Rational [mathematics]: a fractional number n/d, where n and d are integers, n is the numerator and d is the denominator...
(Computing Dictionary)
Some time ago (longer than I thought it would be between posts on the subject), I posted a link to a short essay on visual representation of rational numbers in a real world problem.
I frequently find that understanding how fractions/ratios work is a stumbling block for many and the source of not a few brainteasers (for obvious reasons). Recently, I came across one of Dan Ariely's podcasts (which has an accompanying blog) regarding the way we measure fuel mileage.
The problem posed was one of either replacing an SUV that got 10mpg with a minivan that got 20 or replacing a sedan that got 20mpg with a hybrid that got 50.
The simplest equation that seems to fit the problem is absolute mpg difference. While the SUV-minivan difference is 10, the sedan-hybrid is 30 (some of the comments in the blog focused on details of how much each cost, how much was owed on each and the like; we will assume that all things are equal and they are trying to make a point on how the problem should be approached and set up). Being a math guy, I initially thought of opting for the proportional (yes, this involves a ratio) change, which would be a factor of 2 for the first and 2.5 for the second. Given that this question was asked in such a way that the obvious answer must be wrong and mine matched it, I realized (without putting any real thought into getting the correct answer) that we were dealing with something similar to the problem I posted on some years ago.
This is where the mathmagicians and lay people diverge. Where you see 30 mpg, we see 30miles/1gallon.
There is a difference:
Using mpg, we are changing the numerator, which means we may be able to go farther on one gallon of gas when we increase that number, but we are really concerned with reducing gallons (if we wanted to just keep our gallons the same and increase the number of miles we go, parking the SUV would be the solution, but we are assuming a need to drive both vehicles).
Before getting into the real solution, let's look at what might be a sticking point for those who remember reducing fractions:
It should be obvious by now that I am heading toward a conclusion where reducing the denominator is better than increasing the numerator. But that fails to acknowledge that these fractions reduce to the same thing. For instance: 30 miles per gallon is the same as 60 miles per 2 gallons; if we double gas mileage, we can express that as twice the miles (60 miles per gallon or 120 miles per 2 gallons) or half the fuel (30 miles per half gallon or 60 miles per gallon).
So what gives?
Two things:
First, we are not trying to increase the miles driven (this was stated earlier and will be addressed further later). We want to minimize gallons over a fixed distance.
Second, when we flip the ratio to give us the important variable in the numerator (where changes matter...again, hang on for proof), we end up with a totally different picture:
The difference between 2 and 4 is a factor of 2, while the difference between 1/2 and 1/4 is a factor of .5 (if we compare them in the same direction). This means that if I double the price of dime candy, you pay 10 cents more for a piece; if I cut the price in half, you only save 5 cents (despite both using the factor of two - in opposite directions).
Taking this further, doubling the price increased the cents per candy by 10, but reduced the candy per dollar by 5; halving the price decreased the cents per candy by 5, but increased the candy per dollar by 10.
Let's also then say that we like gum, too. And let's pretend that this gum was 3 cents. Let's then say that we can go to the store with the double priced candy and get our gum at 1/3 price (1 cent) or go to the store where the candy is half price and pay 3 times the price (6 cents). Where do we go?
In the one instance, you look at the cost change for the two and find that you can drop a nickel from the candy and add 3 cents to the gum for a net drop of 2 cents; in the other, you add 10 cents to the candy and lose 2 from the gum to get a net increase of 8. Easy to see that if we were going to buy the same number of each in either case, the savings on the candy trumps. But what if we always spend a dollar on each and like to maximize the number of total sugary treats we have (say our younger siblings always demand something from us and we can choose to give them whatever we have most). In this instance, the candy/gum per dollar matters more - $1 each at the cheap candy store gets us 20 candy and (roughly) 11 pieces of gum, or 31 total items; $1 each at the cheap gum store gets us 5 candy and 100 pieces of gum, or 105 total.
THIS is where the gas mileage fallacy comes in.
If we use units where the fuel is in the numerator (other countries use litres/100km, we can use gallons/100miles), what we find is the SUV-minivan exchange results in a decrease from 10 to 5, while the sedan-hybrid goes from 5 to 2. If both are driven 10000 miles per year, we are talking about cutting 500 gallons from the larger family vehicle compared to 300 for the smaller one; trading out the one that is using the most fuel definitely yields the best return. And, at $3.50/gallon, bad math could cost $700 per year.
Going back to maximizing miles, if we simply love being on the road and also want our cars to burn an equal quantity of dead dinosaurs, miles per gallon comes becomes a much better metric. If we decide to burn 1000 gallons per year in each car and want to maximize the number of miles driven, keeping the SUV and swapping the sedan for a hybrid (the opposite of the best case in the dollar/gallon minimizing approach) allows for 10000 miles on the SUV and 50000 miles on the hybrid, for a total of 60000 miles; the minivan/sedan combo yields 20000 for each, or 40000 total miles.
The moral(s) of the story?
1. Those things that are worst are the ones with the most room for improvement.
2. Americans should change their metric for fuel economy (and much else, too)
3. It pays to understand what the numbers mean when doing math. Not everyone is naturally suited for this, but we can all question whether the numbers make sense - even if you have to do the math the long way (instead of deriving the best units, just add up the total costs both ways and compare).
4. I am ever reminded of my nerd status when I find myself admitting to the kinds of things I read, listen to and think about. There are worse things.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Critical Reception
Friends and followers of the blog should all know by now about my book (available in print on Amazon and Lulu and in ebook format almost everywhere; please buy it, read it, post your reviews on the site you purchased from). I am very proud of it and praise for it (thanks to friends, family and the San Francisco Book Review for the kind words) is the highest of compliments.
Criticism, on the other hand, can be difficult, though more useful, and this I will address after a brief discussion of advice for writers.
I've come across numerous lists of "rules for writers" (such as this one from Elmore Leonard and this one from Stephen King) and they tend to overlap more than diverge. Most amateur writers (including the one writing this blog) tend to break many and, at least initially, defend the ones they break. But I have found that the great ones tend to break one or two and no more. So, while it may be that there is a writer breaking all of the rules in such a way as to be the greatest writer ever (in the most unique way), it is highly unlikely.
My point here is that, being unique individuals practicing art, we are different and breaking A rule (possibly 2, or maybe bending one and fudging on another) is probably acceptable. Breaking more or being defensive over it is a good sign of resistance to growth. Being great at anything requires work and commitment and willingness to change.
All of which leads me to the feedback I have received on my first (but hopefully not last or best) novel. Most of the verbal critiques have been positive, some admitting to emotional responses (yes!), and others noting how much of my own personality came through (it was one of my most personal works). There is one five star review on Amazon from Jane D. (of Confessions of a Compulsive Proofreader fame) and a five star review from San Francisco Book Review, which I am including in this post:
Criticism, on the other hand, can be difficult, though more useful, and this I will address after a brief discussion of advice for writers.
I've come across numerous lists of "rules for writers" (such as this one from Elmore Leonard and this one from Stephen King) and they tend to overlap more than diverge. Most amateur writers (including the one writing this blog) tend to break many and, at least initially, defend the ones they break. But I have found that the great ones tend to break one or two and no more. So, while it may be that there is a writer breaking all of the rules in such a way as to be the greatest writer ever (in the most unique way), it is highly unlikely.
My point here is that, being unique individuals practicing art, we are different and breaking A rule (possibly 2, or maybe bending one and fudging on another) is probably acceptable. Breaking more or being defensive over it is a good sign of resistance to growth. Being great at anything requires work and commitment and willingness to change.
