This is the second part of the four part series on teaching overseas. Last week I ran through some stats about teaching English abroad, and this week I'll be looking at the pros and cons that those stats shed light upon.
So, the first place to start, and the most important for any young up and comer, is salary. The money. As I noted last week the average salary for someone with their Master's degree over there (in English particularly) is approximately $2149.00 - 2417.74 a month (in Canadian Dollars). After deductions I'm left with $1890.26 - 2159.00.
$1890.26 - 2159.00 a month in a country where you can easily live off $500 a month is definitely a big deal. Living and working in Ontario my monthly costs are almost three times that - mostly because paying rent and utilities costs will fall on me rather than my employer.
Further, $500 a month in Korea does not mean a life of microwave noodles and instant rice. It's a life of movie seeing, museum exploring, out-dining luxury. Okay, well, maybe without the diamonds and bling. But, still. Living on that much a month would leave me with $1390.26 - $1659.00 to save. I'd definitely buy a bike again while over there (and take more precautions with it *ahem*) and that's a considerable cost. But big ticket items like that would be few and far between.
Taking a longer look, a year's worth of work would generate something to the tune of $19200. A figure that would be unheard of over here for an entry level teaching job. For example, working as a Communications prof would net me about 3-5000 per course depending on things like location, school prestige, class size, etc. If I had a 3-2 or a 2-3 course load that would mean that I'd be making $15-25000 a year. Okay. It measures up, but living costs would keep pace. Most colleges probably aren't going to pay for an apartment or utilities, after all.
I am also much more likely to get a job abroad. I've been overseas before, I am familiar with the school/education office hierarchy, and already have the outlines of the language in my brain. Working in a high school would be an easy gig to land, though I could wind up in another middle school.
But the main thing would be that I'd aspire to a university position. And this would likely pay even better - though I imagine that instead of 300 a month the deductible might be double that. Just a guess, a kind of worst case budget scenario.
So it definitely seems like a pro situation to go overseas rather than to stay here and either get to work as a college professor (not a bad alternative, though) or to go to teacher's college. On the financial front, that is.
But what about the social aspects of things?
I remember the first time that I was over there, it was incredibly liberating for the first month or so, but then it became crushingly lonely. And when the one person that I had spent most of my free time with left at the end of his contract, it seemed like being there for longer than the month that I had left would have been simply unbearable.
But. This time I have a built in defense against such loneliness.
I'd be going as part of a couple. My fiancée would be coming along - though, if things go as she plans, she'll be my wife at that point - and so loneliness becomes negligible. Skyping with friends back home will be easier since there will be three of us in most situations, and even when there isn't there'll always be at least one thing to talk about.
But then, two people living in a small apartment might speed up stir craziness. I'll need to figure out a way to keep my space. As much as she'll need a way to keep hers I'd wager. Barring the lack of personal space, though, my feeling is that it'd be a socially harmonious experience. We would definitely grow stronger as a couple. And we'd undoubtedly make some fellow ex-pat and Korean friends, too.
There would be the extra cost of a wedding, however. My fiancée insists on marrying before we go overseas together, and I see the sense in this. Of course, that would mean that we'd need to cover those costs before leaving. The "start-up" cost would be significantly increased.
According to the Ontario Wedding Blog, a wedding would raise the total "start up" cost by $20,129. The total "start up" cost would then be $23,763. Though any loans taken out to cover this could be repaid just a few months into our employment. But that would compel us to stay for longer to make up for lost savings.
The only other major consideration is the costs involved with flying back for Christmas and a stint during summer. And, since this consideration is based in money, it really wouldn't be a major issue.
Ultimately, then, it seems that the pros are financial and social in that we would expand our circle of friends and strengthen our bonds. And the biggest con would be the strain placed on friendships.
Next week, I ditch the logic and numbers, and write from my gut. As it will then be a full moon, I'll write as intuitively about going overseas to teach ESL as I can.
If you've had your own experience figuring out a major life decision feel free to share what strategies worked for you or any considerations that I might have missed in the comments.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
[Freya-dæg] Killer Elite
What happens when you take Robert De Niro, Jason Statham, and Clive Owen, mix in a cup of firearms, blend with a quart of choreographed fight scenes, and slap a "based on a true story" label onto the result? Killer Elite - that's what.
Don't get too close, though, according to the critics and audience members at Rotten Tomatoes, this one's been sitting on the counter for a little too long. To be fair, the audience seemed to like the film a little bit more than the critics, leaving it with a 46% to the critics' 25%. So it hasn't been entirely panned, but rather lightly tapped on the wrist and smacked on the bottom. Though not in a good way.
With the three toughs, DeNiro, Statham, and Owen, the cast is pretty strong. But somewhere between those casting calls and the cinema screen something seems to have gone off the rails.
Maybe it's in the script - maybe it's in Stratham's character. I can't say for sure just yet. But here we go.
So the story here is that Statham and De Niro are both contract killers. Statham gets seriously shell shocked during an assignment and swears off of killing for good. But then, one year later (1981, by the way), Statham is mysteriously pulled back into the world of covert espionage and contract killing when De Niro falls for a set up and is kidnapped by a wealthy Sheik.
As it turns out this Sheik lost three of his sons during the Oman War and because he couldn't exact revenge on them he was exiled from his tribe. The only way back in, and to secure a place of traditional honour for his son, is to avenge the deaths by killing the killers. This was the job that De Niro took even though he knew it was a trap. I mean, he must have known, the casual banter between Statham and De Niro suggests that De Niro's character is supposed to be Statham's teacher or long time accomplice.
In any case, it is this triple-assassination job that Statham must complete to win De Niro's freedom.
This alone would make a pretty kickin' action movie, I think. And the way that it's delivered - a little jumpily, but in such a way that you can see how the jumps fit together into a dance of sorts - definitely seems more polished than most action movies. In that, on the surface, this movie seems to be marble whereas other action flicks are generally concrete. Rough around the edges and able to sustain great scrutiny because shit gets blowed up.
But, if you're like Statham in a reconnaissance scene in the first act and take a knife to chip away a sample of this marble to take back for analysis, you'll find that the marble's just a facade.
The fact that he has to avenge each son in turn - involving the killing of the killer and obtaining a confession - and return to Oman after each hit makes me wonder if the writer (Matt Sherring) thought that he was doing a video game rather than a movie. Or if they wanted to do a movie with hopes of a tie in. Because this is essentially an action movie about a series of fetch quests. There's really not much more to it.
Oh. Except for a romance which is sprinkled throughout the beginning of the second act, and then becomes full blown by its end and a major part of the third.
As soon as this romance moved from flashbacks to actual scenes in the present I braced myself. Flashbacks are allowed to have bad dialogue - that I can chalk up to characters remembering things incorrectly - but, in the present dialogue should be crisp and turns should be not so immediate as they are here. No, it's not entirely the fault of the script, but it doesn't help.
Further, the woman that they cast for Statham's love interest (Yvonne Strahovski) is cute, but doesn't seem to have much more to her acting than that: being cute.
There's really not a whole lot else to her either - she's kind of like Aerith from Final Fantasy 7 but without the back story. She and Statham (Cloud, in this analogy) knew each other as kids and then he went away and she stayed behind. Cut the twists out of the situation in FF7, and there you go. The actress also seems to struggle with keeping up her accent in spite of being a native Australian. I guess most of the budget went to the three names for the poster.
However. There are some good things about this movie.
As I mentioned above when talking about the way that the story is told, there is a jumpiness which I found kept me on my feet. However, this didn't last as the flashbacks (very brief, very effective, though in an action movie kind of way), were dropped as the present becomes the main setting in the later half of the second act. Also, once the killing for the sheik is finished everything becomes very linear and quite dull. So, actually, it seems that the story-telling is mixed at best.
But wait - up to this point I haven't talked about what people go to see action movies for: action. This, I think, is where the film really shines. The sequences aren't made uninterpretable by weird angles or camera tricks, and there is some clever stuff thrown in. Not at the level of Jackie Chan's early stuff, but the way that Statham gets out of a chair that he's been tied to in one scene is definitely something I've never seen before.
Actually, come to think of it, I think I know what happened here. In the first act and a half there was a pretty steady focus on telling the story in an interesting way - reaching lock stock and two smoking barrels levels of clear and intricate action once or twice. Then, come the last act and a half in which the storytelling was replaced with clever action sequences. Huh. A curious melding of the two, but if you're going to do it like that, then why not just write two movies?
I'm trying to think of other good things about this one. And nothing is really coming to mind. Clive Owen's moustache is good as the comic relief. But that can hardly count towards the film's redemption.
So, I'd say that means that you can just leave this one behind, Freya - and we won't worry about it. Down there in the heap of its fellow action flicks it'll have plenty of company.
Don't get too close, though, according to the critics and audience members at Rotten Tomatoes, this one's been sitting on the counter for a little too long. To be fair, the audience seemed to like the film a little bit more than the critics, leaving it with a 46% to the critics' 25%. So it hasn't been entirely panned, but rather lightly tapped on the wrist and smacked on the bottom. Though not in a good way.
With the three toughs, DeNiro, Statham, and Owen, the cast is pretty strong. But somewhere between those casting calls and the cinema screen something seems to have gone off the rails.
Maybe it's in the script - maybe it's in Stratham's character. I can't say for sure just yet. But here we go.
So the story here is that Statham and De Niro are both contract killers. Statham gets seriously shell shocked during an assignment and swears off of killing for good. But then, one year later (1981, by the way), Statham is mysteriously pulled back into the world of covert espionage and contract killing when De Niro falls for a set up and is kidnapped by a wealthy Sheik.
As it turns out this Sheik lost three of his sons during the Oman War and because he couldn't exact revenge on them he was exiled from his tribe. The only way back in, and to secure a place of traditional honour for his son, is to avenge the deaths by killing the killers. This was the job that De Niro took even though he knew it was a trap. I mean, he must have known, the casual banter between Statham and De Niro suggests that De Niro's character is supposed to be Statham's teacher or long time accomplice.
