Reaching Out and Reaching In

"No one has ever reached the Heights of Glory by being told that he or she is rotten."


(Dr. Nathaniel Branden, Lecture at the Learning Annex, Toronto)

   I am blessed to have been given a deeply beautiful and unconditional love for someone.  ~We~, in fact, were given this from above in a beginning, raw kind of form.  It was like being given a perfect gift, newly-born as would be a baby.  And like a baby, it must be nurtured, loved, and allowed to grow with as few hindrances as those involved can make possible:  it must be protected with great fury. 

   One thing that must be remembered at all times is simply this:  it is a Gift.  A gift that many in this world have either lost, or never knew at all.

   As it grows and flourishes, all kinds of beautiful things happen nearly at once; things one never could conceive nor often even consider possible.

   In the world of humans, there is simply nothing else that even compares.

   But, and anyone with experience knows this:  Sometimes we forget the nature of the gift.  It becomes, in the face of all other things flowing in and out of life, not maybe neglected, but more taken for granted.  If there is such a thing as Sin, it is my belief that this is truly one of the great ones.

  If  you love someone (and here I am talking about adult romantic love relationships), it is for sure the little things that give daily meaning.  Things easy to do.  A touch, a smile, a love letter.  To make it known that they, and no other, are the epicenter of your life.  That you are joined in a deep state of gratitude, admiration, of powerful love, with them, as they are with you.  It does not have to be done in a somber, serious way; no, it can be light, and joyous--as joyous as the love is itself.

   Mistakes are made.  Fears and self-doubt are had.  Mistakes are made as it is grown, and savored. 

   It can become extreme.  It can become as extremely opposite what both believe in, feel of each other deep within.  And right there is where the real unconditional nature of love will save a thing, if you allow it to.  Sometimes, concessions must be made.  Even concessions that one feels to be not at all to the problem-at-hand.  You listen to your heart, as they say.  You unblock and let the love flow through again.

   And you, Gentle Reader, might even find yourself in the position of your melancholy, but Devoted Author.  It is often this, though:  Not a sadness or concern for Self.  Not so much that.  More, and much more, the visceral, screaming kind of pain that is beyond empathy for the one you still love. 

And that means you truly love them.

Sometimes, you can be in a tough lurch--a place where with all your soul you wish to reach in.  Reach in to them.  But something on the outside is preventing you to do so.  It is a helplessness.

Here, and only here, is where you might send out the quiet signal:  "I can not reach in to you, but you can still reach out to me.  And I will be there with bells on, for you, and only you."

Then you wait for that tiny little message in a bottle, and pray for it to hit the shore and be read.

rde
Dedicated to someone I sometimes call "Lambchop."

Changes to upcoming articles and interviews.

The story "Sarge:  My Life With A Warrior Angel" will not be published due to privacy reasons, per request.

The Mike Hill interview will be conducted this coming Monday, and will publish that week!  That's going to be a good one.

There are also two more very, very surprising ones in the works.  I guess I'm doing interviews for awhile!

Rich Engle

Previews of Upcoming Articles

First off, warmest thanks to all of you who have been reading the blog.  I have been working at keeping the articles flowing, including my first guest author (Andrew Russell, from Australia), and what I consider to be pretty incredible interviews (Rachel Cron, Robert Binidotto).

Here is what you can expect next from Beyond Even Bat Country:

-- Sarge:  My Life With A Warrior Angel.  This is one of the most intimate articles you will ever read about a Viet Nam Vet, and a bit more, if I say so myself (since I wrote it). A story of hope, bravery, and love.

--Upcoming after that this week:  Interview with my friend, world-class guitarist and noted UFOlogist Michael Lee Hill.  We have agreed to conduct and here publish an interview with Mike, who lies on the cutting edge of  understanding the inevitable existence of alien presence on our planet.  This is going to be a severely-rocking interview, for a number of reasons, including that he has captured some of the finer UFO footage available.

Stay tuned, and even better, comment and follow, if you see fit.

rde
Tweaking the Knobs as we Speak.

Guest Author Andrew Russell's "Punishment Capitalism"

This is the second article I have published from emerging writer Andrew Russell.  For the mainstream reader:  you might find this a bit different, but it is very good, accurate work, and I very much enjoy sharing his writing with you. Among the other good things he does, Andrew actually manages to even be funny.  Enjoy!
RDE
______

"Punishment Capitalism"

The Curious Motivations Of Some Supporters of Market Economics

by Andrew Russell

Author's Note: This article is several years old and has previously been posted on the blog of the Australian Libertarian Society. "Capitalism" as used in this article is intended to mean "Free Market Economics" rather than the Marxian meaning of the term.