All of which leads me to the feedback I have received on my first (but hopefully not last or best) novel. Most of the verbal critiques have been positive, some admitting to emotional responses (yes!), and others noting how much of my own personality came through (it was one of my most personal works). There is one five star review on Amazon from Jane D. (of Confessions of a Compulsive Proofreader fame) and a five star review from San Francisco Book Review, which I am including in this post:
A convoluted love triangle (square? pentagon?) between the two Brogan
sisters and an unnamed protagonist is chronicled from adolescence to
adulthood in Don’t, which happens to be the mantra of their
friendship. The phrase ‘Don’t’ summarizes the intimidating power of
their relationship, one that endures bullies, business ventures, and
even or rather eventually, babies. Initially attracted to Mandy, the
more adventurous and gung-ho of the two sisters, the adolescent main
character pursues her but is told up front that she has interest in his
best friend Brian, although she proves to flip-flop between the two. He
takes this in stride and begins forming a relationship with her sister,
Susan, who is wise, brave, and unwavering. The twins, despite both their
interests in the main character, have an extremely strong bond, holding
their familial ties above all others. Throughout their many adventures
(including law-breaking, picnic table making, and attending school
dances) all three encounter the pains and desires that come with
pubescence, acting upon them, and learning how to deal with the
consequences. As they travel from middle to high school and everything
that they tumble into afterwards, they remain closer than ever,
heartbreak and new additions to the polygon aside. Written with wit and
compassion, the strength of their bond, seemingly unlimited, will not be
lost on readers.
The romance conjured by Mann’s quirky style is bound to be enjoyable,
cheesiness and sometimes over-the-top wordplay (“When life gives you
dilemmas, you make dillemonade…”) easily overlooked in favor of
entrenching oneself in this character-driven novel. Readers will
empathize with the struggles dealt with such as making a first real
sacrifice or having a bittersweet love and invest themselves in moments
and people of remarkable bravados, the kind only created during the
brief moments of young adulthood. Mann handles all these with great
attention and sensitivity, ambitiously capturing the nuances of the
sisters’ and main character’s relationship with success.
Good stuff, eh? Even the negatives are fairly positive.
But then comes IndieReader with a less positive 2.5 star review. It is tempting to dismiss as an outlier or argue against the reviewer's opinions (or just dismiss it as a mistake in which genre I submitted it under), but to what end? Alternatively, I could take the critique as helpful guidance on my next endeavor, but still keep it buried.
But we Don't cater to the ego on these matters, so here it is for all to see:
[update 20140608: guess I should have put in the obligatory, "spoiler alert" here, as she really does give a lot away, filling her mandatory word count with summary when she ran out of critique]
Title: DON'T
Genre: Lit
Fiction
Author: Charlie
Mann
Rating: 2.5 Stars
A family bible
traces the history of every member in thorough detail: birth, childhood, romance, responsibility, and finally, death.
DON'T by Charlie Mann is a prose family bible of sorts, focusing centrally on a
character who is love with sisters, Susan and Mandy, and friend to fellow
seventh grader Brian. Unusual for seventh graders, the foursome start and run a
successful cafe while also attending junior and then high school full time.
This tendency to own and operate small businesses while falling in and out of
love with each other becomes a strange but consistent theme into all the
character's adulthoods. Although he eventually marries Susan, our protagonist
eventually finds out that he has fathered a child by Mandy, at which point
darkness descends.
DON'T is cliché-ridden and prone to "cute"
phraseology. Snow is described in the following manner: "It is beautiful,
peaceful, and tied to many fun memories." Later on in the narrative we are
told: "when life gives you dilemmas, you make dilemmonade." While
this may be amusing to certain readers, it is not really what one might expect
in a work of literary fiction. Scenes are foreshadowed and then hastily rushed
through, as if the author was merely outlining and substituted bullet points
for what the scene should eventually contain. While grammatically correct, DON'T
lacks the notion of craft, and of building and sustaining moods. The book would
be vastly improved if instead of simply engaging in an unedited litany of
events, the author chose key moments to illustrate larger themes and character
traits.
DON'T is less of a novel and more of
a chronicle. Although burdened with violence, unusually savvy business deals
and teenage eroticism, DON'T reads more as an overwritten Christmas letter
detailing the triumphs and tragedies of the years that preceded it, than a
usual children’s story.
DON'T
offers some entertainment, but the quirks of the narrative can be distracting.
Reviewed by Julia Lai for
IndieReader.
I am a bit disappointed, but also glad that I finally have something the others didn't give: areas for improvement.
And I know that few in this world ever see a 2.5 star review on their novel (and this the most critical of them).
I'll probably post on reviews and contests at a later time, but didn't want to hold this back.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Beef-n-bread by request
I love to cook, but for me, it is an all or nothing endeavor - something to take up a full day of labor and maybe a week's grocery budget. It is also far more an art than a science (a comparison I hate to hear made, as it reinforces the divide between creative endeavors and the STEM disciplines; I will scold myself for using it); I go by taste and appearance, giving little mind to what and how much I put in or how long I cook it - a poor recipe for keeping recipes.
So, when others ask for my recipes, sometimes I fall back on the "family secret" argument for not releasing them, while others I just feel disappointed in myself for being so bad at keeping notes (this hurts me, too, as I have trouble recreating the best of my experiments).
When asked for the recipe for my hot sauce, I finally broke down and made a half-hearted effort at documenting what I did. The results were imperfect at best, but - as with all things - a start is a step in the right direction (and my philosophy on sauces has always been to give plenty of latitude for discretion; I also feel that sauces are important enough to be a little secretive about if you dream of having your own restaurant one day).
The second of my creations to have a request for recently was my "deep-fried burger baked in its own bun" (a creation not alone in its lack of a good, catchy name). When first requested, I had only made one attempt and was far enough from getting it right to hold back; the results were fairly tasty and everyone enjoyed it (Thaddeus had seconds despite having already eaten dinner), but the patty wasn't closer to meatloaf flavor than the dense, smooth taste of a good patty and the bread-based outer shell was too dense.
But it was motivation to step it up a bit on the recipe front and a chance to test out my recipe writing on my imaginary blog followers. Of course, I still need to apologize for writing most of this after the cooking is done (and format, which is more linear than most) and recommend fine tuning to the reader's own oven calibration, taste and preferences.
Between the appetizing prologue describing my raison d'blog and the main course of the recipe itself, I need to soup-lement this article with the fact that the recipe used in my second attempt (the one put forth here) differs from the original not only in refinements, but also inspiration. I had the idea of trying multiple different flavors and styles of burgers, but found it impractical to do in quantities reasonable for home trials, so I did my spicy burger first and Margherita style next. Of course, one of the variables the reader could play with is that style - change the toppings or beef seasonings to make a big change in the flavor, while retaining the unique construction.
Personally, I liked the Margherita style enough to recommend starting with that and then making changes the second go around.
Starting with the dough (since it must proof for a while before being stretched out), take 4.5 cups flour (I use bread flour) and mix with 1.5 cups water. Add in 2 tablespoons sugar, 1 tablespoon salt and 1 .25oz packet of yeast (pre-dissolve all in water before adding to dough). Mix in 2-3 tbsp basil (I use the freeze dried, but fresh and finely diced will add to the aroma and flavor as well or better) and 2 tbsp olive oil. Mix all well for several minutes, scraping the sides of the bowl with rubber spatula repeatedly; the dough should be a little wet, but if it is too sticky/gooey, even after repeated mixing, more flour can be added.
Once the dough is made, it can be either bulk proofed or divided up and proofed; I have had success with both, but recently have found a preference for the former method. For the size patties being made here, dividing into 5 equal portions should yield the right size. Keep covered on a non-stick or heavily floured surface, folded into tight dough ball(s).