In any case, it is this triple-assassination job that Statham must complete to win De Niro's freedom.
This alone would make a pretty kickin' action movie, I think. And the way that it's delivered - a little jumpily, but in such a way that you can see how the jumps fit together into a dance of sorts - definitely seems more polished than most action movies. In that, on the surface, this movie seems to be marble whereas other action flicks are generally concrete. Rough around the edges and able to sustain great scrutiny because shit gets blowed up.
But, if you're like Statham in a reconnaissance scene in the first act and take a knife to chip away a sample of this marble to take back for analysis, you'll find that the marble's just a facade.
The fact that he has to avenge each son in turn - involving the killing of the killer and obtaining a confession - and return to Oman after each hit makes me wonder if the writer (Matt Sherring) thought that he was doing a video game rather than a movie. Or if they wanted to do a movie with hopes of a tie in. Because this is essentially an action movie about a series of fetch quests. There's really not much more to it.
Oh. Except for a romance which is sprinkled throughout the beginning of the second act, and then becomes full blown by its end and a major part of the third.
As soon as this romance moved from flashbacks to actual scenes in the present I braced myself. Flashbacks are allowed to have bad dialogue - that I can chalk up to characters remembering things incorrectly - but, in the present dialogue should be crisp and turns should be not so immediate as they are here. No, it's not entirely the fault of the script, but it doesn't help.
Further, the woman that they cast for Statham's love interest (Yvonne Strahovski) is cute, but doesn't seem to have much more to her acting than that: being cute.
There's really not a whole lot else to her either - she's kind of like Aerith from Final Fantasy 7 but without the back story. She and Statham (Cloud, in this analogy) knew each other as kids and then he went away and she stayed behind. Cut the twists out of the situation in FF7, and there you go. The actress also seems to struggle with keeping up her accent in spite of being a native Australian. I guess most of the budget went to the three names for the poster.
However. There are some good things about this movie.
As I mentioned above when talking about the way that the story is told, there is a jumpiness which I found kept me on my feet. However, this didn't last as the flashbacks (very brief, very effective, though in an action movie kind of way), were dropped as the present becomes the main setting in the later half of the second act. Also, once the killing for the sheik is finished everything becomes very linear and quite dull. So, actually, it seems that the story-telling is mixed at best.
But wait - up to this point I haven't talked about what people go to see action movies for: action. This, I think, is where the film really shines. The sequences aren't made uninterpretable by weird angles or camera tricks, and there is some clever stuff thrown in. Not at the level of Jackie Chan's early stuff, but the way that Statham gets out of a chair that he's been tied to in one scene is definitely something I've never seen before.
Actually, come to think of it, I think I know what happened here. In the first act and a half there was a pretty steady focus on telling the story in an interesting way - reaching lock stock and two smoking barrels levels of clear and intricate action once or twice. Then, come the last act and a half in which the storytelling was replaced with clever action sequences. Huh. A curious melding of the two, but if you're going to do it like that, then why not just write two movies?
I'm trying to think of other good things about this one. And nothing is really coming to mind. Clive Owen's moustache is good as the comic relief. But that can hardly count towards the film's redemption.
So, I'd say that means that you can just leave this one behind, Freya - and we won't worry about it. Down there in the heap of its fellow action flicks it'll have plenty of company.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
[Wōdnes-dæg] Kissing
One of the many podcasts that I listen to on a regular basis is Stuff You Should Know (SYSK), hosted by Josh Clark and Charles W. Bryant and produced by the people over at HowStuffWorks.com. SYSK is pretty informative stuff and the topics cover a grand range of things. Like how humanity seems to have hit a wall in terms of new ideas, how octopi work, and how Route 66 works.
Because it's Wednesday, and that obliges me to write on what it is that I'm currently learning about I've decided to go with kissing. The SYSK podcasts are generally 30 minutes long, but this one has left an imprint the same way the coverage of biospelology did.
Now, I already know that within the English language the word "kiss" goes all the way back to Old English ("cyssan," c's are hard in OE and y's are a kind of "ooo" sound, so it even sounds similar). But I never really gave much thought as to where the practice came from or if it's something that's just always been around.
The two theories that SYSK puts forward are that kissing is either a learned behaviour, or it's something instinctive.
One example given for the case of kissing being learned behaviour is that pre-historic mothers essentially regurgitated food for their children and since they passed it directly into their offspring's mouth from theirs this imprinted a pleasurable and nourishing experience onto the developing mind.
The other theory in support of kissing as a learned behaviour that gets mentioned is that kissing was limited to the area that's now India and that Alexander the Great brought it back to Greece after having conquered his way to South-East Asia. This theory has some tangible evidence behind it, though circumstantial, in that the earliest record of kissing is found in Bhagavad Gita, the section of the larger epic, the Mahabharata, that is dated between 200 BC and 200 AD (wiki ref 1).
The other theory that it's instinctive gets tied into the idea that kissing is an ancient means of assessing a potential mate's immunities. This assessment, Josh and Chuck explain, is important because a couple's offspring will inherit both parents' immunities; thus, for the healthiest possible offspring, it's important that the parents have differing immunities.
This theory gets some serious back-up, I think, when Josh mentions the remnants of an organ of some kind that was instrumental in the kind of hormonal sensing that assessing a make-out partner's immunities requires but that is now dormant.
However, as flimsy as sociological stats can be, in a survey of all contacted societies, 10 percent of them reported no kissing practices. The fact that these societies might not be the types to "kiss and tell" is mentioned, and honestly, I think that this stat alone means little - it would be seriously buttressed by some lateral studies into societal modesty and general regard for sexual activity.
Another intriguing thing from this version of the podcast is that Protestantism ultimately forced what was known as the "holy kiss" out of Catholic mass. The idea behind the practice was that the kiss signified peace and a conscious effort to "not let your heart withdraw from [your brother's]," as St. Augustine explained (wiki ref 2).
SYSK suggests that the holy kiss was about passing the spirit from one person to another, an interpretation that seems sound since the dove is a sign of peace and the kiss is meant to signify a lasting peace between the kissing parties.
Rather than give the rest of the episode away, if you've been intrigued by any of this you should give it a listen.
What I've learned from all of this is that social practices shouldn't be taken for granted since some interesting speculation and curious theories are to be found where hard scientific answers are wanting.
Because it's Wednesday, and that obliges me to write on what it is that I'm currently learning about I've decided to go with kissing. The SYSK podcasts are generally 30 minutes long, but this one has left an imprint the same way the coverage of biospelology did.
Now, I already know that within the English language the word "kiss" goes all the way back to Old English ("cyssan," c's are hard in OE and y's are a kind of "ooo" sound, so it even sounds similar). But I never really gave much thought as to where the practice came from or if it's something that's just always been around.
The two theories that SYSK puts forward are that kissing is either a learned behaviour, or it's something instinctive.
One example given for the case of kissing being learned behaviour is that pre-historic mothers essentially regurgitated food for their children and since they passed it directly into their offspring's mouth from theirs this imprinted a pleasurable and nourishing experience onto the developing mind.
The other theory in support of kissing as a learned behaviour that gets mentioned is that kissing was limited to the area that's now India and that Alexander the Great brought it back to Greece after having conquered his way to South-East Asia. This theory has some tangible evidence behind it, though circumstantial, in that the earliest record of kissing is found in Bhagavad Gita, the section of the larger epic, the Mahabharata, that is dated between 200 BC and 200 AD (wiki ref 1).
The other theory that it's instinctive gets tied into the idea that kissing is an ancient means of assessing a potential mate's immunities. This assessment, Josh and Chuck explain, is important because a couple's offspring will inherit both parents' immunities; thus, for the healthiest possible offspring, it's important that the parents have differing immunities.
This theory gets some serious back-up, I think, when Josh mentions the remnants of an organ of some kind that was instrumental in the kind of hormonal sensing that assessing a make-out partner's immunities requires but that is now dormant.
However, as flimsy as sociological stats can be, in a survey of all contacted societies, 10 percent of them reported no kissing practices. The fact that these societies might not be the types to "kiss and tell" is mentioned, and honestly, I think that this stat alone means little - it would be seriously buttressed by some lateral studies into societal modesty and general regard for sexual activity.
Another intriguing thing from this version of the podcast is that Protestantism ultimately forced what was known as the "holy kiss" out of Catholic mass. The idea behind the practice was that the kiss signified peace and a conscious effort to "not let your heart withdraw from [your brother's]," as St. Augustine explained (wiki ref 2).
SYSK suggests that the holy kiss was about passing the spirit from one person to another, an interpretation that seems sound since the dove is a sign of peace and the kiss is meant to signify a lasting peace between the kissing parties.
Rather than give the rest of the episode away, if you've been intrigued by any of this you should give it a listen.
What I've learned from all of this is that social practices shouldn't be taken for granted since some interesting speculation and curious theories are to be found where hard scientific answers are wanting.
Monday, January 23, 2012
[Moon-dæg] Some Stats on and Costs of Teaching ESL in Korea
Because the other two days of the week have a slightly more defined theme, I'm trying something new with Mondays over the next month.
Because it's the day named for the moon, I'm going to write four entries on one topic that follow the phases of the moon.
The new moon will be the factual entry, the one where I try to dredge up stats and figures and look at things as objectively as possible. The first quarter will be the first look that is logical, but also personal. The entry posted around the full moon will be the most personal of the entries. And the final entry, that posted around the last quarter, will be another logical look at the issue. In this last entry I'll also try to reach a conclusion about the month's issue.
This lunar month's theme is ESL teaching in South Korea.
According to Gone2Korea ESL Employment Services 17,273 westerners were teaching in South Korea in 2007. The unofficial number cited by the same site for 2011 is 30,000 (and includes those teaching without the proper visa).