One of the more twisted maladays that the concept of "Fusionism" has inflicted upon us pro-market advocates is an attitude towards markets I like to call "Punishment Capitalism" (not inherently related to the similar sounding "Sado-Monetarism"). The concept of Fusionism, by which advocates of liberty could justify noncoercion as a means to Conservative ends, was first proposed by Frank Meyer; editor of the intellectually toxic "National Review" magazine. Previously, I have discussed the problems of Fusionism, for example how it forces libertarians to justify freedom as a means (implying that freedom is not a worthy goal in and of itself), and also how it was the libertarians who provided all the intellectual ammunition and cultural assets (i.e. Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter and Friedman re-conquering academic economics for markets, Rand and Heinlein who injected the ideas of liberty into popular discourse) yet it was the conservatives that grabbed all the political power. Regardless, the ever-widening faultlines between conservatism and libertarianism are rendering Meyerian Fusionism obsolete. This article will look not at Fusionism itself, but at the attitude of Punishment Capitalism, which the Fusionists frequently carry and have spread.

Fusionism grants us an uneasy tension between the antiauthoritarianism of libertarianism and the authoritarianism of conservatism. Fusionism's economic attitude of Punishment Capitalism is the perfect example of this tension. Since the Fusionist evaluates on the basis of conservative standards of value, the Fusionist cannot see value in a nonauthoritarian portrayal of Capitalism. As such, the Fusionist must justify Capitalism as an instrument of control and punishment. Under Punishment Capitalism, people make money by "working hard" as opposed to "working creatively." Under Punishment Capitalism, people work out of "duty to their loved ones" rather than "rational selfishness." Under Punishment Capitalism, entrepreneurs are portrayed as "Christlike martyrs slaving away in the office" rather than adventurous, creative Richrd Bransons who probably adore their career. Under Punishment Capitalism, to truly enjoy one's job instantly raises suspicion that it is not "real work," rather than to see a truly rewarding career as a great thing. To the Punishment Capitalist, the market is a Drill Sergeant ordering producers to strain in blistering heat to produce a product with a very low price. During my following critique, please keep in mind that my favorite scene in Full Metal Jacket is when R. Lee Ermey's character gets shot. The prick deserved it.

Economic activities tend to be categorizable as either production or consumption. Innovation may be seen as production of ideas. Regardless, the attitudes in each category that Punishment Capitalism has are as follows:

Production is seen as not a means to an end, but like a Kantian perfect duty. One must have some form of constant labor. In addition, this labor cannot be a joyous process to the individual, for that would mean it is 'play' rather than work. The entrepreneur is as such someone that suffers, as are all workers. The pain of production is strongly emphasized, work is 'hard' and the harder the work, the 'better' the product. In the sphere of consumption, however, it is declared that consumption is ignoble, after all consumption grants pleasure. Entrepreneurs that enjoy the rewards of their labor are derided as "playboys." Inherited wealth is seen not as good fortune, but as the product of some sort of moral theft, and the heir instantly has some additional burden of proof of character thrust upon him.

It is no surprise that this attitude is a descendant of the Protestant Work Ethic. The Calvinist belief that constant labor is a sign of personal salvation makes all those nervous "have I really been saved?" Calvinists labor. Although I disagree with Max Weber's belief that Calvin is responsible for Capitalism, it is unquestionable that the Calvinist work ethic is responsible for Punishment Capitalism. The Calvinist ethic is based, eventually, on the assumption (prevalent in almost every sort of Christianity) that sufferring is good for the soul. This idea is the Platonic hangover induced by the mind-body dichotomy which reveres the transcendent and damns the physical. As such, to the Punishment Capitalist, production is noble as a form of punishing, disciplining and chaining the physical, as some sort of penance for Original Sin maybe.

