sentence is read.

Even in genre stories, your strength is not in your ability to know all the catch phrases, but in your unique – magnetic – way of phrasing them with a fresh take, even when the ideas themselves are pulp-era ancient.

If you have discovered the secret of aping the style of another writer who's found success, and hope to steal a little of his thunder, that isn't writing, that's cheating. Not that you'll necessarily go broke, as much as you deserve to.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Dying Newsprint – Many of the Wounds are Self-Inflicted

There's another, more deep-seeded reason that the newspaper industry is failing.

It has lost all its former internal discipline, and is mostly populated by people who despise their readership. I've worked on the staffs of 4 different daily papers, and the first one where I was employed in the late 1980s was the only one that actually had a department devoted just to proofreading the content before it published – not just in editorial, but in advertising content. The next one I worked for, in the early 1990s, was the last one that did not depend on the internet to shore up a lack of content. The next one, from the mid-90s onward, had an actual circulation department staffed by people focused entirely on guaranteeing distribution and customer service. It was not a single Circulation Officer, but an entire department.

None of those independent factions exist anymore, like they once did. It was also the last paper I worked for that printed its product on-site, rather than shipping it off to another, then hauling it back for distribution in its intended circulation zone. There still exist writers and editors who put out original product worthy of the cover price, but the overall product becomes more and more inferior as a platform for their diligent work, seemingly by the day.

Most content is bought. Graphics are produced by third-party outsourcing – sometimes overseas. In short, the daily newspaper is now a prefabricated consumer commodity; assembly-line packaged, and aimed at nobody in particular – just whomever will spend money for it. Like a fast-food hamburger. Its faux relevance is maintained by a media industry that stirs up "newsworthy" content based on the obsessive, quirky political whims of a customer base, rather than the edification of a "readership."

The newspaper is an obsolete medium, hanging onto its existence because of a dying demographic that is either computer illiterate, stubbornly attracted to tangible products (like a printed newspaper), or both. I myself was raised to appreciate tangible products in exchange for my money – but now even our money is intangible.

The nearness of this demographic's extinction is precisely why the quality of the product has been handed over to automation-based systems staffed by non-skilled labor and out-of-country interlopers who are allowed to undercut the cost of domestic skill-based labor. Quality has in turn decreased accordingly. The newspaper is now a non-product, designed merely to sell, rather than also serve and inform. People are not considered "readers" but "customers" (read "marks.") In some cases it's brought to you by people who would not find work elsewhere, unless it was in production of something equally as worthless. It is consumed by a section of the population that the media wishes would hurry up and die off.

Don't place blame for this tragedy solely on the Internet.