On a smaller, more contextualized scale, the major player in Japan, JET, claims 1753 teachers in its program in 2011 while Korea's big name GEPIK claims 2252 for 2010. That GEPIK only covers the north-western province of Gyeonggi rather than the whole country (like JET), it seems that Korea has become an equal, if not bigger draw than Japan (full info here).
This is observation rather than fact, but it's safe to say that a considerable amount (at least 50%) of those who are teaching ESL in South Korea are there temporarily. Maybe they're working to clear some debt, to save some money, or just to take a year or two off from their regular lives. This means that there's a pretty big turnover rate. However, this turnover is also due to the burnout that some teachers planning a longer stay experience.
The job pays well, but having just two weeks of paid time off divided between vacation and sick days (sometimes also need for field trips), having to put up with ridiculous demands from faculty, and dealing with parents that can be as difficult as some students would make anyone bleary eyed.
I mentioned the pay in passing in the last paragraph, and now will get into it more seriously.
As a holder of both a BA and MA in English I can expect my salary to be around 2.4-2.7 million won a month (based on the 2.0-2.7 million won range given on the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education site) as long as I can find work in Seoul. At the current exchange rate that works out to something between 2149.00 and 2417.74 Canadian dollars.
Taxes run at about 3.5-7% of monthly income (according to Gone2Korea). So the median cost of taxes would be about 113.50 (=2270x0.05) Canadian dollars. And regular utilities cost 162,217.14 won per month, or 145.24 Canadian dollars (thanks to numbeo for that figure). So the monthly deduction from my pay would be about 258.74 Canadian dollars, I'd be left with something between 1890.26 and 2159.00 Canadian. That is considerably higher than most entry level jobs here in Canada (please correct me if I'm wrong), and I'd be able to save most of it.
There are 317 colleges and universities in Canada and 415 in South Korea (thanks, Wikipedia). Considering that about 80 or so of those in Canada are entirely Francophone and my French skills allow me to read the language and follow along with songs but nothing more, Canada effectively has about 240 schools to which I could reply. But even Korean universities and colleges dedicated to art and design have English teaching faculty, so I'd dare say that I could work at any of the 415.
Why do these numbers matter? Because my aspiration, if I do go back, is to get into post-secondary ESL teaching in South Korea. This will likely take a year of working elsewhere, however, since most universities and colleges have in-person interviews as part of their hiring process.
So, those are the benefits and costs of living and working in South Korea. Yet there are also the costs of getting there.
These costs involve airfare (generally reimbursed by your employer) that starts at approximately 600 Canadian dollars for a one way trip (according to FlightNetwork). They also involve the paperwork needed for your visa such as a Criminal Background Check ($40), transcripts from all post secondary institutions that you have attended (15$ each), a set of passport photos (about $15), and the visa application form ($50), and potentially a new passport ($87). So the grand total of the "start-up" costs is $822. Add another $995 if a certification course needs to be retaken, to bring that cost up to $1817.
Any reimbursement for airfare or from the certification company notwithstanding, that's a cost that could be easily recouped within two months. Any other debt that may be incurred as a result of going overseas could also be easily paid back within a few more months, or, at the most, a year.
So, there are the facts as I've found them on the net. Next week I'll look at their relevance to my own situation. And maybe I'll add in a few more costs to reflect that as well.
Because it's the day named for the moon, I'm going to write four entries on one topic that follow the phases of the moon.
The new moon will be the factual entry, the one where I try to dredge up stats and figures and look at things as objectively as possible. The first quarter will be the first look that is logical, but also personal. The entry posted around the full moon will be the most personal of the entries. And the final entry, that posted around the last quarter, will be another logical look at the issue. In this last entry I'll also try to reach a conclusion about the month's issue.
This lunar month's theme is ESL teaching in South Korea.
According to Gone2Korea ESL Employment Services 17,273 westerners were teaching in South Korea in 2007. The unofficial number cited by the same site for 2011 is 30,000 (and includes those teaching without the proper visa).
On a smaller, more contextualized scale, the major player in Japan, JET, claims 1753 teachers in its program in 2011 while Korea's big name GEPIK claims 2252 for 2010. That GEPIK only covers the north-western province of Gyeonggi rather than the whole country (like JET), it seems that Korea has become an equal, if not bigger draw than Japan (full info here).
This is observation rather than fact, but it's safe to say that a considerable amount (at least 50%) of those who are teaching ESL in South Korea are there temporarily. Maybe they're working to clear some debt, to save some money, or just to take a year or two off from their regular lives. This means that there's a pretty big turnover rate. However, this turnover is also due to the burnout that some teachers planning a longer stay experience.
The job pays well, but having just two weeks of paid time off divided between vacation and sick days (sometimes also need for field trips), having to put up with ridiculous demands from faculty, and dealing with parents that can be as difficult as some students would make anyone bleary eyed.
I mentioned the pay in passing in the last paragraph, and now will get into it more seriously.
As a holder of both a BA and MA in English I can expect my salary to be around 2.4-2.7 million won a month (based on the 2.0-2.7 million won range given on the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education site) as long as I can find work in Seoul. At the current exchange rate that works out to something between 2149.00 and 2417.74 Canadian dollars.
Taxes run at about 3.5-7% of monthly income (according to Gone2Korea). So the median cost of taxes would be about 113.50 (=2270x0.05) Canadian dollars. And regular utilities cost 162,217.14 won per month, or 145.24 Canadian dollars (thanks to numbeo for that figure). So the monthly deduction from my pay would be about 258.74 Canadian dollars, I'd be left with something between 1890.26 and 2159.00 Canadian. That is considerably higher than most entry level jobs here in Canada (please correct me if I'm wrong), and I'd be able to save most of it.
There are 317 colleges and universities in Canada and 415 in South Korea (thanks, Wikipedia). Considering that about 80 or so of those in Canada are entirely Francophone and my French skills allow me to read the language and follow along with songs but nothing more, Canada effectively has about 240 schools to which I could reply. But even Korean universities and colleges dedicated to art and design have English teaching faculty, so I'd dare say that I could work at any of the 415.
Why do these numbers matter? Because my aspiration, if I do go back, is to get into post-secondary ESL teaching in South Korea. This will likely take a year of working elsewhere, however, since most universities and colleges have in-person interviews as part of their hiring process.
So, those are the benefits and costs of living and working in South Korea. Yet there are also the costs of getting there.
These costs involve airfare (generally reimbursed by your employer) that starts at approximately 600 Canadian dollars for a one way trip (according to FlightNetwork). They also involve the paperwork needed for your visa such as a Criminal Background Check ($40), transcripts from all post secondary institutions that you have attended (15$ each), a set of passport photos (about $15), and the visa application form ($50), and potentially a new passport ($87). So the grand total of the "start-up" costs is $822. Add another $995 if a certification course needs to be retaken, to bring that cost up to $1817.
Any reimbursement for airfare or from the certification company notwithstanding, that's a cost that could be easily recouped within two months. Any other debt that may be incurred as a result of going overseas could also be easily paid back within a few more months, or, at the most, a year.
So, there are the facts as I've found them on the net. Next week I'll look at their relevance to my own situation. And maybe I'll add in a few more costs to reflect that as well.
Friday, January 20, 2012
[Freya-dæg] The Warrior's Way
What do you get when you combine a gun toting country girl (Kate Bosworth) from the 19th century Western United States and "The Best Swordsman in the World. Ever." (Dong-gun Jang) from somewhere in Asia? Well, you get the Warrior's Way, of course.
The film is Sngmoo Lee's first English language effort, and my guess is that it does his Korean work little to no justice.
As a fan of Hong Kong cinema and the awesome madness of movies produced outside of North America, I may be a bit biased against the Western aspects of the movie. But, within themselves they are done well. West and East just don't mix very well in this flick.
According to Rotten Tomatoes, (my determiner of what a generally "good" or "terrible" movie is) this has a ranking of 31% among critics and 47% among viewers. So it's close to being good enough to pass over. However, as both numbers fall below 60%, I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a generally "terrible" movie - something that could perhaps use a little bit of redeeming.
But. Here's the bad stuff that even I noticed.
This movie is as covered with clichés as 19th century gift blankets were with smallpox. The idea behind the flick is to combine the ninja/samurai genre with the western genre. However, instead of having the two interact in a new and interesting way all of the familiar stereotypes are here: silent warrior, spunky country girl, drunken old gunman, lecherous old general (Custer, essentially) - plus the clichés around fighting styles are there too.
The cowboys fight with guns and dynamite and revel in explosions, the Asians fight with dramatic pauses and rather useless after-kill poses. But the two never really mix aside from the girl's learning how to handle double swords from the Asian swordsman.
There's a neat nod to the silent gunman riding off into the sunset at the end, but the reasons for the swordsman's leaving aren't just because he's defended the town and is now ready to move on. He goes as an expression of his love for the girl. This is well done, but is way too minimal within a movie that puts more emphasis on the fight scenes than anything else.
And, like all modern movies featuring fight scenes, slow motion action sequences are used freely. To the point where they become distracting and essentially meaningless. The last thing you want to do when studying is to highlight every word, and the same principle should apply to slow motion and fight scenes.
All of these things made the movie lag for me. A film that was just about an hour and a half felt instead like two and a half.
But. The good:
One of the major plot threads of the movie - the romance between the girl and the swordsman wasn't anything new, but it was interesting to see it unfold. And to see how it ultimately came together in the end-they weren't just two crazy kids in love, but instead were two that gradually fell in love (in some proper, eye-roll-worthy scenes) and then couldn't be together because of what was indeed best for all.
Jang's flashbacks to his training were awesome. It's the usual over the top samurai/ninja/martial arts movie training, but instead of wild challenges to increase his strength and agility we're shown the parts of his training that destroyed his compassion. Though predictable, it's definitely a unique thing to show, and a very good point to make about what's needed to be the greatest fighter.