The political implications of Punishment Capitalism are as follows. To the Punishment Capitalist, although they will strongly support Capitalism is certain respects, they will have at least some sympathy with many forms of regulation. For one, industries that deal more closely with pleasures (be they the sex, drugs (illegal), entertainment or gambling) will always be regarded as shady, and as such may be regulated. Luxury taxes will also have some sympathy, since luxuries are regarded as hedonistic and excessive and sinful. Sin taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, etc) will also recieve at best mild opposition from Punishment Capitalists. What will be opposed, with religious zeal, is any form of social safety net. Although opposing safety nets is not unique to Punishment Capitalism, the key feature is why this opposition exists. Most libertarians disagree with safety nets, not because they aim to help the poor, but because they are funded by coercive taxation. A Punishment Capitalist, however, sees the evil of welfare not in the source of funding but in the act of welfare itself: it consists of funding an intrinsic moral depravity (laziness). In the debate over taxation, Punishment Capitalists will argue for consumption taxes over income taxes, rather than see all taxes as equally theft.

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand was not completely free of the spectre of Punishment Capitalism (although she was not necessarily a proponent). I give you the example of Hank Rearden's hatred of Francisco d'Anconia in "Atlas Shrugged." d'Anconia was hated for being a "worthless playboy" and a "destroyer of wealth" (as if piles of gold have an inherent value? Sounds much too Aristotelian-Intrinsicist for Ayn Rand). Although there is some evidence that Rand herself disapproved of anti-consumption positions, for example when Ragnar tells Rearden to spend a refunded gold ingot exclusively on his personal consumption, it is very easy to read Rand as supporting a Neo-Puritan belief that production via back-breaking effort is intrinsically moral (regardless of the fact that this attitude would contradict Rand's technical philosophy on numerous levels).

Regardless, Rand critiqued how conservatives argued for Capitalism on the basis of human depravity. She described the argument as saying man is not good enough to be enslaved, and he must be punished with freedom. Extending Rand's argument, to the Punishment Capitalist, there is no better punishment then being cast out of the Garden (or Welfare State) of Eden and forced to suffer and labor and sweat for our meager rations. To the Punishment Capitalist, constant and unending labor as an end in itself is the most effective set of chains ever devised and the perfect way to force men to virtue.

No wonder the conservatives are such pathetic defenders of Capitalism. In addition to the aforementioned sympathies for certain forms of political intervention that Punishment Capitalism gives, the ethical implications of Punishment Capitalism totally go against the teleological nature of human action as explained by the Austrian economists. Human beings produce because they need to consume. To induce guilt over consumption is to render production purposeless. They are, paradoxically, attempting to bake their cake and not eat it, too. They want factories and skyscrapers and workshops without Las Vegas and Louis-Vuitton-Moet-Hennessey. Eventually, in trying to make the production of wealth a sacrifice, they only succeed in encouraging public decadence and worldliness by producing the stuff in the first place.

Given the vehemence of my critique, one may legitimately suspect that I, the author, am overstating my case. Whilst I understand why someone would come to this conclusion, I am not overstating my case, and I offer as evidence a quote from the conservative Roman Catholic commentator Dinesh D'Souza (known popularly for 'debating' Christopher Hitchens by accusing him of alcoholism whilst repeatedly invoking the Dostoyevsky Gambit ("If God is Dead, Everything is Permitted") in spite of Hitchens' repeatedly showing that said gambit is false). D'Souza, in his book "The Virtue of Prosperity," attempts to morally justify capitalism on traditional, religious moral grounds. His ultimate conclusion is that Capitalism is good because Capitalism “makes us better people by limiting the scope of our vices” and “civilizes greed, just as marriage civilizes lust” [p. 126]. In other words, the goodness of Capitalism is that it restrains us from our vices, being chained to a desk prevents us from being able to indulge our greed. Capitalism is, to D'Souza, a punishment mechanism that essentially forms an economic chastity belt around humanity, and it is this that makes Capitalism an engine of taming the beasts that, to D'Souza, we are.

Thankfully, there is an alternative. This alternative is an understanding of Capitalism as a life-affirming, benevolent system. Philosophically, this alternative requires rejecting the anti-flesh attitudes of the Protestant Work Ethic, which are the basis for the mind-body dichotomy that grounds the anti-consumption attitudes of Punishment Capitalism. This alternative of Benevolent Capitalism is worldly (and hence compatible with either nonspiritual or Immanent/Aristotelian forms of spirituality but not Platonic/Transcendent forms of spirituality) and teleological. Production is simply a means to consumption (which is in itself a method of satisfying our needs) and as such is instrumentally but not intrinsically good. Producers act for their own joy and are justified in doing so. Above all; sufferring and control are not to be considered spiritually superior states or proper for man. Those whose job is joy for them are to be celebrated and praised. Those who inherit wealth are to be treated as everybody else. Ultimately, the core of Capitalism is not one of "work harder than everyone else" but one of "live for your joy." It needs to be promoted as such.   