Next, for the burger, start out sautéing 3 garlic cloves (crush well, rather than chopping; pull apart if pieces remain too large) in olive oil. Add in 2 baby carrots (or equivalent - baby is usually what we have in house), finely diced and 2 hot cherry peppers (use more for more kick; exclude most of the seeds for less) to the saute. Once it is well browned and soft, toss in with a pound (or a little more) of lean ground beef (I go lean to help prevent grease leakage from ruining the shell; the deep frying is also part of this effort; the two together work pretty well). Add 2 tbsp oregano, 2 tbsp salt, 1 tbsp black pepper and 4 oz goat cheese crumbles and mix all very well. Divide into 5 equal portions and shape into patties, approximately 2" thick (proportion is not critical, but see note on oil for deep frying).
For breading/frying (not until dough is proofed - at least 2 hrs, more is better), use 4 parts corn flake crumbs, 2 parts flour, 1 part bread crumbs, 1 part parmesan and a generous helping of rosemary, spread out on wax paper (mix in a bowl and hand sprinkle, adding between breadings to cover thin spots).
Toss patties in breading, rolling edges and flipping/pressing until well covered (do not use any leftover breading for non-cooked applications, as this could lead to food poisoning).
Deep fry approximately 1 minute each side (until ~120F internal temperature) at med-high heat in 1.5" deep oil (based on thickness of patty - oil should not cover top of burger patty).
Remove and place on napkin to absorb excess oil.
Pull/stretch dough balls until 2-1/2 times diameter of burger patty; manipulate just as much as need, but no more so. Place 2 baby spinach leaves 2 tbsp pizza sauce (I make mine fresh, but will withhold for the time; comments/feedback might help free it up, as well as pizza once I have the chance to better document that process) in the center of the dough - do not spread, as it will keep the dough from sticking together when you go to close it up. Set burger on center of dough, add 1 thick slice of fresh mozzarella (the good stuff that comes in balls or logs) onto the burger. Pull edges of dough gently up and around burger, making sure to stick them together before they come in contact with cheese; working a circle around tends to work best.
Whisk one egg and paint a light coat on the surface of the dough; this will yield a nice brown crust with the ideal sheen when baking.
Bake at 450 for 15-20 minutes, until internal temp is as desired (155 max for ground beef; some of us like less). If the crust is done before the beef is cooked to preference, less heat and more time is called for; for a more rare burger with perfect crust, more heat, less time.
Let me know what you think, offer suggestions, critiques or beg for a pizza blog...
So, when others ask for my recipes, sometimes I fall back on the "family secret" argument for not releasing them, while others I just feel disappointed in myself for being so bad at keeping notes (this hurts me, too, as I have trouble recreating the best of my experiments).
When asked for the recipe for my hot sauce, I finally broke down and made a half-hearted effort at documenting what I did. The results were imperfect at best, but - as with all things - a start is a step in the right direction (and my philosophy on sauces has always been to give plenty of latitude for discretion; I also feel that sauces are important enough to be a little secretive about if you dream of having your own restaurant one day).
The second of my creations to have a request for recently was my "deep-fried burger baked in its own bun" (a creation not alone in its lack of a good, catchy name). When first requested, I had only made one attempt and was far enough from getting it right to hold back; the results were fairly tasty and everyone enjoyed it (Thaddeus had seconds despite having already eaten dinner), but the patty wasn't closer to meatloaf flavor than the dense, smooth taste of a good patty and the bread-based outer shell was too dense.
But it was motivation to step it up a bit on the recipe front and a chance to test out my recipe writing on my imaginary blog followers. Of course, I still need to apologize for writing most of this after the cooking is done (and format, which is more linear than most) and recommend fine tuning to the reader's own oven calibration, taste and preferences.
Between the appetizing prologue describing my raison d'blog and the main course of the recipe itself, I need to soup-lement this article with the fact that the recipe used in my second attempt (the one put forth here) differs from the original not only in refinements, but also inspiration. I had the idea of trying multiple different flavors and styles of burgers, but found it impractical to do in quantities reasonable for home trials, so I did my spicy burger first and Margherita style next. Of course, one of the variables the reader could play with is that style - change the toppings or beef seasonings to make a big change in the flavor, while retaining the unique construction.
Personally, I liked the Margherita style enough to recommend starting with that and then making changes the second go around.
Starting with the dough (since it must proof for a while before being stretched out), take 4.5 cups flour (I use bread flour) and mix with 1.5 cups water. Add in 2 tablespoons sugar, 1 tablespoon salt and 1 .25oz packet of yeast (pre-dissolve all in water before adding to dough). Mix in 2-3 tbsp basil (I use the freeze dried, but fresh and finely diced will add to the aroma and flavor as well or better) and 2 tbsp olive oil. Mix all well for several minutes, scraping the sides of the bowl with rubber spatula repeatedly; the dough should be a little wet, but if it is too sticky/gooey, even after repeated mixing, more flour can be added.
Once the dough is made, it can be either bulk proofed or divided up and proofed; I have had success with both, but recently have found a preference for the former method. For the size patties being made here, dividing into 5 equal portions should yield the right size. Keep covered on a non-stick or heavily floured surface, folded into tight dough ball(s).
Next, for the burger, start out sautéing 3 garlic cloves (crush well, rather than chopping; pull apart if pieces remain too large) in olive oil. Add in 2 baby carrots (or equivalent - baby is usually what we have in house), finely diced and 2 hot cherry peppers (use more for more kick; exclude most of the seeds for less) to the saute. Once it is well browned and soft, toss in with a pound (or a little more) of lean ground beef (I go lean to help prevent grease leakage from ruining the shell; the deep frying is also part of this effort; the two together work pretty well). Add 2 tbsp oregano, 2 tbsp salt, 1 tbsp black pepper and 4 oz goat cheese crumbles and mix all very well. Divide into 5 equal portions and shape into patties, approximately 2" thick (proportion is not critical, but see note on oil for deep frying).
For breading/frying (not until dough is proofed - at least 2 hrs, more is better), use 4 parts corn flake crumbs, 2 parts flour, 1 part bread crumbs, 1 part parmesan and a generous helping of rosemary, spread out on wax paper (mix in a bowl and hand sprinkle, adding between breadings to cover thin spots).
Toss patties in breading, rolling edges and flipping/pressing until well covered (do not use any leftover breading for non-cooked applications, as this could lead to food poisoning).
Deep fry approximately 1 minute each side (until ~120F internal temperature) at med-high heat in 1.5" deep oil (based on thickness of patty - oil should not cover top of burger patty).
Remove and place on napkin to absorb excess oil.
Pull/stretch dough balls until 2-1/2 times diameter of burger patty; manipulate just as much as need, but no more so. Place 2 baby spinach leaves 2 tbsp pizza sauce (I make mine fresh, but will withhold for the time; comments/feedback might help free it up, as well as pizza once I have the chance to better document that process) in the center of the dough - do not spread, as it will keep the dough from sticking together when you go to close it up. Set burger on center of dough, add 1 thick slice of fresh mozzarella (the good stuff that comes in balls or logs) onto the burger. Pull edges of dough gently up and around burger, making sure to stick them together before they come in contact with cheese; working a circle around tends to work best.
Whisk one egg and paint a light coat on the surface of the dough; this will yield a nice brown crust with the ideal sheen when baking.
Bake at 450 for 15-20 minutes, until internal temp is as desired (155 max for ground beef; some of us like less). If the crust is done before the beef is cooked to preference, less heat and more time is called for; for a more rare burger with perfect crust, more heat, less time.
