Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Oh, me, too. It's got to be generational. I don't get the fascination with zombies. Never did, whether it's Romero or now. Walking shambling/running icky dead things? Yick. And yes--one of the genres really hit hard by self-pubbing is Sci-Fi, (and romance and, er, "romantica"), particularly, and it's not necessarily in a good way. LOTS of, lemme see, how shall I say this?...hmmm..."homages" to earlier books abound.
|
My comment back when was "Zombies are the new Vampires", since Vampires were a last big thing.
The problem, of course, is what supernatural critters will replace Zombies as the new menace of the moment. It got discussed elsewhere, and a participant hoped for were-bears, preferably based on something like Paddington. I feared it would more likely be Smurfs. (Zap! You're small and blue!)
Quote:
|
STUPIDITY? I mean, really. I was so desperate to get AWAY from Expression Engine--my former CMS, which took suckage to whole new places (although it was fine when I first started to use it in '05-'06--just keeled over from old age, really) that I misunderstood the realities of J!. I looked at J! templates, addons, etc. and, no one to blame but myself, I failed to really understand the fundamental workings of the thing.
|
That's a killer. No matter how desperate you are to get away from the former solution, if you don't properly understand the underlying design of the new one, you will simply step into deeper and mussier waters.
I'm dealing with an effort at the moment in a different area which has quirks. I spent some time talking to a former developer on the project about underlying design, and he basically said there wasn't one - the original developers had just jumped in and started coding without a clearly defined spec and only a general idea of what they wanted it to do. This failure to invest the time up front to do proper design has required some sometimes amusing work arounds in use.
Quote:
|
Did you read Mudd's The Head Game? He made a simple but profound observation, which I parroted here in this thread: that by definition, fully half the people are below average. Yes, I know that it ought to be obvious; but I tend not operate keeping that in mind. I probably ought to quote it in big print and hang it under my big wall clock, in my line of sight.
|
I have not read it, but the concept is well known and widely quoted. The issue is the depressingly low level of "average" in most contexts.
Quote:
The idiot part of me continues to expect that my clientele will be like my clientele (former). And lo, by and large, they are not. This isn't to say that some of my clients are not geniuses or near-as, but holy crap, it's an entire new experience. I like to tell myself that I'll be a better person for it, but my inner cranky broad thinks that's BS, and thinks I'll have better luck improving myself if I light candles and burn incense. 
|
I'm well past that. I note as I get older that my patience is a lot thinner. I'm generally calm and don't ruffle easily, but that balanced demeanor is harder to maintain, and I spent a lot more time snarling privately to maintain a tactful and diplomatic public persona.
My idea of the best way to improve a lot of things I encounter tends to summary executions of those involved.
In one such instance, I was asked how I was doing, and said "I have no problems that cannot be resolved by hand cuffs, ball gags, and glow-in-the-dark dildos." The people who asked the question broke up. An attractive young woman seated on the floor near me looked up and said
"What do I have to do to be a problem?"
"Was it the cuffs, the ball gags, or the dildos that got your attention?"
"All three, really."
"We'll talk..."
______
Dennis