Rich Engle's Interview With Author Robert Bidinotto, about his new novel "Hunter: A Thriller""

From Wikipedia, just for starters:

Robert James Bidinotto (1949- ) is a contemporary novelist, journalist, editor, and lecturer. His 2011 vigilante novel,Hunter:  A Thriller, is the first in a series.

He is perhaps best known for his critiques of the criminal justice system, and of the environmentalist movement and philosophy. Bidinotto advocates the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand, and from July 2005 until October 2008, he was editor-in-chief of The New Individualist, the monthly magazine published by The Atlas Society.

Bidinotto has written for many different publications. He also hosts his own website dedicated to criticism of the environmental movement, publishes a blog, and lectures at colleges and universities.

Here is a link for the e-book version: http://amzn.to/naHYGp
Robert's blog: http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/
And, he informs me of a new blog called "The Vigilante Author," which will be devoted exclusively to his fiction, and will be here: http://www.bidinotto.com/

Here is the current roundup of how well the book is doing:

As of this posting, HUNTER has generated 47 Amazon customer reviews, an amazing 46 of them rating it "5 stars." (The lone exception gave it 4 stars and compared Bidinotto to thriller master Michael Connelly.) Because of these stellar reader ratings, Bidinotto's debut thriller now stands at #1 on three Kindle "Top Rated" lists: "Thrillers," "Romantic Suspense," and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue." It is also customer-ranked #2 among all "Mysteries & Thrillers" and "Romance" titles, #6 in "Genre Fiction," and an astonishing #19 among all "Fiction" titles on the Kindle. HUNTER also stands at #86 among all 969,000+ Kindle ebooks -- both fiction and nonfiction.

In sales, HUNTER appears on the Kindle Top 100 Bestseller lists in both the "Romantic Fiction" and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue" categories.

   I guess that lately I have come into the business of talking about authors.  Maybe it is the journalism background in me.  Maybe it is the mere, true fact that I know about the certain kind of solitude that must reside within a good writer.  Crap, even a lousy one.  Maybe it is just curiosity; how others are doing what you are doing.

   Sometimes, it is just about watching the discipline of others over time, and that is what I was up to with Robert.  I was so happy to watch someone hang in there, and it isn't too much effort to cheerlead.  Steve Vai, arguably one of the greatest guitar players in the world said "I've never worked a day in my life in the music business."  And it is from that kind of humble, seemingly-effortless approach from which this work comes.  It is, in a certain way, a backlash (a successful backlash); and simultaneously just someone that knows how to walk through walls.  It is razor-clear, disturbing.  One time, a person said about this book that it was very readable, engaging, so forth, but that they had some kind of moral issue with it.  I find that so untrue that I will not address it, other than to invoke something near and dear to me in the name of armchair quarterbacks.  But, this is not a bitter occasion, it is a joyous, successful one. 

 The proof, though, is in the pudding, and here is the talk that Robert and I had today.  He had some very interesting answers, I think.  Also, just for the record, this was not "massaged," other than two minor corrections Bob had, somewhere around correcting syntax.  The rest is pure live:

Rich Engle

So how are you feeling after this successful e-book launch?

Robert Bidinotto

Ecstatic. Rich, in all honesty, I thought it would take quite a few months to achieve this level of visibility and sales for HUNTER. But the book has been online at Amazon for just a couple of months, and it's doing very well.

Rich Engle

Yes, I was kind of shocked how fast it took off. And the feedback has been really great. If I may ask—what are you reading these days?

Robert Bidinotto

Great question! In fact...I've had little time for any reading at all. I read and enjoyed The Philosophical Practitioner by long-time Objectivist Larry Abrams a couple of weeks ago, and even though the book isn't long, it took me forever. I'm now reading another "indie" work—Rambling, a collection of short stories by a friend, Edd Voss. I've enjoyed both books. But promoting HUNTER has left me very little time to read for pleasure.

Rich Engle

I kind of figured that. Now, what about the past stuff—say, spy novels and such. Can you talk about your early influences?