Let me know what you think, offer suggestions, critiques or beg for a pizza blog...
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The Idea Pirates
I have more ideas than I would ever have time to write, even if it is what I did full time (though I will admit that most of them turn out either flawed or beyond my abilities once I do get around to them). These ideas come from all kinds of places, but I never try to copy what someone else did.
However, I often find that as I develop an idea, I see parallels to other works and worry that it will be seen as unoriginal. I have taken this paranoia as far as putting down a book when I saw themes or plots too similar to something I was writing.
During a recent daydreaming session where I was trying to sort out a direction for my latest work (something I thought was quite original at the time), I realized that the original component of the story most important to what I wanted to accomplished had already been done (I will not reveal the details or name of the other story here, as that makes me feel too "boxed in" at this point in the creative process). I began to wonder if I should even bother going forward. This led me to contemplate what an original work is and whether it is necessary to be original at all; I thought putting my thoughts down in writing might help sort this out and give a more raw view into my mental tangents to the readers I pretend follow this blog.
Examining this concern in a blog post also allows me to touch on the subject of inspiration and the auto-biographical elements of fiction - something I have been meaning to do and a good place to start:
Many friends (those who have read my novel and those who have just asked what it was about) have inquired about how much of the book is based on my life and how much the main character is based on me (and who the other characters represent).
To answer the second question first, he is somewhat based on me, but so are all the others. We are many people: the ones we are inside our heads, the ones we are around people we know well (or around people we want to impress or are intimidated by or dislike...), the ones we have been at various points in our lives, the ones we want to become, the ones we would like to be for a little while and many more. Within each of these are elements: emotions, actions, thoughts, attitudes, strengths and weaknesses. As even the longest novels don't have the time to fully develop every aspect of every character (Tolstoy tried, but I would argue that his strength in doing so led to his weakness in taking it too far), when deciding what a character might do or how they might feel, it is easy enough to put ourselves in their place without making every character a carbon copy of the others. Of course, there were parts of each of them inspired by people I have known, but rather than being an allegory, these real life people were resources and in some instances, one person may have influenced two characters, while two people influenced one. And even when trying to use someone as an inspiration, the best we can do to empathize with how they would feel in a given situation involves a good deal of asking how we would feel. Going a little further with this, there were a couple of characters I needed names for and grabbed from random friends in my past; in the beginning, they were heavily influenced by these names, but as the story went on, they developed into very unique people, quite different from their namesakes (one of the few events in the story that may have been directly influenced by my life experience involved one of the two, but the person inspiring the event had little in common with the original inspiration and came from a different time and place in my life; I may eventually fill in the vague references given here, but not any time soon...). In any case, I had no intention of making anyone represent anyone else, myself included, when I began the story.
Answering the first story: no. The novel was not based on my life. Just as empathy is based on putting ourselves in someone else's place, we make a story real because we have lived and experienced something we can use for perspective. When a character is in love, I know what that is like; when he hurts, I know that too. I grew up (sort of), I had (have) fears, I have been jealous at times, selfless at others, hopeful, happy, depressed and a range of other experiences. But, much like the characters being amalgams of many people modified by the events that occurred in the story, the plot and events are impossible to nail down in a simple manner. A single event might have been totally based on the need to have it happen to move the story in the right direction, while one character's actions could be based on something someone in my life did, the response of another character based on something I experienced in a completely different circumstance and the words of a third based on something I wish I had said during a third distinct life experience.
There is one kind of/sort of exception in the most general sense. I will get to that.
I know this is a lot of vague, general rambling, so out of guilt, I will get down to the actual inspiration and development of the book, while trying not to have any spoilers (I have shared this before in various forums):
I had tried several times to write a novel and failed, usually when I realized I had gone somewhere I didn't know how to recover from (one of these attempts was over 40000 words when I quit it). But, encouraged by friends, I decided to give it a go one more time and press through, even if the end result was not worth saving. I wrote three intros and bounced back and forth between them until one of them caught. Don't was the winner.
Backing up a bit, I wrote the short story, "Interaction" about a strong, bold young woman and inexperienced young man (and also about music - a recurring theme), but felt it didn't develop what I was trying to get at in the relational dynamic as well as I had wanted (the use of water and sensual experience was based on someone I knew who had nothing else to do with any of my stories). The desire to explore this dynamic stuck with me and I made a very short effort at tackling a story where a character much like the one in "Interaction" had a younger sister; the naive young man was in love with the elder sister, while she could take or leave him, as was convenient. The younger was interested in him and always there as a friend, but while he was taken by the one sister's strength and confidence, he put little value in the younger's faithfulness and dependability. I didn't get too far before discarding it, but the story stuck with me and I wondered if he ever came to see the light.
Backing up a bit more, I once dated a girl and had a dream that I had gone out with her two nights in a row, but realized on the second night that the one I had been with on the first was the girlfriend I knew at first and the second was her current self; I felt unfaithful, but also torn over whether I should. They were the same girl, but as I knew them at different times (mostly due to the lens with which I seen her at those times and the exchanges of preconceived notions for the real person). I never forgot that dream and have often thought of all the meanings it had for relationships and people.
The opening lines of Don't (Chapter 0) were very much written with the intent of revisiting the discarded story. By the time I had written a few more pages, the older and younger sisters were twins, much to my surprise. A few more pages in and I realized how convenient it was for them to be the same age and as I wrote, I saw the potential for a lot more examination of the real person vs the one perceived from the outside, as the protagonist learns to see differences he assumed did not exist in the two, as well as seeing each one as they are rather than how he wants them or needs them to be. I also could not miss the parallel between the dream and the twins and since I felt something there, I was able to draw on it to handle the complexities of these difficult character elements.
This is the exception I mentioned. In no ways is the story an allegory (in fact, most of the inspiration for the story came from elsewhere at first), but either the dream drove me to go further into the character of the twins and the main character's views of them or maybe it was subconsciously the basis for my desire to write the discarded story in the first place.
From there, I had perhaps 3 or 4 very late scenes pop into my head early on that I felt were where the story was going (not based on anything other than my belief that they were interesting or invoked some feeling) and I let the story take me there. A fair amount of what came out surprised me along the way, but in the end, it was not a throwaway and I am glad I saw it through.
So, back to the question of originality.
I think I have already established that nothing can be truly original, as all of it has some basis in our own experiences and those we have observed. In fact, if someone were to write a story that was in no way related to anything they had known or felt and do it very well (how?), perhaps through telepathy with an alien race, it would mean little to the reader who can only relate to normal human experience. And since there are only so many possible human experiences and a large number of stories out there, there is probably nothing original. Since most writers are also enthusiastic readers (and especially readers of the kind of stories they would like to write), there is a good chance that anything a writer puts on paper is similar to something they have read.
Is this bad? Should the writer intentionally avoid reading stories too similar to what they want to write and not write similar to those they read? I ask this not as rhetoric, but because I asked myself.
Stephen King (one of the all time greats) admits that Earth Abides* inspired The Stand. Having read both, I can see this to be true; they deal with the same kind of plague and same kind of world left behind**, but I also see them as two excellent, but very different stories and am glad that King did not put The Stand aside to avoid pirating George Stewart.
But what about stories that are not just based in a concept? Fan fiction books abound and many people buy them (even if the average person looks down on the genre). Parodies, like Android Karenina, also have popped up on shelves and taken hold with a decent sized audience. So again, does originality matter? When are we just ripping off another's work?
