I have a problem.
I work in the nuclear field. I encounter mention of the element strontium constantly in the papers I edit.
I'm half Dutch. "Stront" is Dutch for poop.
Did I mention this is a *juvenile* problem?
What's startling to me about this one is the clear display of the cross -- something that's typically been anathema in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Some in the church get sniffy and say they worship the living Christ, not the Christ on the cross. But I kinda feel like we've got to take the full package and ought to acknowledge more in the church that we do outwardly recognize the sacrifice the cross represents.
I'm not going to get tangled in culture -- because culture is about all it is, frankly. When I see someone wearing a cross, or see cross-centric statuary, I'm not bothered by it. The cross is an important, powerful symbol to most Christians.
The lack of crosses -- whether by culture or doctrine, and I'm not sure which holds more sway -- is part of the package of anti- or skeptical-Mormon thought out there. Our outward symbols are odd: the angel Moroni atop the temple, statues of Joseph Smith all over the place. Not that they're wrong; they're doctrinally and culturally significant to us. But I don't think it will hurt our chances if we allow a cross or two to slip into the culture.
I served a mission for the church in France. I loved visiting the churches, from the little parish churches to the grand cathedrals. The history, the architecture, and the deep symbolic meaning in the many depictions of Jesus Christ with and on and without the cross brought significant meaning as I strove to understand the culture and beliefs of the people I served. I won't say I understood everything, and might at times have mocked things. But I was a callow youth who should have been a better ambassador of Christ than I was.
Me: [In the study, reading a book while the rest of the family watches Dr. Who in the next room.]
Alexa, on the desk behind me: FFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPT. That was an old lady one. Ask me if you want me to give you a cheek-wobbling fart.
Me: [Stunned silence.]
Liam and Michelle deny all knowledge of the Old Lady Fart delivered by Alexa.
I have to wonder if Isaac Davidson is somehow involved . . .
I'm generally not a fan of war fiction. There are so many true stories out there to read there doesn't seem to be a need to get into the fiction end of things. I have, however, made some exceptions, and found some pretty good stories out there.
This is not one of them. I'll finish, but there's not much of a chance I'll get past Book One; this is apparently a series.
I appreciate that writers - myself included - may make checklists as we plan the stories we write, but this book's principal shortcoming is that it wears that checklist on its sleeve.
Americans training in England where they're "oversexed, overpaid, and over here," check.
Spunky member of the crew killed needlessly by his own hubris, check.
Friend of the spunky crew member brooding in resentment, check.
Leader grappling with his own personal demons that he keeps in check because he's the leader, check.
New love interest for the leader, identified in wartime, kissing him out of the blue because it's on the checklist, check.
Member of the French Resistance popping into the story randomly, sometimes interacting with the group, sometimes not, in a subplot that still may be paid off but you never know, check.
War-weary surgeon in a proto-MASH refusing to evacuate the hospital because there's a bomb nearby because his patients "will" die if they evacuate versus everyone "could" die if they're there and the bomb goes off, check.
I'll predict a few more as we go along; I still have about 100 or so pages to read:
Longtime friend of the leader who also went into dangerous work killed heroically in action, check.
Resentful friend of the dead spunky crewmember either
a. Killed in action, mirroring the death of his spunky friend, or,
b. Forged into a new leader despite himself by the leader he blames for his friend's death,
check.
It's good to read these books, though. Inspires me to do better. Checklists are fine, but ya gotta bury them. And a lot of that could be done by showing, rather than telling. Put near all of the resentment in the character mentioned, for example, is delivered in dialogue, rarely in action. I keep forgetting the resentment is there because we don't see it in action, we only hear it occasionally in the dialogue.
UPDATE: Finished. And this is what came to pass (slight spoilers if you don't have the checklist):
Resentful friend of the dead spunky crewmember forged (very preliminarily) into a new leader despite himself by the leader he blames for his friend's death,
So, I think we're mostly aware that fake news - and fake news purveyors - are a real thing. And while the Venn diagram of such may occasionally include legitimate news outlets, the biggest problem by far are the Joe Six-Packs and Betty Housecoats we encounter on social media.