The cliché of the cold-hearted killer turning soft because of a child is pretty standard in most martial arts flicks that want to get a little more sentimental. But it's well done enough to make it an interesting transformation.
The rest of the good that I can say about this one relies entirely on its visual appeal. There's a lot to look at, and a lot that's very attractive. But there's nothing really amazing or memorable.
Despite the fact that I've pointed out more good than bad still leaves one thing. The clincher: does this make me want to see more of Sngmoo Lee's movies? Not really.
The swordsman's reasons for leaving were at least a little complex, and the fact that he's caring for the baby that is the last member of his rival clan definitely adds some interesting layers. But these aspects are too often left lingering in the background while flashy fights are center stage.
So, it was neat and all, but ultimately just not that intriguing. Maybe his foreign language stuff (The Legend of Evil Lake) is solid, but this is just alright. Best just to let this one go, so it can fall back to the stack of fallen fighters from whence it came.
The film is Sngmoo Lee's first English language effort, and my guess is that it does his Korean work little to no justice.
As a fan of Hong Kong cinema and the awesome madness of movies produced outside of North America, I may be a bit biased against the Western aspects of the movie. But, within themselves they are done well. West and East just don't mix very well in this flick.
According to Rotten Tomatoes, (my determiner of what a generally "good" or "terrible" movie is) this has a ranking of 31% among critics and 47% among viewers. So it's close to being good enough to pass over. However, as both numbers fall below 60%, I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a generally "terrible" movie - something that could perhaps use a little bit of redeeming.
But. Here's the bad stuff that even I noticed.
This movie is as covered with clichés as 19th century gift blankets were with smallpox. The idea behind the flick is to combine the ninja/samurai genre with the western genre. However, instead of having the two interact in a new and interesting way all of the familiar stereotypes are here: silent warrior, spunky country girl, drunken old gunman, lecherous old general (Custer, essentially) - plus the clichés around fighting styles are there too.
The cowboys fight with guns and dynamite and revel in explosions, the Asians fight with dramatic pauses and rather useless after-kill poses. But the two never really mix aside from the girl's learning how to handle double swords from the Asian swordsman.
There's a neat nod to the silent gunman riding off into the sunset at the end, but the reasons for the swordsman's leaving aren't just because he's defended the town and is now ready to move on. He goes as an expression of his love for the girl. This is well done, but is way too minimal within a movie that puts more emphasis on the fight scenes than anything else.
And, like all modern movies featuring fight scenes, slow motion action sequences are used freely. To the point where they become distracting and essentially meaningless. The last thing you want to do when studying is to highlight every word, and the same principle should apply to slow motion and fight scenes.
All of these things made the movie lag for me. A film that was just about an hour and a half felt instead like two and a half.
But. The good:
One of the major plot threads of the movie - the romance between the girl and the swordsman wasn't anything new, but it was interesting to see it unfold. And to see how it ultimately came together in the end-they weren't just two crazy kids in love, but instead were two that gradually fell in love (in some proper, eye-roll-worthy scenes) and then couldn't be together because of what was indeed best for all.
Jang's flashbacks to his training were awesome. It's the usual over the top samurai/ninja/martial arts movie training, but instead of wild challenges to increase his strength and agility we're shown the parts of his training that destroyed his compassion. Though predictable, it's definitely a unique thing to show, and a very good point to make about what's needed to be the greatest fighter.
The cliché of the cold-hearted killer turning soft because of a child is pretty standard in most martial arts flicks that want to get a little more sentimental. But it's well done enough to make it an interesting transformation.
The rest of the good that I can say about this one relies entirely on its visual appeal. There's a lot to look at, and a lot that's very attractive. But there's nothing really amazing or memorable.
Despite the fact that I've pointed out more good than bad still leaves one thing. The clincher: does this make me want to see more of Sngmoo Lee's movies? Not really.
The swordsman's reasons for leaving were at least a little complex, and the fact that he's caring for the baby that is the last member of his rival clan definitely adds some interesting layers. But these aspects are too often left lingering in the background while flashy fights are center stage.
So, it was neat and all, but ultimately just not that intriguing. Maybe his foreign language stuff (The Legend of Evil Lake) is solid, but this is just alright. Best just to let this one go, so it can fall back to the stack of fallen fighters from whence it came.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
[Wōdnes-dæg] SOPA
Okay. So, SOPA (and the similar PIPA). For those of you who don't know SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act (PIPA stands for Protect IP Act), is a piece of U.S. legislation aimed at curtailing the freewheeling use of copyrighted material (video, pictures, lyrics). It is currently in congress and is to be voted on in less than a week's time (January 24, 2012).
Today was a day of protest in which many major sites blacked themselves out - either entirely (like Wikipedia or That Guy With The Glasses) or partially (like Google's homepage). But why protest this bill?
If you've been reading around the internet you've probably found plenty of information on it. Go ahead, Google "SOPA" right now. I'll wait.
Okay. So from what's online you'll learn that SOPA is something that will make activities like recording yourself singing along to a favourite song and then posting the video on YouTube an offence punishable by jail time.
Justin Beiber, whether he deserves such treatment or not for other reasons, would never have had his meteoric rise to stardom - instead he'd be punching plates somewhere or embroiled in an international legal battle. However, this law would also effect fan sites that use copyrighted materials and review sites like the Spoony Experiment, That Guy With The Glasses, The Angy Video Game Nerd, etc would not be able to function at all. Re-mixers and mash-up artists would be shuffled into court.
Directly related to the inconvenience of losing these sites, SOPA would also make free speech difficult since any use of copyrighted material would need to be permitted by the copyright holder. And if you want to get your hands on such a thing as copyright you need to lighten your wallet. To wax alarmist for a moment, SOPA could potentially make free speech not just equivalent with money (the basis of the Citizens United ruling, which makes corporations people in the US), but also require money.
Most netizens don't pull down the kind of income that could support their rapid use of copyrighted material. And so things would become quiet on the internet.
However, for all the doom and gloom that you're likely to find in the nightmare scenarios many online sources paint for SOPA's passing, the bill isn't without it's merits.
As a friend of mine (check out his facebook page here) pointed out, SOPA would be terrible in the short term. For the first five months things online would be slow. People might even start regularly reading books and print media again! But, by his reckoning five years down the road we would be under duress from a Great American Firewall, and so ISPs and hosting servers would spring up internationally. This would mean more internet innovation, and maybe some exciting new directions for the net.
It would also force people to be more knowledgeable about how the internet works. Because there are workarounds for the limitations that SOPA would impose. Darknets, and using remote ISPs for example. The "Internet" is just one set of channels that are accessible via modem, cable, fibre, or wi-fi.
But those first five months would be hell for everyone's habits.
Of course, given the success of this protest (read about key senators changing their minds (and four informative articles about SOPA itself) here), its passing seems about as likely as Obama closing Gitmo like he promised.
But all cynicism aside, it does appear that the people of the internet have been heard, and that the people in congress are acting according to their wishes. SOPA might just get knocked down!
Yet - as this article makes clear, a victory now is not a victory indefinitely.
Hollywood and the media industry is the biggest stakeholder in something like SOPA. What's pirated the most? What has the most copies floating around YouTube or the most repeats on things like Facebook? Pop culture, of course. And that stuff is covered in copyright. The copyright of studios, of artists, of writers, of performers, of producers, of directors, of mothers and fathers, of sons and daughters.
There's probably something being ripped off right now that's copyrighted to a dog even.
And Hollywood is not a weak industry. Music, movies, TV - entertainment - are all integral to peoples' lives now. The darker among us might pull out a reference to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and say that the drug that he describes in his book is here, but not as a pill. Instead it is hear as a sound, a picture, a thing that evokes feeling and lulls people away from their worries and cares.
People like being entertained. Hollywood provides that and charges for it, too. Thus, Hollywood has a lot of money.
With that money, Hollywood is likely just to write up another piece of legislation and try to get it passed later on. A victory now is but one in a single skirmish. But the larger coup has not yet been had - it may never be had.
So, finally getting to the theme of Wednesday entries, what I've been learning lately is that the political process (in the States) is broken. But it can be made to work, and the internet is a great way to facilitate the peoples' voice. However, I have also learned that this voice can't just release a single shout and then fall to silence. It needs to hold its note for a long time, even over periods during which it seems that no one is listening, before that note's meaning is fully conveyed.
Today was a day of protest in which many major sites blacked themselves out - either entirely (like Wikipedia or That Guy With The Glasses) or partially (like Google's homepage). But why protest this bill?
If you've been reading around the internet you've probably found plenty of information on it. Go ahead, Google "SOPA" right now. I'll wait.
Okay. So from what's online you'll learn that SOPA is something that will make activities like recording yourself singing along to a favourite song and then posting the video on YouTube an offence punishable by jail time.
Justin Beiber, whether he deserves such treatment or not for other reasons, would never have had his meteoric rise to stardom - instead he'd be punching plates somewhere or embroiled in an international legal battle. However, this law would also effect fan sites that use copyrighted materials and review sites like the Spoony Experiment, That Guy With The Glasses, The Angy Video Game Nerd, etc would not be able to function at all. Re-mixers and mash-up artists would be shuffled into court.
Directly related to the inconvenience of losing these sites, SOPA would also make free speech difficult since any use of copyrighted material would need to be permitted by the copyright holder. And if you want to get your hands on such a thing as copyright you need to lighten your wallet. To wax alarmist for a moment, SOPA could potentially make free speech not just equivalent with money (the basis of the Citizens United ruling, which makes corporations people in the US), but also require money.
Most netizens don't pull down the kind of income that could support their rapid use of copyrighted material. And so things would become quiet on the internet.
However, for all the doom and gloom that you're likely to find in the nightmare scenarios many online sources paint for SOPA's passing, the bill isn't without it's merits.