Robert Bidinotto

I started reading spy stories and other thrillers when I was in my teens. I cut my teeth on the works of Alistair MacLean, Mickey Spillane, Desmond Bagley, and other late masters and pioneers of the genre. These days, my greatest influences come from sensational thriller authors like Lee Child, Stephen Hunter, Brad Thor, and Vince Flynn. I also love works by Daniel Silva, Mark Greaney, Gayle Lynds, Nelson DeMille, and many more.

Rich Engle

I was so waiting for you to say Mickey Spillane. I noticed that you have a very fast, rat-a-tat style to your writing; the pace is very strong. How did you develop that, I guess I would ask, and additionally, what your approach is to establishing the visceral experience, which you clearly do very quickly. I mean, you got me on the ramps off the first paragraph.

Robert Bidinotto

That is a complicated question, because it bears on all of the elements of writing. Thriller writing requires you to engage your reader immediately. The audience demands it. So, you have to grab them at the first line, trying to infuse it with something that will arouse their curiosity by posing questions. The first line of HUNTER is:

"Today she would finally nail the bastard."

Now, if you think about that, notice how many questions this one line poses, and how much information it already imparts. You know that the point of view character is a woman. You know that she is after someone, out to punish or hurt that person. You know that she thinks he's a bastard, a bad guy—and you know she's been after him for a while. You know she is angry, driven, and sounds tough. But you really don't know who either person is. You don't know who is good and who is bad. You are immediately curious about all those things.

Visceral writing—well, that's another matter. I think I'd say: First, you have to be ruthlessly purposeful in each scene. You have to know exactly what you want to accomplish. You may not know any of the details of the events or conversations ahead of time, but you do need to have a goal. Second, you have to be right inside the skins of the characters inside the scene. You have to see through their eyes, experience things through their senses. And you have to focus on the kind of details that those characters would tend to notice, the things that will stand out. This is called "viewpoint" in fiction writing: Each scene should be experienced strictly through the eyes and senses of a single viewpoint, or "POV" character.

If you do those things, then you can draw the reader right down into the scene. For instance, in the climactic confrontation scene, I had to make that a visceral experience for the reader on many sensory levels. I didn't calculate it all: I simply got right into the hero's brain and stayed there. The rest pretty much took care of itself.

Rich Engle

That was what got me, how fast the lift-off was. I was like "there" on contact. Could you give some advice for emerging young writers? How to do that? I mean, the regular answer is "write." But I am talking more about establishing something I call "flow." Also, it would be good to hear about how you approach language, in general. Do you look up words just to be sure they say what you mean? Are you willing to end a sentence with a preposition?

Robert Bidinotto

Here's how I established the "flow" in writing HUNTER.

The first thing was to really get to know the main characters, in intimate detail. You have to know their backgrounds and what makes them tick. When you do that, then in every scene, you stay strictly in their POV. That way, you get caught up in this trance-like state, in which you are role-playing that character in your head. If you can stay there, you do get into a kind of "flow." "They" say and do things that you didn't plan in advance, but which simply arises from who "they" are. And it becomes realistic and logical that they would.

One of the great compliments I'm getting from readers is how "realistic" the characters, background, settings, and description are in HUNTER. That comes from doing all that advance prep. I researched this to death, and filled notebooks with notes on the characters, their relationships, their conflicts, and the plot. So, when I got into a scene, I could just relax and let them take over. That was the "flow."

I don’t observe strict rules of grammar in the storytelling. I tried to establish a mood, a “voice”—terse, clipped, staccato. Lots of sentence fragments. Like these, for example. The way people tend to talk—especially tough, reserved people.

A lot of people are telling me how "cinematic" this book is—including a Hollywood screenwriter who has done work that you would know. He wants to do the screenplay for HUNTER had me send the book to his agent and his entertainment attorney. I'm flattered. If I'm also lucky, maybe this will have a shot at being a movie. Personally, I think that Dylan Hunter could be the next Jason Bourne franchise.

Rich Engle

I might also add that I really love how you flesh out your strong male and female characters.

Robert Bidinotto

Thank you! I really worked at that. You know, in most thrillers written by male authors, the women are treated superficially, as afterthoughts. They are "eye candy," or put there simply as the hero's object of occasional lust.

HUNTER is different. The romantic relationship, and the conflicts that arise from it, are central to the story; they are every bit as important as the external perils, and they are integrated into that thriller plot. I tried to get under the skins of two people falling head-over-heels in love with each other -- something like "The Thomas Crown Affair," only with a huge set of moral conflicts and a terrifying, looming external threat, too. This allows the story to have a psychological and emotional richness that is unusual for a male-authored thriller, I think. At least, the book seems to have attracted as many women readers as men.