My conclusion on this matter is two-fold: first, if it offers something new or a renewed chance to go somewhere familiar in a well told story, great. If it is an old story with better characters or an interesting plot twist, great. Basically, if it offers something to a reader that they want, give it to them. That is what the art is all about. If a new take on things didn't matter, we would have no need for more books on the Civil War or Thomas Jefferson. Second, if credit might be due, give it. This goes beyond what the law might require (which also matters) and into giving props to deserving authors and recommendations to your readers. If another work was not the inspiration, but is another well written look at the same thing, put it out there - the reader will appreciate it.
But don't fear it. Nothing is original and it doesn't have to be. It just has to be worth doing.
* - Earth Abides was written by George R. Stewart, an underappreciated author who was not only one of the pioneers of post-apocalyptic writing, but also a man of insight who worried about the details behind the story, which made his books all the more real. Storm, his other famous work, dealt with meteorology in a way not seen before and treated a storm like a thing unto itself. I plan to put together a "must read" list here on the blog and both of these will be there.
** - I wrote on the subject of the zombie apocalypse last year when I was contemplating writing my own story containing the walking dead (though with a twist; this story is back-burnered, but may still happen). Primarily, I was interested in the inconsistencies of many movies/books on the subject. But getting into what is realistic (consistent might be a better word) and what is not takes us into what a world where the dead reanimate and eat brains WOULD be like. Having read a number of different scenarios of how the world might end or change dramatically, I have thought much on the subject of the pro's and con's of nuclear war vs disease and decided rather than just post on zombies, I would cover them all. I still plan to do so and hope to have it done soon enough.
However, I often find that as I develop an idea, I see parallels to other works and worry that it will be seen as unoriginal. I have taken this paranoia as far as putting down a book when I saw themes or plots too similar to something I was writing.
During a recent daydreaming session where I was trying to sort out a direction for my latest work (something I thought was quite original at the time), I realized that the original component of the story most important to what I wanted to accomplished had already been done (I will not reveal the details or name of the other story here, as that makes me feel too "boxed in" at this point in the creative process). I began to wonder if I should even bother going forward. This led me to contemplate what an original work is and whether it is necessary to be original at all; I thought putting my thoughts down in writing might help sort this out and give a more raw view into my mental tangents to the readers I pretend follow this blog.
Examining this concern in a blog post also allows me to touch on the subject of inspiration and the auto-biographical elements of fiction - something I have been meaning to do and a good place to start:
Many friends (those who have read my novel and those who have just asked what it was about) have inquired about how much of the book is based on my life and how much the main character is based on me (and who the other characters represent).
To answer the second question first, he is somewhat based on me, but so are all the others. We are many people: the ones we are inside our heads, the ones we are around people we know well (or around people we want to impress or are intimidated by or dislike...), the ones we have been at various points in our lives, the ones we want to become, the ones we would like to be for a little while and many more. Within each of these are elements: emotions, actions, thoughts, attitudes, strengths and weaknesses. As even the longest novels don't have the time to fully develop every aspect of every character (Tolstoy tried, but I would argue that his strength in doing so led to his weakness in taking it too far), when deciding what a character might do or how they might feel, it is easy enough to put ourselves in their place without making every character a carbon copy of the others. Of course, there were parts of each of them inspired by people I have known, but rather than being an allegory, these real life people were resources and in some instances, one person may have influenced two characters, while two people influenced one. And even when trying to use someone as an inspiration, the best we can do to empathize with how they would feel in a given situation involves a good deal of asking how we would feel. Going a little further with this, there were a couple of characters I needed names for and grabbed from random friends in my past; in the beginning, they were heavily influenced by these names, but as the story went on, they developed into very unique people, quite different from their namesakes (one of the few events in the story that may have been directly influenced by my life experience involved one of the two, but the person inspiring the event had little in common with the original inspiration and came from a different time and place in my life; I may eventually fill in the vague references given here, but not any time soon...). In any case, I had no intention of making anyone represent anyone else, myself included, when I began the story.
Answering the first story: no. The novel was not based on my life. Just as empathy is based on putting ourselves in someone else's place, we make a story real because we have lived and experienced something we can use for perspective. When a character is in love, I know what that is like; when he hurts, I know that too. I grew up (sort of), I had (have) fears, I have been jealous at times, selfless at others, hopeful, happy, depressed and a range of other experiences. But, much like the characters being amalgams of many people modified by the events that occurred in the story, the plot and events are impossible to nail down in a simple manner. A single event might have been totally based on the need to have it happen to move the story in the right direction, while one character's actions could be based on something someone in my life did, the response of another character based on something I experienced in a completely different circumstance and the words of a third based on something I wish I had said during a third distinct life experience.
There is one kind of/sort of exception in the most general sense. I will get to that.
I know this is a lot of vague, general rambling, so out of guilt, I will get down to the actual inspiration and development of the book, while trying not to have any spoilers (I have shared this before in various forums):
I had tried several times to write a novel and failed, usually when I realized I had gone somewhere I didn't know how to recover from (one of these attempts was over 40000 words when I quit it). But, encouraged by friends, I decided to give it a go one more time and press through, even if the end result was not worth saving. I wrote three intros and bounced back and forth between them until one of them caught. Don't was the winner.
Backing up a bit, I wrote the short story, "Interaction" about a strong, bold young woman and inexperienced young man (and also about music - a recurring theme), but felt it didn't develop what I was trying to get at in the relational dynamic as well as I had wanted (the use of water and sensual experience was based on someone I knew who had nothing else to do with any of my stories). The desire to explore this dynamic stuck with me and I made a very short effort at tackling a story where a character much like the one in "Interaction" had a younger sister; the naive young man was in love with the elder sister, while she could take or leave him, as was convenient. The younger was interested in him and always there as a friend, but while he was taken by the one sister's strength and confidence, he put little value in the younger's faithfulness and dependability. I didn't get too far before discarding it, but the story stuck with me and I wondered if he ever came to see the light.
Backing up a bit more, I once dated a girl and had a dream that I had gone out with her two nights in a row, but realized on the second night that the one I had been with on the first was the girlfriend I knew at first and the second was her current self; I felt unfaithful, but also torn over whether I should. They were the same girl, but as I knew them at different times (mostly due to the lens with which I seen her at those times and the exchanges of preconceived notions for the real person). I never forgot that dream and have often thought of all the meanings it had for relationships and people.
The opening lines of Don't (Chapter 0) were very much written with the intent of revisiting the discarded story. By the time I had written a few more pages, the older and younger sisters were twins, much to my surprise. A few more pages in and I realized how convenient it was for them to be the same age and as I wrote, I saw the potential for a lot more examination of the real person vs the one perceived from the outside, as the protagonist learns to see differences he assumed did not exist in the two, as well as seeing each one as they are rather than how he wants them or needs them to be. I also could not miss the parallel between the dream and the twins and since I felt something there, I was able to draw on it to handle the complexities of these difficult character elements.
This is the exception I mentioned. In no ways is the story an allegory (in fact, most of the inspiration for the story came from elsewhere at first), but either the dream drove me to go further into the character of the twins and the main character's views of them or maybe it was subconsciously the basis for my desire to write the discarded story in the first place.
From there, I had perhaps 3 or 4 very late scenes pop into my head early on that I felt were where the story was going (not based on anything other than my belief that they were interesting or invoked some feeling) and I let the story take me there. A fair amount of what came out surprised me along the way, but in the end, it was not a throwaway and I am glad I saw it through.
So, back to the question of originality.
I think I have already established that nothing can be truly original, as all of it has some basis in our own experiences and those we have observed. In fact, if someone were to write a story that was in no way related to anything they had known or felt and do it very well (how?), perhaps through telepathy with an alien race, it would mean little to the reader who can only relate to normal human experience. And since there are only so many possible human experiences and a large number of stories out there, there is probably nothing original. Since most writers are also enthusiastic readers (and especially readers of the kind of stories they would like to write), there is a good chance that anything a writer puts on paper is similar to something they have read.