As a friend of mine (check out his facebook page here) pointed out, SOPA would be terrible in the short term. For the first five months things online would be slow. People might even start regularly reading books and print media again! But, by his reckoning five years down the road we would be under duress from a Great American Firewall, and so ISPs and hosting servers would spring up internationally. This would mean more internet innovation, and maybe some exciting new directions for the net.
It would also force people to be more knowledgeable about how the internet works. Because there are workarounds for the limitations that SOPA would impose. Darknets, and using remote ISPs for example. The "Internet" is just one set of channels that are accessible via modem, cable, fibre, or wi-fi.
But those first five months would be hell for everyone's habits.
Of course, given the success of this protest (read about key senators changing their minds (and four informative articles about SOPA itself) here), its passing seems about as likely as Obama closing Gitmo like he promised.
But all cynicism aside, it does appear that the people of the internet have been heard, and that the people in congress are acting according to their wishes. SOPA might just get knocked down!
Yet - as this article makes clear, a victory now is not a victory indefinitely.
Hollywood and the media industry is the biggest stakeholder in something like SOPA. What's pirated the most? What has the most copies floating around YouTube or the most repeats on things like Facebook? Pop culture, of course. And that stuff is covered in copyright. The copyright of studios, of artists, of writers, of performers, of producers, of directors, of mothers and fathers, of sons and daughters.
There's probably something being ripped off right now that's copyrighted to a dog even.
And Hollywood is not a weak industry. Music, movies, TV - entertainment - are all integral to peoples' lives now. The darker among us might pull out a reference to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and say that the drug that he describes in his book is here, but not as a pill. Instead it is hear as a sound, a picture, a thing that evokes feeling and lulls people away from their worries and cares.
People like being entertained. Hollywood provides that and charges for it, too. Thus, Hollywood has a lot of money.
With that money, Hollywood is likely just to write up another piece of legislation and try to get it passed later on. A victory now is but one in a single skirmish. But the larger coup has not yet been had - it may never be had.
So, finally getting to the theme of Wednesday entries, what I've been learning lately is that the political process (in the States) is broken. But it can be made to work, and the internet is a great way to facilitate the peoples' voice. However, I have also learned that this voice can't just release a single shout and then fall to silence. It needs to hold its note for a long time, even over periods during which it seems that no one is listening, before that note's meaning is fully conveyed.
Monday, January 16, 2012
[Moon-dæg] Same-Sex Parents And the Idea of "Family"
By the time that this is posted Christmas will have come an gone yet again, but I still want to take a moment to write about an idea that many associate quite closely with the holiday, at least since the 19th century if not earlier. That idea is family. Simple, direct, easy to figure out. But complex, nuanced, and something tricky to really prove.
The first sort barely really needs any explanation. Blood relations are family for sheerly biological reasons at the least. It's our gene pool and we're swimming in it constantly. Even if you differ from your parents in some way or another, barring a negative paternity test, they are the ones who conceived, bore, and (probably) raised you. But this would be an uncharacteristically short entry if I just ended it here.
What about the families that are based on less concrete biological data? Couples that can't have children of their own or who prefer to adopt and do so? Very few would question their being a family in a sense that is on par with those who are joined by clear red or blue lines. There are things in common, the parents raise the children, the children teach the parents in one way or another. The two different sorts of families are very similar.
Now here's the beef in this issue of what a "family" is.
If it's pretty widely accepted that adopted children are as much, legally, morally, and socially, the children of their adoptive parents as biological children are of biological parents then why is there such a kerfuffle around same-sex couples adopting children?
Same sex couples are subjected to the same sort of tests and screenings to ensure that a hopeful adoptive couple must undergo to prove that they are stable and child-friendly. All of the same legal paperwork needs to be completed. And so I really don't see why there is still a societal stigma around same-sex couples adopting children. Or rather, around children raised by same sex couples.
The myth that having two fathers or two mothers will somehow twist a child's mind or morals is entirely unfounded. In fact, I would say that it's as true as thinking that "gay" is a thing that can be cured through prayer and religion. Mental contortion of the sort that covers over biological facts and natures is an amazing human feat, and if we are only using 10% of our brain most of the time it is even more so.
If you have your doubts about how having two same-sex parents take a look at this video.
Granted, the young man making the statement in that clip is one of his parent's biological children. But, speaking in terms of contrast to the traditional nuclear family, that still stands as stark proof that one parent of each gender is not needed to raise to a well-adjusted member of society.
So what's the point of all this? What am I getting at here?
In the end, what I'm working towards is the idea that, yes, the social construct known as the family is changing, but that change isn't a bad thing. Many moral philosophies and religions are based on the family as the microcosm of a society.
Confucianism, for example, teaches that if you want peace in the state you need peace in the family. At the center of Christianity (even if these parents are shunted aside in some sects) is the trio of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
There's no doubt that in civilization as it has been known throughout recorded history the family plays an important role. But I don't see the changes to the family (or "attacks on" depending on who you're talking to) as being particularly detrimental to the overall continuation/progress of humanity at large.
In a nuclear family if you strip away the blood ties you have a social system with two authority figures in varying capacities. Plus one or more civilian, if you will, who is to be educated in the ways of the world by those authority figures. And you have this unit in mundane situations through which all of those involved need to navigate and rely on each other in varying combinations to ensure the success of all involved.
Start up something similar, but don't bother with the blood ties, and the same thing remains true. Authority figures. Civilian(s). Situations and interdependence among the units of a society/family.
They aren't very frequent, but every now and then an article about the need to teach younger generations empathy through reading or other in-depth interactions comes in a newspaper or through email. This is really where people concerned with the crumbling of society or harmonious togetherness need to concentrate their efforts.
Families without blood ties between parents and children, or even without a male and a female parent aren't going to steer their children down any more blind alleys than tidy upright goodie ablewife and primington husband, Bible thumpers extraordinaire.
Leviticus doesn't just condemn gays, after all. If you've ever gotten a little trim or shaved your beard you'll also need to get used to searing temperatures and long-lasting torment (Leviticus 19:19 states "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard").
So actually read the Bible, with all of its books and letters and stories, and characters. And really get in touch with narrative and with imagining the joys and suffering of others. After all, that same Confucian maxim about a peaceful family leading to a peaceful state goes further and says that a peaceful individual needs to have a peaceful mind. It's hard to war within your mind when you've read of bloodshed and felt the lines of anguish in a person's face through the lines of text in a book.
The first sort barely really needs any explanation. Blood relations are family for sheerly biological reasons at the least. It's our gene pool and we're swimming in it constantly. Even if you differ from your parents in some way or another, barring a negative paternity test, they are the ones who conceived, bore, and (probably) raised you. But this would be an uncharacteristically short entry if I just ended it here.
What about the families that are based on less concrete biological data? Couples that can't have children of their own or who prefer to adopt and do so? Very few would question their being a family in a sense that is on par with those who are joined by clear red or blue lines. There are things in common, the parents raise the children, the children teach the parents in one way or another. The two different sorts of families are very similar.
Now here's the beef in this issue of what a "family" is.
If it's pretty widely accepted that adopted children are as much, legally, morally, and socially, the children of their adoptive parents as biological children are of biological parents then why is there such a kerfuffle around same-sex couples adopting children?
Same sex couples are subjected to the same sort of tests and screenings to ensure that a hopeful adoptive couple must undergo to prove that they are stable and child-friendly. All of the same legal paperwork needs to be completed. And so I really don't see why there is still a societal stigma around same-sex couples adopting children. Or rather, around children raised by same sex couples.
The myth that having two fathers or two mothers will somehow twist a child's mind or morals is entirely unfounded. In fact, I would say that it's as true as thinking that "gay" is a thing that can be cured through prayer and religion. Mental contortion of the sort that covers over biological facts and natures is an amazing human feat, and if we are only using 10% of our brain most of the time it is even more so.
If you have your doubts about how having two same-sex parents take a look at this video.
Granted, the young man making the statement in that clip is one of his parent's biological children. But, speaking in terms of contrast to the traditional nuclear family, that still stands as stark proof that one parent of each gender is not needed to raise to a well-adjusted member of society.
So what's the point of all this? What am I getting at here?
In the end, what I'm working towards is the idea that, yes, the social construct known as the family is changing, but that change isn't a bad thing. Many moral philosophies and religions are based on the family as the microcosm of a society.
Confucianism, for example, teaches that if you want peace in the state you need peace in the family. At the center of Christianity (even if these parents are shunted aside in some sects) is the trio of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
There's no doubt that in civilization as it has been known throughout recorded history the family plays an important role. But I don't see the changes to the family (or "attacks on" depending on who you're talking to) as being particularly detrimental to the overall continuation/progress of humanity at large.
In a nuclear family if you strip away the blood ties you have a social system with two authority figures in varying capacities. Plus one or more civilian, if you will, who is to be educated in the ways of the world by those authority figures. And you have this unit in mundane situations through which all of those involved need to navigate and rely on each other in varying combinations to ensure the success of all involved.
Start up something similar, but don't bother with the blood ties, and the same thing remains true. Authority figures. Civilian(s). Situations and interdependence among the units of a society/family.
They aren't very frequent, but every now and then an article about the need to teach younger generations empathy through reading or other in-depth interactions comes in a newspaper or through email. This is really where people concerned with the crumbling of society or harmonious togetherness need to concentrate their efforts.
Families without blood ties between parents and children, or even without a male and a female parent aren't going to steer their children down any more blind alleys than tidy upright goodie ablewife and primington husband, Bible thumpers extraordinaire.
Leviticus doesn't just condemn gays, after all. If you've ever gotten a little trim or shaved your beard you'll also need to get used to searing temperatures and long-lasting torment (Leviticus 19:19 states "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard").