Rich Engle

The only reason we know one another is through that strange Ayn Rand connection. We were on the forums for years together and you were one of the only "voices of reason," so to say. I have a great difficulty addressing that crowd, but I do remain on Mike Kelly's site. I almost don't want to go there, and they are talking about you; anxious and quietly enjoying your success, I guess I would say. If you were to say anything about this, I would enjoy hearing it.

Robert Bidinotto

Let me talk about the relationship of HUNTER to Objectivism in two ways: first, in terms of its basic themes, and second, in terms of the response to it by Objectivists, at least to date.

HUNTER has been described as "a thinking man's thriller." I'll buy that. Anyone who knows me also knows that I would be incapable of writing a novel without having my own worldview at its heart. By which I mean my values, my conviction that the universe is objectively knowable, that individuals should be governed by reason, and that justice is the moral principle that should express these premises in social relationships.

HUNTER is a "vigilante thriller" that dramatizes the meaning of the principle of justice. It draws upon my years of writing about the criminal justice system, and about the "Excuse-Making Industry" of intellectuals who have completely undermined and corrupted its focus on justice. It deals, in an entertaining way, with fundamental moral issues and personal conflicts about honesty, trust, justice, free will, romantic love, and much else. Individual Objectivists who have read the book have been among its biggest, most enthusiastic champions.

That said, the response from the "organized Objectivist movement" and its organs -- such as it is, and such as they are -- has been the sound of crickets chirping. You say they are "quietly enjoying my success," but I wouldn't know, because you'd have to put all the emphasis on the word "quietly." I have no knowledge of any reviews of the book in the publications, websites, or blogs of Objectivist groups.

It mildly amuses me, because for all their laments about the lack of "Objectivist art," here you have a novel come along, written by a guy who used to be prominent within Objectivist circles, and it is getting a great deal of attention...but not from them. HUNTER is customer-ranked #1 on Kindle's lists of "Thrillers," "Romantic Suspense," and "Spy Stories & Tales of Intrigue." Today it has been in the Top 50 bestsellers in the "Spy Stories" category, among all titles on the Kindle; it's ahead of titles by Clancy, Cussler, Silva, Hunter, DeMille -- the masters of the genre. But the Objectivist response? Silence.

The best response it's getting has come from conservatives.

Rich Engle

How is your lovely wife? Any comments on your future work? Oh, and also, what kind of music do you listen to these days?

Robert Bidinotto

This was by far the most difficult project I've ever undertaken. The complexity of the writing—especially the integration of all the elements of the characters, backgrounds, settings, plus all the stuff I had to research about spycraft, weapons, vehicles, locales— was almost overwhelming.

During the past year, when I made up my mind to finish this long-simmering project, it was quite an ordeal for my dear wife to endure. She let me pursue my lifelong dream of writing fiction, at a time that is challenging for us, and I'm grateful.

Given the response from readers, I'm encouraged to continue the adventures of Dylan Hunter in a number of sequels. If you read the customer reviews on Amazon, you'll see that fans will kill me if I don't!

I listen to a wide range of music: everything from classical and mainstream jazz (I love "the standards" and their iconic performers) to ZZ Top. Depends on the mood.

Rich Engle

Any parting thoughts? Something to throw into the vast ocean of those who will read this?

Robert Bidinotto

Given that many of your readers will be Objectivists, I think I would like to mention an interesting fact.

One of the great surprises I've experienced in the aftermath of HUNTER's publication is the enthusiastic response from devout Christian conservatives. I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians. Now, beforehand, I would have thought that the hero's anti-mercy, take-no-prisoners, "Old Testament"-style focus on retribution—and the fact that some core "New Testament" values are criticized explicitly in the book—would have upset them and made them hostile. Same goes for the sexually charged romantic scenes.

But no. I've gotten a better response from fundamentalist, conservative Christians than I have from almost any other demographic group. This certainly undermines the caricature of such people commonly held by atheists, liberals, and, yes, Objectivists. My hypothesis is that conservative Christians are less enamored of religious theology than they are filled with hostility toward a world sinking into moral relativism.

HUNTER is the antithesis of moral relativism...and they love it! I think anyone who holds a similar view will love it, too.