Is this bad? Should the writer intentionally avoid reading stories too similar to what they want to write and not write similar to those they read? I ask this not as rhetoric, but because I asked myself.
Stephen King (one of the all time greats) admits that Earth Abides* inspired The Stand. Having read both, I can see this to be true; they deal with the same kind of plague and same kind of world left behind**, but I also see them as two excellent, but very different stories and am glad that King did not put The Stand aside to avoid pirating George Stewart.
But what about stories that are not just based in a concept? Fan fiction books abound and many people buy them (even if the average person looks down on the genre). Parodies, like Android Karenina, also have popped up on shelves and taken hold with a decent sized audience. So again, does originality matter? When are we just ripping off another's work?
My conclusion on this matter is two-fold: first, if it offers something new or a renewed chance to go somewhere familiar in a well told story, great. If it is an old story with better characters or an interesting plot twist, great. Basically, if it offers something to a reader that they want, give it to them. That is what the art is all about. If a new take on things didn't matter, we would have no need for more books on the Civil War or Thomas Jefferson. Second, if credit might be due, give it. This goes beyond what the law might require (which also matters) and into giving props to deserving authors and recommendations to your readers. If another work was not the inspiration, but is another well written look at the same thing, put it out there - the reader will appreciate it.
But don't fear it. Nothing is original and it doesn't have to be. It just has to be worth doing.
* - Earth Abides was written by George R. Stewart, an underappreciated author who was not only one of the pioneers of post-apocalyptic writing, but also a man of insight who worried about the details behind the story, which made his books all the more real. Storm, his other famous work, dealt with meteorology in a way not seen before and treated a storm like a thing unto itself. I plan to put together a "must read" list here on the blog and both of these will be there.
** - I wrote on the subject of the zombie apocalypse last year when I was contemplating writing my own story containing the walking dead (though with a twist; this story is back-burnered, but may still happen). Primarily, I was interested in the inconsistencies of many movies/books on the subject. But getting into what is realistic (consistent might be a better word) and what is not takes us into what a world where the dead reanimate and eat brains WOULD be like. Having read a number of different scenarios of how the world might end or change dramatically, I have thought much on the subject of the pro's and con's of nuclear war vs disease and decided rather than just post on zombies, I would cover them all. I still plan to do so and hope to have it done soon enough.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Where never lark nor even eagle flew*
Following our first rocket launch road trip, Thaddeus and I planned to return to see the larger Antares rocket launch in December. Unfortunately, a problem with the cooling system** on the International Space Station led to NASA scheduling space walks to perform repairs rather than dealing with the resupply mission. This delayed the launch from December to January and a change in launch window from the fan-favored night time to a midday time slot.
Such is the nature of rocket launches and real fans are not to be deterred. We stood by and kept track of updates by NASA and Orbital Sciences. Sleeping in an hour late on the morning of the launch, I did not get word of another delay due to solar radiation levels until I was getting dressed and ended up switching gears and being late for work (word of advice: follow both @NASA_Wallops and @OrbitalSciences , along with a number of social media reporters, on Twitter and keep check on the Wallops website; sometimes the latest news takes time to make the rounds).
Finally the day came and we were rolling on to WFF for another field trip (the term Thaddeus used to use for all vacations and road trips). The three hour ride to Wallops was rather uneventful, except for the fact that we got hungry as we approached the Visitor Center (there is nothing beyond a vending machine there) and the unwelcome surprise that the return trip discount on the CBBT now only applies to EZ PASS (note to self - get one).
They say that the Visitor Center may not allow entry beyond T minus 1 hour, and though that did not turn out to be the case this time (as it was for the night launch), it was still nice to get there early and explore the exhibits and grounds.
We found exhibits of scientific and historical nature inside, from the balloon missions *** shown here, to sounding rockets...
... as well as a letter from President George H. W. Bush when he was stationed there, satellite imagery and demonstrations and more.
We met up with reporters, school groups and other science nerds and after perusing the inside exhibits, made our way to the rooftop observation deck. Though there are trees between the observation deck and launch pad, keeping this from being a good vantage point for the main attraction, there is still much to see. Located in a wetlands environment a few miles north (or maybe north-north-west) of the actual launch pad...
*- Continuing the theme from the last post, "Slipping those surly bonds" (a title that was paraphrased from the verbatim, "slipped the surly bonds of earth"), these lines are from "High Flight" by John Magee. Check the previous post for more (though I did not identify the title in that one).
** - We all know that space is cold, but not all know that cooling is still one of the major obstacles to life in space. A vacuum is the best insulator, since heat must transfer through matter. If an object (or person) produces heat and has no matter surrounding them to transfer it to, that heat builds up. This should make sense to any who have driven at high altitudes and seen coolant temperatures and brake heat go up despite bitter cold temperatures outside. For the rest, either trust me or do some of your own research to understand.
*** - Well known for rockets, shuttles and satellites, NASA also has some pretty impressive balloon operations. I had the pleasure of seeing one of their giant, transparent, pumpkin-like balloons inflated in our hanger at work (TCOM, LP - a Lighter Than Air balloon manufacturer). Beyond terrestrial operations, there have been proposed missions of LTA vehicles on other planets (Venus, in particular, is a great candidate, with it's ultra-high atmospheric pressure favoring such operations, while making traditional landers impractical); unfortunately, I have not been involved in anything quite so cool and would likely be only on the periphery if we did work on it.
Such is the nature of rocket launches and real fans are not to be deterred. We stood by and kept track of updates by NASA and Orbital Sciences. Sleeping in an hour late on the morning of the launch, I did not get word of another delay due to solar radiation levels until I was getting dressed and ended up switching gears and being late for work (word of advice: follow both @NASA_Wallops and @OrbitalSciences , along with a number of social media reporters, on Twitter and keep check on the Wallops website; sometimes the latest news takes time to make the rounds).
Finally the day came and we were rolling on to WFF for another field trip (the term Thaddeus used to use for all vacations and road trips). The three hour ride to Wallops was rather uneventful, except for the fact that we got hungry as we approached the Visitor Center (there is nothing beyond a vending machine there) and the unwelcome surprise that the return trip discount on the CBBT now only applies to EZ PASS (note to self - get one).
They say that the Visitor Center may not allow entry beyond T minus 1 hour, and though that did not turn out to be the case this time (as it was for the night launch), it was still nice to get there early and explore the exhibits and grounds.
We found exhibits of scientific and historical nature inside, from the balloon missions *** shown here, to sounding rockets...
...from models of the ISS, Shuttle and Navy ships...
...to a glass globe ("Magic Planet") that switches from the moon...
...to the Earth...
...to Mars...
...to Saturn...
...and "Science on a Sphere" movies projected onto a six foot globe in a darkened room...
... as well as a letter from President George H. W. Bush when he was stationed there, satellite imagery and demonstrations and more.
And of course, a gift shop featuring patches, magnets, astronaut ice cream and fashion accessories, like this stylish hat.
We met up with reporters, school groups and other science nerds and after perusing the inside exhibits, made our way to the rooftop observation deck. Though there are trees between the observation deck and launch pad, keeping this from being a good vantage point for the main attraction, there is still much to see. Located in a wetlands environment a few miles north (or maybe north-north-west) of the actual launch pad...
...the Visitor Center is directly across from a NOAA facility and the Flight Facilities' runways, where carrier landing practice takes place...
...including the E-2 Hawkeyes that the Navy just announced practice operations at Wallops for.
Once we were done with the main building, we decided to go check out the designated launch observation area.