So actually read the Bible, with all of its books and letters and stories, and characters. And really get in touch with narrative and with imagining the joys and suffering of others. After all, that same Confucian maxim about a peaceful family leading to a peaceful state goes further and says that a peaceful individual needs to have a peaceful mind. It's hard to war within your mind when you've read of bloodshed and felt the lines of anguish in a person's face through the lines of text in a book.
Friday, January 13, 2012
[Freya-dæg] Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol
Ah, Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. The Imax really made those gadgets shine - but maybe that shine hid something a little less glittery.
Well, being otherwise standard thriller fare, the gadgets definitely do mask a lot. But, for all of its cold war tone and everything that went with that it was kind of neat. Characters were all over the place it seemed, but I'll get to that in a minute. So. The good.
First, cool tech. Really cool tech, actually. The screens, and that magnet/metal suit plus the magnetic rover. That was just really really cool. Yeah. Definitely.
And the surprises that were built into the plot from the beginning were also pleasantly surprising. The fact that the wife was alive rather than the evil master mind or ultimately the hostage with the big bad, that was good. Quite good - though the fact that she seems to be around but...they can't be seen together? They can't be all husband and wife because she's supposed to be dead? It seems like it's kind of meaningless.
I mean, they're both alive and there's some kind of...muddled reason for them not being able to be together it seems. That much makes sense, but what's the point. They're both alive, but then it's just like a permanent distance relationship. Nice, but with no final pay off. Because, as one in a distance relationship that seems to be a major point of it. One day, we will be together.
Anyway, the other good thing, surprise wise, is that the guy who is essentially a mole isn't working for the enemy but rather was there when the lead's wife was allegedly killed. That was pretty nicely done, and did make some good sense. Yeah.
In the end, the only other good thing was that not *all* the Russians were evil. The arms dealer was kinda good and bad. And the agent tagging along after Ethan Hunt was good, all around good, actually. So that was nice, for something that appeals to cold war sensibilities.
Since that's really what the movie was all about - cold war sensibilities. US versus Russia. Nukes. Only one man and his small team stand between the world and total destruction. So. Yeah. Absolutely cold-war. They even refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Something that most younger people probably don't even know about.
But as per the rest of the movie? It was standard thriller fare. The Characters. The Characters. Oh, lord, the characters. They really needed to be more fleshed out. So. there's the lead, Ethan Hunt, who is the immaculate hero, never scarred, always healing super quickly. He can be excused because that's a fixture of the genre. Though I will say that they should make body armour out of whatever is on Ethan Hunt's face instead of human skin - that stuff can take some punishment and just never break apart or bruise. Geez.
But the others? Simon Pegg's character - uh...Laughy McComicRelief...? - Also can be excused because he was basically there as the primary laugh source.
But the woman. Jane Carter. She saw her lover die in her arms and believed that the female assassin (Sabine Moreau) arranged for this to happen. Did she think that the woman knew that she was the other one on the mission? The field commander? Carter is never really shown to have any real reason to think so.
Moreau (the female assassin) doesn't really give any reason for getting back at the lead woman at all when there is a confrontation either. So there's no reason that's clear for the lead woman to think that the assassin left the lady spy's lover near dead to make her suffer - she probably just did it for the sake of giving him a torturous death.
Further, that Carter's anger is directed to the guy that she's supposed to seduce makes no sense whatsoever. Why has she been able to hold it back for so long? Why does she lose control around him?
I agree that the loss of a loved one would make anyone angry but if she's professional enough to keep cool up until the point where she needs to turn on the sexy, then why not be able to keep cool while doing so? This makes no sense to me. If anything, Carter should have snapped at Hunt, with whom she supposedly has a thing by the end of the movie, she could project those feelings onto him as her affection switches to him. After all, at the end there's a look and a smile, and then suddenly, oh wait - his wife's still alive. This hinted-at affection also makes the whole wife-alive-thing seem completely senseless.
But the other guy. The other agent, William Brandt, his character was less imperfect, but his fearlessness before the reveal of his past and then his doubt and hesitancy after the fact makes little sense.
He is this cool character up until the revelation that he was involved with Hunt and the death of his wife in the past. But then, after this revelation, he becomes hesitant and sarcastic - he gets relegated to second comic relief guy. He and Pegg work together for the jokes from that point onwards and that's it. So as a non-agent he's all super cool because of the mystery, and then after he reveals himself as an agent the mystery is lost and the character follows suit. This is what ultimately damns this picture for me.
The movie's combination of cool tech, the fact that the writer(s) avoided using the "dead wife appears as villain/hostage" cliche (in spite of mishandling the rest of her presence here), and the presence of some good Russians to avoid painting them too broadly are all redeeming features. And Simon Pegg is good as the comic relief, but he's so much more than that he can do so much more (see Shaun of the Dead for example). And even though it's hard to write women for action movies, Carter seems to be paranoid and have anger issues - but not as part of the plot, as part of some bad writing. And then there's the other agent, Brandt, who just turns around completely as a character for the last act of the movie.
So, Freya, rest assured that even the Imax can't save this one. Leave it where it lay. Or rather, since 93% of critics and 86% of audience members liked it on Rotten Tomatoes, see what you can do about getting it back to the body heaps on Midgard.
Well, being otherwise standard thriller fare, the gadgets definitely do mask a lot. But, for all of its cold war tone and everything that went with that it was kind of neat. Characters were all over the place it seemed, but I'll get to that in a minute. So. The good.
First, cool tech. Really cool tech, actually. The screens, and that magnet/metal suit plus the magnetic rover. That was just really really cool. Yeah. Definitely.
And the surprises that were built into the plot from the beginning were also pleasantly surprising. The fact that the wife was alive rather than the evil master mind or ultimately the hostage with the big bad, that was good. Quite good - though the fact that she seems to be around but...they can't be seen together? They can't be all husband and wife because she's supposed to be dead? It seems like it's kind of meaningless.
I mean, they're both alive and there's some kind of...muddled reason for them not being able to be together it seems. That much makes sense, but what's the point. They're both alive, but then it's just like a permanent distance relationship. Nice, but with no final pay off. Because, as one in a distance relationship that seems to be a major point of it. One day, we will be together.
Anyway, the other good thing, surprise wise, is that the guy who is essentially a mole isn't working for the enemy but rather was there when the lead's wife was allegedly killed. That was pretty nicely done, and did make some good sense. Yeah.
In the end, the only other good thing was that not *all* the Russians were evil. The arms dealer was kinda good and bad. And the agent tagging along after Ethan Hunt was good, all around good, actually. So that was nice, for something that appeals to cold war sensibilities.
Since that's really what the movie was all about - cold war sensibilities. US versus Russia. Nukes. Only one man and his small team stand between the world and total destruction. So. Yeah. Absolutely cold-war. They even refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Something that most younger people probably don't even know about.
But as per the rest of the movie? It was standard thriller fare. The Characters. The Characters. Oh, lord, the characters. They really needed to be more fleshed out. So. there's the lead, Ethan Hunt, who is the immaculate hero, never scarred, always healing super quickly. He can be excused because that's a fixture of the genre. Though I will say that they should make body armour out of whatever is on Ethan Hunt's face instead of human skin - that stuff can take some punishment and just never break apart or bruise. Geez.
But the others? Simon Pegg's character - uh...Laughy McComicRelief...? - Also can be excused because he was basically there as the primary laugh source.
But the woman. Jane Carter. She saw her lover die in her arms and believed that the female assassin (Sabine Moreau) arranged for this to happen. Did she think that the woman knew that she was the other one on the mission? The field commander? Carter is never really shown to have any real reason to think so.
Moreau (the female assassin) doesn't really give any reason for getting back at the lead woman at all when there is a confrontation either. So there's no reason that's clear for the lead woman to think that the assassin left the lady spy's lover near dead to make her suffer - she probably just did it for the sake of giving him a torturous death.
Further, that Carter's anger is directed to the guy that she's supposed to seduce makes no sense whatsoever. Why has she been able to hold it back for so long? Why does she lose control around him?
I agree that the loss of a loved one would make anyone angry but if she's professional enough to keep cool up until the point where she needs to turn on the sexy, then why not be able to keep cool while doing so? This makes no sense to me. If anything, Carter should have snapped at Hunt, with whom she supposedly has a thing by the end of the movie, she could project those feelings onto him as her affection switches to him. After all, at the end there's a look and a smile, and then suddenly, oh wait - his wife's still alive. This hinted-at affection also makes the whole wife-alive-thing seem completely senseless.
But the other guy. The other agent, William Brandt, his character was less imperfect, but his fearlessness before the reveal of his past and then his doubt and hesitancy after the fact makes little sense.
He is this cool character up until the revelation that he was involved with Hunt and the death of his wife in the past. But then, after this revelation, he becomes hesitant and sarcastic - he gets relegated to second comic relief guy. He and Pegg work together for the jokes from that point onwards and that's it. So as a non-agent he's all super cool because of the mystery, and then after he reveals himself as an agent the mystery is lost and the character follows suit. This is what ultimately damns this picture for me.
The movie's combination of cool tech, the fact that the writer(s) avoided using the "dead wife appears as villain/hostage" cliche (in spite of mishandling the rest of her presence here), and the presence of some good Russians to avoid painting them too broadly are all redeeming features. And Simon Pegg is good as the comic relief, but he's so much more than that he can do so much more (see Shaun of the Dead for example). And even though it's hard to write women for action movies, Carter seems to be paranoid and have anger issues - but not as part of the plot, as part of some bad writing. And then there's the other agent, Brandt, who just turns around completely as a character for the last act of the movie.
So, Freya, rest assured that even the Imax can't save this one. Leave it where it lay. Or rather, since 93% of critics and 86% of audience members liked it on Rotten Tomatoes, see what you can do about getting it back to the body heaps on Midgard.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
[Wōdnes-dæg] Email and Introspection
So, today is Wōdnes-daeg and once again I am going to take what I have been learning and writing about it here. This week, something as introspective as last week, and so, alas, I have no facts to speak of. This entry is going to be about how my email might just be what's been keeping me in my...rut? old habits? poor mindset? It's hard to really explain.