Only less dangerous than these are the actual real people who believe what the propaganda farm bots post and spread around.
That probably includes me. And you. Nobody is immune.
So we really, really need as individuals to be very careful in believing what we see online. As Benn Jordan says at the conclusion of this video:
"At this point in time, you should always be asking yourself if social media users or features are separating you from your own instincts or logical conclusions because this isn't political; the goal is not to make you support a particular party or candidate. The goal is to make you constantly question your own convictions by filling your entire world with conspiracy theories. The goal is to make educating yourself about your surroundings and questioning what's real or not so exhausting that you're too worn down to care that there's lead in your childrens' drinking water. You're too worn down to care that the American life expectancy has dropped below the average of some developing countries. What politically-oriented problems are bigger than those things?"
Media literacy has entered a new era, and we've got to be really vigilant lest we fail.
I can't read the New York Times story on this, but it sounds like an up-and-coming author won't be coming anymore as accusations of artificial intelligence use are being leveled at her and her work.
In sum, author Mia Ballard's "Shy Girl" - a horror novel outside my area of interest - might be as much as 78% written by artificial intelligence.
Of course, that's a dicey measurement.
AI detectors look at patterns to determine if writing is machine produced, using the same kind of large language models that AI uses, so there's lots of ickiness to go around. I teach at a university in its English department, and we're cautioned about using these AI-detectors as there are plenty of things that trigger the AI detectors that aren't necessarily AI.
I started watching the "Frankie's Shelf" video at this link from Jezebel, but as it clocks in at nearly three hours, there's no chance in hell I'm going to finish it all.
But the evidence presented is telling.
The cover on her self-published book was ripped off from another artist.
There's odd formatting issues throughout the book - something you might chalk up to the initial indie publishing of the story - and readings and analyses by sleuths from Goodreads to the New York Times detect AI patterns throughout.
The author, in her defense, claims it was a developmental editor who introduced AI to the story. And that seems an odd thing to say. Surely an author, whose reputation depends on the words he or she writes, would read anything doctored by an editor and notice enough differences to send up their own red flags before pushing that publish button.
Whether or not that's true should be easy to determine: A draft of the novel before the editor got it could be examined to see if it has the tells of artificial intelligence. I highly doubt that will come to pass.
And Hachette, her publisher in the UK and would-be publisher in the US, should have detected the AI, but clearly the idea of a new novel got in their eyes. Only after the NYT analysis did they pull the plug.
Yet another lucky find at the local thrift.
A good book for aspiring writers to read, as we get to see Cadfael, a beloved character, develop. We get to see Brother Jerome, fully developed in his righteous smarm. Peters used the stories in this book - in my opinion - to develop Cadfael as a character, bringing in other characters after Cadfael was fully formed. So very instructional.
And the stories are great, though the denouement of the third was a bit abrupt.
Mike Simpson, a word:
Got one of your robocalls tonight announcing RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW you're doing a telephone town hall and that I should stay on the line to be connected to participate.
This kind of call is a fancy way to say "Hey, I *tried* to meet with my constituents, but, yanno, they didn't stay on the line to participate, so it's on them."
No, sir, it's on you.
You caught me at an inconvenient time. I was just heading into a Scout meeting and could not attend your telephone town hall, as much as I might want to do that.
If you're sincere in wanting to meet with your constituents - and of that I have my doubts - you'd schedule your telephone town halls enough in advance that your constituents could plan for them, not have to drop everything they're doing RIGHT NOW in the hopes of having the blessed opportunity of maybe possibly asking you a question as long as it's not too inconvenient to answer.
Representative Russ Fulcher schedules his telephone town halls and gives his constituents ample notice of them. You should learn from that example.
Do better, congressman. Do better.
NOTE: I sent him this in Facebook Messenger, and posted it on my wall. Will update if I get any response. Which I also doubt will happen.