Along the way, we discovered several rockets on display, scattered about the grounds, that we could get up close and personal with. As much as it was a let down that they seemed so ordinary up close, it was also cool to think that something so ordinary could perform at such less-than-ordinary tasks.
We also discovered that science nerds and grammar geeks do not necessarily overlap. (One of my friends did suggest that this might not be a grammatical error if they didn't really mean to be polite).
Straight back from the main building toward the marsh and Chincoteague Island beyond is the observation area. To get a sense of the layout of the area, when facing Chincoteague with the building behind you, turn right a little less than 90 degrees to face the launch site (rocket shown in center of picture, just to the left of the water tower). The causeway, where we viewed the Minotaur in November would be about 45 degrees to the left when facing away from the Visitor Center.
Outside of the few of us amateurs with our cell phone cameras, this lady had about the smallest camera out there. Some had lenses that looked like scavenged rocket nozzles with microphones resembling small cats mounted atop them. The crowd was a good mix of those seeing their first launches, veterans of multiple launches, news crews and wanna-be reporters. There were also several foreign accents, leading me to endless disappointment in my fellow Americans, who allow Lithuanians and Mexicans to show the dedication required to travel great distances to see the big event, while coming out in relatively small numbers themselves (not so small as to cost us seats at the top of the grandstand when we dallied too long before coming out).
Killing time, we noted airplanes playing tic-tac-toe in the sky. Either the first move was so clever as to force his opponent to quit right away or an "O" is just too difficult to execute, as we saw no more of the game.
There was a lady there handing out special glasses to view sunspots. This picture does not do justice to how clearly you could see the sun (much sharper than using the filter on a camera phone; you could actually see a sunspot).
As we awaited the launch, the crowd outside of the grandstand spread further out in a line, most taking care not to block the view of someone there ahead of them. But in the seconds leading up to ignition, a few moved ahead toward the edge of the field and started a chain reaction migration. There were a few shouts to move out of the way and most either stepped aside or stepped down the bank to ease their guilt. My view was not greatly inhibited, but they can be seen in the foreground and we decided to either scout a better site or start off where they ended up (unless we could get the top row of the grandstand). Again, I make a promise to eventually post the longer video, but I pay by the GB here, so the 15s version, along with a couple of captures will have to suffice for now.
"...High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air...
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace..."*
"...The high, untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God."*
(This picture is some minutes after launch, showing the rocket contrails disrupted by wind in the background. It may be where the first stage disengaged. I was taken by the perspective, with nature, represented by the wind-blown stalks, in the foreground and man, represented by evidence of some of his greatest technological accomplishments showing through).
Hungry and wired on adrenaline, we headed off across the causeway for lunch. Full of good eats and things to do in the warmer months, our top choices were all closed for the season and we ended up having pizza and subs, which, other than being far too heavy on the oregano, were decent enough (I leave the name off because I hate to criticize a business that has friendly people and is accessible when others are closed). Thankfully, Island Creamery stays open year round and proves that if you are dependable in providing people with a good product and good service, location, timing and all the rest are much less important (selling ice cream on a day when the creeks are frozen and the wind is howling in a resort community during the offseason is not the easiest of tasks, but they had a steady flow of business; visit during the warmer nights of summer and you will see a line out to the street, despite the efficiency with which they move that line). I do not hesitate to name and recommend them for any who like homemade ice cream; just be forewarned that the more indulgent flavors (e.g., Birthday Cake) may be too much for even the sweetest of teeth.
The nice part of midday launches is that, even after lunch and the obligatory visit to the Island Creamery, there is plenty of time to explore. In addition to the advertised attractions (and Assateague is definitely worth a ride through to see the wild horses and light house; there is also a very nice beach there), there is quite a bit of scenery to take in (if, like me, you like exploring the back roads and seeing the things most people miss). This boat is near the southern end of the island, adjacent to a trailer park. Most of the island is barely above sea level and what passes for "yards" in some places might be more correctly called "moats".
Upon leaving the island, we decided to scout out other vantage points. I will not disclose all we found (may have more after the next launch), but will share a few sights.
Near the community of Atlantic, Virginia, this church has probably seen plenty of history, though the cemetery seems to get most of the attention now. Most of the inhabitants of the area were black and I wonder how far back the church went, who it served and what kinds of interesting things went on there. As much work has been done preserving history in more noteworthy places, there is only so much that can be done and I do mourn for the lost stories.
This building is across the street from the old church and cemetery. I assume that it is where the congregation moved later, but could be wrong. In any event, it, too, appears to be unused now and there are no other structures around besides a few homes.
Head further south from Atlantic and hang a left at the split and you eventually come to this obstruction to getting any closer.
Backing down the road a little and looking off slightly to the right of the gate, I could see this water tower. This is likely the closest I got to the launch pad.
Here I prove that my finger got as close as the rest of me.
This may have been the media tent I was not invited to. Could also have been the site of a small family reunion in an unusual setting.
Last picture I have to share. I had to work hard to filter my comments on FB for this one out of respect for a community that probably catches a lot of flack over their name (and one that sounds far more inappropriate than Scranton) and will withhold all comments here. Just enjoy where your mind takes you with it.
*- Continuing the theme from the last post, "Slipping those surly bonds" (a title that was paraphrased from the verbatim, "slipped the surly bonds of earth"), these lines are from "High Flight" by John Magee. Check the previous post for more (though I did not identify the title in that one).
** - We all know that space is cold, but not all know that cooling is still one of the major obstacles to life in space. A vacuum is the best insulator, since heat must transfer through matter. If an object (or person) produces heat and has no matter surrounding them to transfer it to, that heat builds up. This should make sense to any who have driven at high altitudes and seen coolant temperatures and brake heat go up despite bitter cold temperatures outside. For the rest, either trust me or do some of your own research to understand.
*** - Well known for rockets, shuttles and satellites, NASA also has some pretty impressive balloon operations. I had the pleasure of seeing one of their giant, transparent, pumpkin-like balloons inflated in our hanger at work (TCOM, LP - a Lighter Than Air balloon manufacturer). Beyond terrestrial operations, there have been proposed missions of LTA vehicles on other planets (Venus, in particular, is a great candidate, with it's ultra-high atmospheric pressure favoring such operations, while making traditional landers impractical); unfortunately, I have not been involved in anything quite so cool and would likely be only on the periphery if we did work on it.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Slipping those surly bonds*
I get excited about space flight. Very excited.
I was raised on Star Trek TOS reruns before they were TOS (The Original Series was The Only Series until September 1987, when The Next Generation first aired). I've read Heinlein's stories of D.D. Harriman and Bradbury's tales of colonizing Mars. I watched one of the first Columbia flights launch live in my fourth grade class (I think it may have been STS-2, but can't swear to it; the only other event I can remember them rolling an AV stand into the classroom to watch coverage of was the assassination attempt on President Reagan); one of my strongest memories of my adolescence was watching Challenger disaster on TV and being convinced that somehow they had to have made it out and would be rescued.
It seemed to me that we were on the verge of erasing the line between science and science fiction. Humans were getting better at getting off the ground at an accelerating rate - it took millennia to go from grounded to hovering in hot air balloons; it took several decades for the first heavier than air flights (gliders) and 120 years to make short hops on powered aircraft; less than seven years later, the first plane took off from the deck of a ship**; in short succession, we went from wood and fabric to all metal construction and replaced the internal combustion engine and propeller with a jet engine as early as 1942 (less than four decades after the first powered flight); WWII also saw the development of rockets, which would launch the first satellite in the 50's and put men on the moon in '69; now, here we were with a reusable orbiter capable of larger crews and more cargo.