Here's the background for this discovery.
For the first week of the new year I was with old friends from high school and with my fiancee. Needless to say this meant that my regular schedule was interrupted. My daily writing flagged, I didn't create any new articles, and I let my inbox fill up for the most part. When I got back home I felt refreshed and invigorated, and it seemed that all of the energy of adding one to the number that the West chooses to represent the current year was still with me. I still felt as fresh and ready for whatever I had to do as I did a week earlier.
With this feeling pushing me forward I actually had a few relatively productive days. I felt good about what I was doing, and wasn't really stressing out about my pace or how slowly my organizing was going in relation to what I was organizing for (a new job hunt, getting myself into a steadier freelance writing habit, and general things that carried over from 2011).
Tonight, however, I finally decided to get to my email after taking a few days away from it. This hiatus was mostly due to my new found ability to actually say to myself "no, I can just do that tomorrow, it's late, and I should get to bed instead," and actually follow through.
After checking my email, though I felt like my old mindset had returned. That I was just awash in information and paralyzed by there being too much to process. As someone who has been published in print and only on the web via DMS, getting into writing freelance content or SEO specialized stuff is like learning to write in a different language. DMS articles are in a dialect of that language, but the learning curve seems much more merciful. And the possible starting points are far fewer.
Anyway, realizing this about my email consumption makes me think that I should do a few things.
First, seriously consider just short story writing and articles that I know I can write well and forget about branching out into new forms and topics and letting all of the other possibilities lie dormant for now.
Second, re-organize how I go through my email, or sit down and actually look at the myriad of newsletters that I am signed up for to assess whether I should keep them or cut them loose.
Because I am no email addict I think that the second might be more likely. But the first is also appealing.
So, it's really grainy and rather a thin connection, but from all of this I have learned that I am not one who can process a ton of information from multiple channels at once, and that what they say about writing is true - at least as far as my confidence goes. You've got to write what you know.
It's a good thing that I know myself, or this blog would have fewer entries, that's for sure. :/
Here's the background for this discovery.
For the first week of the new year I was with old friends from high school and with my fiancee. Needless to say this meant that my regular schedule was interrupted. My daily writing flagged, I didn't create any new articles, and I let my inbox fill up for the most part. When I got back home I felt refreshed and invigorated, and it seemed that all of the energy of adding one to the number that the West chooses to represent the current year was still with me. I still felt as fresh and ready for whatever I had to do as I did a week earlier.
With this feeling pushing me forward I actually had a few relatively productive days. I felt good about what I was doing, and wasn't really stressing out about my pace or how slowly my organizing was going in relation to what I was organizing for (a new job hunt, getting myself into a steadier freelance writing habit, and general things that carried over from 2011).
Tonight, however, I finally decided to get to my email after taking a few days away from it. This hiatus was mostly due to my new found ability to actually say to myself "no, I can just do that tomorrow, it's late, and I should get to bed instead," and actually follow through.
After checking my email, though I felt like my old mindset had returned. That I was just awash in information and paralyzed by there being too much to process. As someone who has been published in print and only on the web via DMS, getting into writing freelance content or SEO specialized stuff is like learning to write in a different language. DMS articles are in a dialect of that language, but the learning curve seems much more merciful. And the possible starting points are far fewer.
Anyway, realizing this about my email consumption makes me think that I should do a few things.
First, seriously consider just short story writing and articles that I know I can write well and forget about branching out into new forms and topics and letting all of the other possibilities lie dormant for now.
Second, re-organize how I go through my email, or sit down and actually look at the myriad of newsletters that I am signed up for to assess whether I should keep them or cut them loose.
Because I am no email addict I think that the second might be more likely. But the first is also appealing.
So, it's really grainy and rather a thin connection, but from all of this I have learned that I am not one who can process a ton of information from multiple channels at once, and that what they say about writing is true - at least as far as my confidence goes. You've got to write what you know.
It's a good thing that I know myself, or this blog would have fewer entries, that's for sure. :/
Monday, January 9, 2012
[Moon-dæg] The Coby MP828
Tonight the moon, if I could see it, would be full. As such, this review of Coby's personal audio player MP828 (8GB capacity) is going to be as balanced as I can make it.
The most important feature of any personal music player is the interface that it uses to upload media. The MP828 appears as an external drive when I plug it into my laptop (running Lubuntu) and all others that I've tried it on (running Windows), and so copying and pasting works fine for it. Even though this seems to work for only audio files, I regard this copy-paste upload method as a big plus. If ever I want to upload any other sort of file, I'll just install the software and drivers on a windows machine.
However, I'm not sure about its "Text" capacity. I know that this means books rather than texting since there is a folder in the MP828's root directory labeled "EBOOKS." I still have to find the proper file format for this, but the promise of being able to read some of my pdfs on it is a lovely thing.
I also really enjoy the interface of the MP828. I have the touch screen model, and though a stylus would be more stylish, my finger works just as well. Scanning through folders is easy, scrolling through menus is simple, and selecting things is straight forward.
The tight little cloth cover that it comes with is a nice bonus since it makes it easy to tote around. Though, being cloth, it doesn't offer much protection.
The other "extra" that comes with the MP828 is a pair of earbuds. After testing speakers and other headphones on it, I can say confidently that these earbuds are pretty terrible. The jack is picky and has to be twisted (almost tuned) to get volume in both ears, and dual audio is spotty at best. The MP828 makes up for this with solid playback speed and quality, though.
Since I'm already on my way there, now the bad about Coby's MP828.
In addition to the video needing special uploading with the software that comes with the player itself, the model only supports AVI and MPEG formats. And, either because the device is geared to Windows machines or is better at handling older versions of file types, it seems that the AVI and MPEG formats that it supports are those that it creates when things are uploaded via the included software.
Further, while there is a promise of being a very basic ereader, the MP828 also boasts a radio function. Maybe I'm not holding it high enough, or am living in more of a valley than I knew, but the reception is just plain awful. It seems like it only picks up one station per area, with any others that hint at coming in being left static-y and unclear.
The screen, though a medium for the simple interface, also makes me a little nervous. Since this is the first touch screen device I've ever used without a stylus I pressed firmly when I was initially trying it out. My firmness didn't do any damage, but I noticed that I was displacing the goop in the LCD screen and could see it reforming where my finger had just been after I removed it. So, being an off brand model, it's definitely a cheap screen. Of course, as long as you aren't running around jagged glass and holding it out towards those sharp edges, I don't think that there's much to worry about. The screen might not be as firm as that of a tablet or touchscreen phone, but its flexibility gives it strength.
And that is my assessment of the Coby MP828. For $40.00 before taxes, it's hard to go wrong with it if you're looking for a portable, personal music player. Just expect to invest some time in it if you want to use it for movies or ebooks - but that time is sure to be worth it in the end.
The most important feature of any personal music player is the interface that it uses to upload media. The MP828 appears as an external drive when I plug it into my laptop (running Lubuntu) and all others that I've tried it on (running Windows), and so copying and pasting works fine for it. Even though this seems to work for only audio files, I regard this copy-paste upload method as a big plus. If ever I want to upload any other sort of file, I'll just install the software and drivers on a windows machine.
However, I'm not sure about its "Text" capacity. I know that this means books rather than texting since there is a folder in the MP828's root directory labeled "EBOOKS." I still have to find the proper file format for this, but the promise of being able to read some of my pdfs on it is a lovely thing.
I also really enjoy the interface of the MP828. I have the touch screen model, and though a stylus would be more stylish, my finger works just as well. Scanning through folders is easy, scrolling through menus is simple, and selecting things is straight forward.
The tight little cloth cover that it comes with is a nice bonus since it makes it easy to tote around. Though, being cloth, it doesn't offer much protection.
The other "extra" that comes with the MP828 is a pair of earbuds. After testing speakers and other headphones on it, I can say confidently that these earbuds are pretty terrible. The jack is picky and has to be twisted (almost tuned) to get volume in both ears, and dual audio is spotty at best. The MP828 makes up for this with solid playback speed and quality, though.
Since I'm already on my way there, now the bad about Coby's MP828.
In addition to the video needing special uploading with the software that comes with the player itself, the model only supports AVI and MPEG formats. And, either because the device is geared to Windows machines or is better at handling older versions of file types, it seems that the AVI and MPEG formats that it supports are those that it creates when things are uploaded via the included software.
Further, while there is a promise of being a very basic ereader, the MP828 also boasts a radio function. Maybe I'm not holding it high enough, or am living in more of a valley than I knew, but the reception is just plain awful. It seems like it only picks up one station per area, with any others that hint at coming in being left static-y and unclear.
The screen, though a medium for the simple interface, also makes me a little nervous. Since this is the first touch screen device I've ever used without a stylus I pressed firmly when I was initially trying it out. My firmness didn't do any damage, but I noticed that I was displacing the goop in the LCD screen and could see it reforming where my finger had just been after I removed it. So, being an off brand model, it's definitely a cheap screen. Of course, as long as you aren't running around jagged glass and holding it out towards those sharp edges, I don't think that there's much to worry about. The screen might not be as firm as that of a tablet or touchscreen phone, but its flexibility gives it strength.
And that is my assessment of the Coby MP828. For $40.00 before taxes, it's hard to go wrong with it if you're looking for a portable, personal music player. Just expect to invest some time in it if you want to use it for movies or ebooks - but that time is sure to be worth it in the end.
Friday, January 6, 2012
[Freya-dæg] The Green Lantern
The Green Lantern. A celebrated series of comic books and a huge part of the Marvel comic universe. And with the release of the hotly anticipated Avengers movie this Spring, it was necessary to first introduce yet another of this super hero gang with his own movie. Enter a film that has perhaps been one of the rockets on the shuttle in which Ryan Reynolds was launched into true stardom, yet has very little going for it otherwise.