Thanks, Rich, for this opportunity to talk about my debut thriller.

Beyond "B" Movie Review: Roger Corman's "Bucket of Blood" (1959)

   Now, it is pretty well a known fact that I am very passionate about a very few things.  It starts with my wife, and goes downhill from there.  Anyway, about 4 levels down it hits "B" movies, and that is enough said.

   I've spent years studying films (which in my case includes the experience of going to drive-in theaters; something becoming a dying craft) and even worked in the independent film world.  Shit, I even have a credit out there on a film called "Pieces," directed by the somewhat legendary Russo Brothers (they killed my score but I still got celluloid as a "sound editor," for what that is worth).  But I am not here to toot my own horn.  The point is that, if you are into that culture (B-movies and all that goes with it), you know for sure who the fuck Roger Corman is--anyone does at that point.  Somehow, this film escaped me.  Oh, I might have seen bad prints of it--parts, broken reels, or maybe I was just very high back then and forgot the whole thing, but I doubt it.  One thing for sure that I can tell you is that I just saw a clean (well, as clean as these go) print of it, and I can assure you this is highly unique.  Why?  Because Corman went after the Beatniks, and in a very savage manner of parody.  It's all there in this film.  It is a mind-blower.  I didn't have to do any drugs to watch it, for one thing.  And that was after I came out of watching a very good cut of "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?"  That is a hard act to follow, let me tell you.  But, in 66 minutes, it was eclipsed.

   If you view film seminars with Corman, or read him, one thing he talks about is how he kind of created a game with himself about how fast he could finish a movie.  This one was shot in 5 days, on 50K.

  Cut to the treatment (from Wikipedia, accurately):

 A Bucket of Blood is a 1959 American comedy horror film directed by Roger Corman. It starred Dick Miller and was set in beatnik culture. The film, produced on a $50,000 budget, was shot in five days,^[2] and shares many of the low-budget filmmaking aesthetics commonly associated with Corman's work.^[3] Written by Charles B. Griffith, the film is a dark comicsatire^[2][4] about a socially awkward young busboy at a Bohemian café who is acclaimed as a brilliant sculptor when he accidentally kills his landlady's cat and covers its body in clay to hide the evidence. When he is pressured to create similar work, he becomes murderous.

   That leaves out a few salient details, and you can only get the feel from watching the thing.  It is available on netflix, and Corman's website (most probably).

  This is a straight-out attack on not only the Beat Generation, but nihilism, and general artistic a-holes, as only someone as venerable as Corman could do--and he wasn't even venerable when he did this film (1959).

  Overall, what with being a reasonably clean print, this is the best piece of trash I've seen in years, and I've seen a lot.

rde

Brief interview with incredible romantic erotica author Rachel Cron.

  One of the most basic skills a writer must apprehend is an understanding of how subjectivity and objectivity work, hopefully even together at times, in art.  Or, at the least, to know what the differences are.  To quote the mischievous, profound, legendary mystic George Gurdjieff:    

The following is an extract from P. D. Ouspensky’s book: “In Search of the Miraculous” (pages 295-297). The speaker is Gurdjieff:

“The difference between objective art and subjective art is that

in objective art the artist really does ‘create,’ that is he makes what he intended, he puts into his work whatever ideas and feelings he wants to put into it. And the action of this work upon men is absolutely definite; they will, of course each according to his own level, receive the same ideas and the same feelings that the artist wanted to transmit to them. There can be nothing accidental either in the creation or in the impressions of objective art.

In subjective art everything is accidental. The artist, as I have already said, does not create; with him ‘it creates itself.’ This means that he is in the power of ideas, thoughts, and moods which he himself does not understand and over which he has no control whatever. They rule him and they express themselves in one form or another. And when they have accidentally taken this or that form, this form just as accidentally produces on man this or that action according to his mood, tastes, habits, the nature of the hypnosis under which he lives, and so on.

“There is nothing invariable; nothing is definite here. In objective art there is nothing indefinite. … I measure the merit of art by its consciousness and you measure it by its unconsciousness. We cannot understand one another. A work of objective art ought to be a book as you call it; the only difference is that the artist transmits his ideas not directly through words or signs or hieroglyphs, but through certain feelings which he excites consciously and in an orderly way, knowing what he is doing and why he does it. … principles must be understood. If you grasp the principles you will be able to answer these questions yourselves. But if you do not grasp them nothing that I may say will explain anything to you. It was exactly about this that it was said — they will see with their eyes and will not perceive, they will hear with their ears and will not understand."