And then nothing... we won the space race and didn't want to compete any more. Shuttles kept flying until 2011 (much longer than the four decade old technology was intended for), after which we had to rent Russian rockets to get to the International Space Station.
I continued reading science fiction and watching it on television and in movies, but rather than anxiously awaiting the next big thing, all that was left to do was wish on a star that we would find enough motivation in exploring space "because it [is] there"*** and give the next generation something to fascinate them.
But despite this pessimistic state of things, there turned out to be other nations looking to make a name for themselves in reopening the extra-terrestrial domain and a few resourceful and determined people ready to step up in the spirit of the Wright Brothers tackle space without the full backing of government. There also remained a contingent at NASA committed to fulfilling their mission with whatever tools they were given (the Mars rovers, Cassini, Hubble and a number of other unmanned missions have provided us with incredible images and information, even if they did not provide us the vicarious thrill of manned flight... and of course, the fantasy of joining their ranks one day).
And now, with private American companies supplying the ISS and maybe the Orion and accompanying SLS getting off the ground in a few years, we few dreamers have something to get excited about. In addition, those of us in the mid-Atlantic don't even have to go to Florida to see launches in person, either. When I got the chance to see a live launch, I jumped on it, making a mad rush up the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Wallops Island to watch a night launch of a Minotaur rocket carrying a record 29 satellites into Low Earth Orbit with my 11 year old son.
I was raised on Star Trek TOS reruns before they were TOS (The Original Series was The Only Series until September 1987, when The Next Generation first aired). I've read Heinlein's stories of D.D. Harriman and Bradbury's tales of colonizing Mars. I watched one of the first Columbia flights launch live in my fourth grade class (I think it may have been STS-2, but can't swear to it; the only other event I can remember them rolling an AV stand into the classroom to watch coverage of was the assassination attempt on President Reagan); one of my strongest memories of my adolescence was watching Challenger disaster on TV and being convinced that somehow they had to have made it out and would be rescued.
It seemed to me that we were on the verge of erasing the line between science and science fiction. Humans were getting better at getting off the ground at an accelerating rate - it took millennia to go from grounded to hovering in hot air balloons; it took several decades for the first heavier than air flights (gliders) and 120 years to make short hops on powered aircraft; less than seven years later, the first plane took off from the deck of a ship**; in short succession, we went from wood and fabric to all metal construction and replaced the internal combustion engine and propeller with a jet engine as early as 1942 (less than four decades after the first powered flight); WWII also saw the development of rockets, which would launch the first satellite in the 50's and put men on the moon in '69; now, here we were with a reusable orbiter capable of larger crews and more cargo.
And then nothing... we won the space race and didn't want to compete any more. Shuttles kept flying until 2011 (much longer than the four decade old technology was intended for), after which we had to rent Russian rockets to get to the International Space Station.
I continued reading science fiction and watching it on television and in movies, but rather than anxiously awaiting the next big thing, all that was left to do was wish on a star that we would find enough motivation in exploring space "because it [is] there"*** and give the next generation something to fascinate them.
But despite this pessimistic state of things, there turned out to be other nations looking to make a name for themselves in reopening the extra-terrestrial domain and a few resourceful and determined people ready to step up in the spirit of the Wright Brothers tackle space without the full backing of government. There also remained a contingent at NASA committed to fulfilling their mission with whatever tools they were given (the Mars rovers, Cassini, Hubble and a number of other unmanned missions have provided us with incredible images and information, even if they did not provide us the vicarious thrill of manned flight... and of course, the fantasy of joining their ranks one day).
And now, with private American companies supplying the ISS and maybe the Orion and accompanying SLS getting off the ground in a few years, we few dreamers have something to get excited about. In addition, those of us in the mid-Atlantic don't even have to go to Florida to see launches in person, either. When I got the chance to see a live launch, I jumped on it, making a mad rush up the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Wallops Island to watch a night launch of a Minotaur rocket carrying a record 29 satellites into Low Earth Orbit with my 11 year old son.
Getting there too late to view the launch from the visitor center (they say you should arrive an hour early), we continued on toward Chincoteague and pulled off the causeway onto the parking area for the boat ramp. It was a cool night with a chilly wind off the water, but the cold did not affect our enthusiasm.
While we waited, we streamed the live feed of the countdown, explored our surroundings and took in the scenery, including this nearly full moon over one of the bridges, reflecting off the creek. The lights off to the right are Chincoteague Island. The launch site is about 3/8 of a turn to the right (3/4 pi, to the math nerds).
Our wait got extended somewhat due to communications issues, but the Minotaur had about a 3 hour window and conditions were favorable, so it was not a fatal event. As the countdown approached T-1 minute, the atmosphere at the now very crowded boat launch became very still, as everyone focused on the string of lights along the shoreline of Wallops Island. There are a number of cliches to describe the anticipation of a crowd at such a time, but the best I can describe it is that time, normally a vague concept at best and an ignored one at worst, felt tangible. Our collective focus was on a space some five miles to our south and a time that was steadily creeping toward the moment that spot of earth lost its grip on a sleek tube of metal that really should have been too heavy to go floating away.
And when it happened, it came with that unrealistic feel that Christmas morning sometimes has. It was incredibly bright, even with the full moon behind us, but silent... at first. And if I had been excited by space flight before I got there, it was nothing compared to how I felt about it at that moment.
The first image is a screen capture from the launch video I shot; the second is another capture with a filter applied; the latter is less representative of the overall scene, but I think you can see the hint of the rocket itself illuminated.
As it rose vertically and then made a turn to pass across the sky, the sound hit (I may try to upload the entire video later), a sign of the distance that is hard to gauge in such situations. The whine of an Indy car, clatter of an industrial diesel or rumble of a stock car V-8 may all convey a sense of power, but they are all of a scale that we have reference to in our everyday lives. The steady state flat-out roar of the ongoing explosion at the bottom of a launch system, determined to prove that rocks DO fly gives the sense of power of mythical proportions; you could easily place it in a fairy tale as a dragon incinerates a village with his breath.
Not long after passing what appeared to be its closest approach to us (more correctly, the point at which we stopped raising our heads and started turning them to follow), there was a flash of light from the first stage separating. From there, the second stage continued on while the first fell behind, going invisible for a few seconds and then flaring up. I managed a couple of captures of this, but the limits of the iPhone camera (a device capable of better pictures than most of the cameras I have owned in my lifetime, but still not designed with the intent of capturing night images of rockets flying across the sky) do not do justice to how clear it was in person:
And then came the obligatory, "holy cow, that was awesome", "can you believe that" and the like. And of course, the vow to be back for the next one, a much larger Antares rocket carrying supplies to the ISS, a vow we kept that will be covered in my next post, hopefully within the next day or so.
*- The quote "slipped the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God" may be familiar to the reader, as they were used by President Reagan in reference to the loss of the Challenger and its crew 28 years ago this month. They are actually two lines (the first and last) of a poem by John Gillespie Magee, a WWII pilot who wrote it after flying above 30000 feet in his Spitfire Mk 1. He died not long after in a training flight collision at the age of 19. These two lines appear on his grave marker. His story is worth a read.
**- The story of Eugene Ely is also worth a read, especially for those from the Hampton Roads region (like myself). This flight took place not far from the largest naval base in the world, where several modern aircraft carriers are based, as well as Newport News Shipbuilding, where all U.S. Navy carriers are built.
Ely, like Magee, died in a plane crash shortly after his most noteworthy accomplishment.
***- Often attributed to Sir Edmund Hillary, it was George Mallory who said of his reason for climbing Mt. Everest, "because it is there". What more reason is needed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)