So. What's wrong with the Green Lantern movie as such? Well. Although the comic on which it is based traces its lineage all the way back to the Golden Age of comics (it started in July, 1940) when things were simpler and lines between villain and hero were fairly well drawn, not much was done to update this line. The major villain in the movie, Hector Hammond, is the less successful son of a senator who is called in to study the corpse of Abin Sur (the Green Lantern who bequeaths his ring on our cheese-grater ab-ed hero, Hal Jordan). During the autopsy a piece of the big bad Parallax attaches itself to Hector and begins to mutate him while also granting him psychic abilities.
This villain ultimately seeks what most villains do in the simpler movie adaptations of comic books: acceptance. From his father, from the love interest that is shared with Hal, from the wider scientific community. Of course, this desire for acceptance is left unfulfilled since his mutation turns him into a grotesque. And this is where the line between villain and hero is much too thick for my liking.
To have the villain not only make it clear who he is through his actions is one thing, but to try to remove all hope for his redemption by making him into an insane visual caricature of someone bent on acceptance pushes the portrayal too far into the realm of the painfully obvious. Like putting a reluctant walnut on a train track to crack it open, the movie adaptation of the Green Lantern is unfamiliar with subtlety.
And yes, as with the walnut and the train, this does throw the movie off of its tracks.
But what good can be said about the movie? Surely, as with anything, there must be something that is decent or worthwhile about it.
Well, there isn't much in this case. As you might remember from my review/revival of the movie Priest, the Green Lantern is the first film that I thought was done poorly but that nonetheless made me feel interested in the original story's mythology and detail (hence the "Green Lantern Effect" mentioned in the entry on Priest). Is this enough for me to consider this one saved? I really don't think so.
I mean, it's one thing to create interest where there was little before, but that's just not enough good to save a film. It's like eating a dish involving butternut squash that you end up hating but somehow finding out through the experience that you really like butternut squash. You'll probably go out and eat more butternut squash, but I would guess that you'd never get that dish again. I would honestly re-watch Priest to get a better look at the ideas and aspects of pacing that I liked. Would I re-watch the Green Lantern? No. The spark of interest is really all that I got from it and that spark isn't enough to merit a re-watch. Just as it is not enough to merit this one's being saved.
Freya, if you will, just leave this one down there. I think the worms and rats will get more use out of it than anyone else ever could.
So. What's wrong with the Green Lantern movie as such? Well. Although the comic on which it is based traces its lineage all the way back to the Golden Age of comics (it started in July, 1940) when things were simpler and lines between villain and hero were fairly well drawn, not much was done to update this line. The major villain in the movie, Hector Hammond, is the less successful son of a senator who is called in to study the corpse of Abin Sur (the Green Lantern who bequeaths his ring on our cheese-grater ab-ed hero, Hal Jordan). During the autopsy a piece of the big bad Parallax attaches itself to Hector and begins to mutate him while also granting him psychic abilities.
This villain ultimately seeks what most villains do in the simpler movie adaptations of comic books: acceptance. From his father, from the love interest that is shared with Hal, from the wider scientific community. Of course, this desire for acceptance is left unfulfilled since his mutation turns him into a grotesque. And this is where the line between villain and hero is much too thick for my liking.
To have the villain not only make it clear who he is through his actions is one thing, but to try to remove all hope for his redemption by making him into an insane visual caricature of someone bent on acceptance pushes the portrayal too far into the realm of the painfully obvious. Like putting a reluctant walnut on a train track to crack it open, the movie adaptation of the Green Lantern is unfamiliar with subtlety.
And yes, as with the walnut and the train, this does throw the movie off of its tracks.
But what good can be said about the movie? Surely, as with anything, there must be something that is decent or worthwhile about it.
Well, there isn't much in this case. As you might remember from my review/revival of the movie Priest, the Green Lantern is the first film that I thought was done poorly but that nonetheless made me feel interested in the original story's mythology and detail (hence the "Green Lantern Effect" mentioned in the entry on Priest). Is this enough for me to consider this one saved? I really don't think so.
I mean, it's one thing to create interest where there was little before, but that's just not enough good to save a film. It's like eating a dish involving butternut squash that you end up hating but somehow finding out through the experience that you really like butternut squash. You'll probably go out and eat more butternut squash, but I would guess that you'd never get that dish again. I would honestly re-watch Priest to get a better look at the ideas and aspects of pacing that I liked. Would I re-watch the Green Lantern? No. The spark of interest is really all that I got from it and that spark isn't enough to merit a re-watch. Just as it is not enough to merit this one's being saved.
Freya, if you will, just leave this one down there. I think the worms and rats will get more use out of it than anyone else ever could.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
[Wōdnes-dæg] Reflections for the Year Ahead
Reflecting on the past can lead to some lessons and that's perfectly in line with today's theme.
Looking back on 2011, I think that the most important things that I've learned are that I have what it takes to make money from writing, that I need to focus my efforts on a small number of things in order to succeed at those things, and that more formal education without a set of clear plans for its use or application is just another form of procrastination.
With those three lessons in mind, here are my goals, for the year of 2012.
Goal the first. To trim the fat with my writing thus far and to become a regular member of a minimum of writing websites. For far too long have I been spreading myself thin trying this that and the other when it comes to content generation or freelancing job boards.
I know that I'll need to have multiple things on the go to be successful, to be profitable, but I also know that I need to have focus to make sure that my output is good. Constant Content stays, as does Elance, Guru, and maybe ODesk. But examiner might get cut. The tax stuff just isn't really worth it if I'm only going to be making cents or dollars a month. At least with the others payment will be going into paypal or through some other means to me. Demand Studios will still be checked, but no work will be expected, not until I can claw my average up.
Goal the second. To edit my NaNoWriMo projects from 2011 and from 2006 so that they are ready for querying and submitting to publishers both big and small.
Goal the third. To complete and edit the fourth book in the series that I am currently at work on, and to complete the fifth and final book in draft.
Goal the fourth. To inquire to all of the colleges in Ontario regarding openings for Communications Professors, those unsung heroes who put forth their best efforts to teach the youth of today how to write like the youth of yesterday. Because there are so many of these colleges in the province I expect that there will be some bites at what I cast out into the mix, and this really excites me.
Goal the fifth. To break into the video game reviewing industry alongside all of my other endeavours. This doesn't mean that I'll be starring in witty or angry videos in which the quibbles that I have with old and/or new games will be hilariously laid out, but rather that I'll be looking to get my reviews into print.
I know video games well, as much as I've tried to push this passion aside over the past few years, but even now even having access to a console is a pretty big inspiration for me. Add my training in criticism and analysis to this passion for games and mix in a desire to make my way through life as a writer and the outcome is quite clear: video game reviewer.
Timeliness might be a problem since I have yet to play a lot of the games in my library, but I'm sure that the internet and I can find a way to work it out.
So those are my five goals for the new year. Of course, there are other things that I plan to do this year (type up poetry notebooks, maybe get a manuscript/chapbook together; help some friends out with a children's book), but those goals listed above are the big five that revolve mostly around me and my own career and life paths.
Teacher's college is also currently in the mix, but depending on how things go with my writing I might just opt out of more schooling only to graduate into a world that still turns up its nose at the letters after my name. Your loss, corporate world, your loss.
Looking back on 2011, I think that the most important things that I've learned are that I have what it takes to make money from writing, that I need to focus my efforts on a small number of things in order to succeed at those things, and that more formal education without a set of clear plans for its use or application is just another form of procrastination.
With those three lessons in mind, here are my goals, for the year of 2012.
Goal the first. To trim the fat with my writing thus far and to become a regular member of a minimum of writing websites. For far too long have I been spreading myself thin trying this that and the other when it comes to content generation or freelancing job boards.
I know that I'll need to have multiple things on the go to be successful, to be profitable, but I also know that I need to have focus to make sure that my output is good. Constant Content stays, as does Elance, Guru, and maybe ODesk. But examiner might get cut. The tax stuff just isn't really worth it if I'm only going to be making cents or dollars a month. At least with the others payment will be going into paypal or through some other means to me. Demand Studios will still be checked, but no work will be expected, not until I can claw my average up.
Goal the second. To edit my NaNoWriMo projects from 2011 and from 2006 so that they are ready for querying and submitting to publishers both big and small.
Goal the third. To complete and edit the fourth book in the series that I am currently at work on, and to complete the fifth and final book in draft.
Goal the fourth. To inquire to all of the colleges in Ontario regarding openings for Communications Professors, those unsung heroes who put forth their best efforts to teach the youth of today how to write like the youth of yesterday. Because there are so many of these colleges in the province I expect that there will be some bites at what I cast out into the mix, and this really excites me.
Goal the fifth. To break into the video game reviewing industry alongside all of my other endeavours. This doesn't mean that I'll be starring in witty or angry videos in which the quibbles that I have with old and/or new games will be hilariously laid out, but rather that I'll be looking to get my reviews into print.
I know video games well, as much as I've tried to push this passion aside over the past few years, but even now even having access to a console is a pretty big inspiration for me. Add my training in criticism and analysis to this passion for games and mix in a desire to make my way through life as a writer and the outcome is quite clear: video game reviewer.
Timeliness might be a problem since I have yet to play a lot of the games in my library, but I'm sure that the internet and I can find a way to work it out.
So those are my five goals for the new year. Of course, there are other things that I plan to do this year (type up poetry notebooks, maybe get a manuscript/chapbook together; help some friends out with a children's book), but those goals listed above are the big five that revolve mostly around me and my own career and life paths.
Teacher's college is also currently in the mix, but depending on how things go with my writing I might just opt out of more schooling only to graduate into a world that still turns up its nose at the letters after my name. Your loss, corporate world, your loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)