Rachel Cron, Experimenting With Her Image

   That being shown and said, it is not a problem for me, but a blessing, that author Rachel Cron happens to be, by weird extension, my newly-found sister-in-law.  What it most importantly means is that I have spent a great deal of time with her, and gotten to see how her head works.  
   And what a magnificent head it is--all maybe close to 200 I.Q. points of it, if you believe in such measurements, which I kind of don't.  But intelligence recognizes intelligence, on a very immediate and visceral level.  Let's just say she's running a big block engine.
  The daughter of an English professor (who had the rather, er, unique pleasure of assisting her in the editing of her first novel, which is highly erotic and graphic--thanks Dad), she rocketed out of the void with this debut, "Punk Rox Warrior" (Siren Publishing, a highly successful, branded outfit).  
   The book is deeply based in experience, and for sure she seems to have consciously hyper-amplified the two main characters, which is a common theatrical, musical, and literary technique.  The cover is very much along the style-lines that Siren customers expect to see; in this case a female hero reminiscent of the heights of '80's chick/glam-rock (it reminded me of an early Lita Ford, who I know), and a male bodyguard, employed against-will by a dominant mother.  He is ex-military, and looks like a Chippendale on roid-rage--that along with either a very delicate tan airbrush, spray-on tan, or maybe just hitting the grill:

  Oddly enough, a left-handed guitar, of all things.  A female character that not only carries the Zeitgeist of somewhere around the Gen-X period, but tends to perform in karaoke bars.  Right!
   These two protagonists are (and this is a big deal to those of us that are still of any moral fiber) heroic in nature--now, you don't always see that in erotic fiction.
   I am not going to give any spoilers.  The writing style is somewhat gritty--the way a woman writes gritty.  It is not fluffy, super-elegant soft-lens porn.  Oh, no--it is fast-paced, honest, and very grounded in events that actually occurred in Cron's life--perhaps this is her preferred version of how it could have come out.
   In person, she is warm, fast, intelligent, and she definitely doesn't take prisoners.  She is a guilty pleasure in the world of prose, and she's about to do a whole bunch more.  If you look at her bookshelf (which is the ultimate in accuracy if you are trying to figure out the inside of a writer) it is filled with all kinds of everything, with a heavy emphasis on (but definitely not limited to) what used to be called dimestore romance novels.  She has paid attention to these, and, along with other things, combined and cranked up the energy levels.  She rocks.
   Here is the interview:

My name is Rachel Cron

Author's Profile

Q: What would you say is your biggest inspiration, not only in writing but in life?

A: Music and books. It’s actually a toss-up between the two. They are the best emotional outlets. For every occasion, day or mindset there is a song to accompany it or that perfect book to accentuate that mood.

Q: This is your first novel, yes? Have you written anything before and did you always strive to be a writer?

A: I’ve always written things, poetry, short stories and songs. I always wrote for myself or friends. It never occurred to me to be a writer. Looking back now I wonder, why? My mind is always moving, it’s hard to turn it off some days. I wonder why I never found this outlet on a grander scale before now.

Q: What prompted you to start writing if writing wasn’t ever a major goal?

A: I suffered a traumatic experience. I had a stalker. When it was resolved I had nightmares and was showing signs of stress. My husband suggested I write about it…so I did. I wrote the book by accident. It started out as a journal entry of sorts, my thoughts and feelings about that experience. Soon it seemed to morph into something totally different and wonderful. I started to enjoy the story and add in little extras. The next thing you know…here we are.

Q: What is your average writing day like?

A: I don’t really have writing days. I get up in the morning and get my family out the door then I go to work. Then I come home and it’s dinner and bed for the kids and I putter around doing wife and mother type things. If I get the spark to write I just write. Some days I write from dawn till dusk. Some days I don’t even think about it.

Q: Do you have any other books in progress?

A: Yes. I have the next two books in the Warrior series begun. Six more are still rattling around in my brain screaming to be let out.

Q: What type of books peak your interest?

A: I just love books. I love books about music and biographies, vampires and classics. Romance books are a new thing for me. I never read them until after I wrote one, now I’m hooked on them too. Reading has always been a big part of my life. I have a few English teachers in my family so books were always around.

Available at www.bookstrand.com as well as other prime outlets.  Print only.

rde