Apocalypse Now?

Given that we are creeping closer to the Mayan calandar's predicted catastrophic date of 21 December 2012, Have you ever wondered what it’s all about? Why are we here? Where did we come from? Where are we heading? Given the chaos, crime, pollution and society’s troubles, are the old biblical prophecies correct and the hellfire and damnation scenario awaits us when the end of the world comes? Recently I read and reviewed Alpha to Omega: Journey to the End of Time for some answers.

Author Matthew Petti formulates a fascinating theory that only by knowing where we came from do we have an idea of where we are heading. In this book, he sets out to prove our true ancestors. Our flaws as humans, and our failure to change, arise from our historical thinking. Yes, we are simply repeating what we have learned. Today’s chaotic world mirrors the cumulative effects of the unchanging flaws in our most basic assumptions. Beliefs about God, our origins, human history and the hereafter are deeply embedded into the collective mind through the inheritance of age-old teachings and behaviors. The author investigates the metaphysics of faith, and why old beliefs have failed humankind in a modern world. This includes as analysis of the Book of Revelations as an indication of what may (or may not) transpire if the world continues on its headlong course of destruction.

This is a controversial book. The author delves into ancient history (including prehistory and Biblical history), archaeology, geography, myths, and legends to link together a collective mind-set or ethos for human society from those small beginnings many thousands of years ago. One may or may not believe in the supremacy of angels and the workings of heaven in human affairs, but Matthew Petti puts forward an intelligent and logical argument to substantiate his theories. He discusses his ideas of the ‘God’ spirit within humans, a controversial topic on its own, including free will and God’s will, and the concept of obedience to a higher power. To fully appreciate the author’s thinking it’s better to either have belief in some higher power and acceptance of Biblical references and characters, or else (if one is an atheist/agnostic) to suspend disbelief and simply read this book as a fascinating investigation of man’s possible superhuman and human origins. Well-researched and -argued, the book is a journey in itself for anyone interested in our physical origins and spiritual development.

I enjoyed this book because I find ancient history and man’s origins fascinating. I also decided to ask the author a few questions about it.

1. What made you write this book? You’ve done a huge amount of research and put a lot into it – there must be something driving your work.



Author Matthew Petti

My lifelong search for meaning to our existence began at the age of 22. One summer evening in 1977, while driving on an open highway, I had a thought, “There really is a God.” This wasn’t new to me, having been raised Catholic, attending 12 years of Catholic School and following all the rituals of the religion. As I began to agree with the thought, it echoed with an extreme profoundness and suddenly I found myself gasping for air as a surge of new conceptual information began to flood my mind and overwhelm me. I couldn’t assimilate all the information, but an INSATIABLE curiosity to dig deeper into the book of Revelation immediately ensued.

2. The idea of an ancient higher civilization has fascinated many people. How old do you think this civilization is, and why do you think there is so little left of their existence (apart from the monumental architecture)?

The remnants of ancient advancements dating to about 15 to 20,000 years ago, which have been found on the Yucatán Peninsula, Mesoamerica, Easter Island and Machu Picchu, just to name a few, are a thorn in the side to the archaeologists, scientists and historians who preach the linear view of evolution and human development. The problem with other theories, which attempt to explain these advancements as the result of a recent previous civilization eradicated by some sort of cataclysm, is that they cannot be supported by prevailing scientific evidence proving that never in the history of humans (1.5 million years) has the world and its inhabitants been completely annihilated.

Ancient alien theory has emerged as the only explanation to the architectural wonders discovered because it circumvents the scientific evidence. The traditional scientific viewpoint holds that mankind was strong enough and willful enough to account for many of the ancient mysteries. Ironically, the most glaring contradictory evidence is swept under the rug in an effort to maintain the support of uninformed constituents.

Meanwhile, the religious viewpoint claims a great flood occurred, which totally wiped out a society, except for eight people and hundreds of thousands of animals on board a ship, who were somehow able to completely repopulate the Earth. Once again, scientific evidence proves that this could not have happened—at least not in the last 1.5 million years— while common sense tells us that it would've been impossible to board a ship with seven pairs of every species of animals on earth.

Since there is no evidence of a supreme society in our recent history, but instead, remnants of advanced achievements, which surpass both the technologies available during those times and today, then we can assume that the gods and demigods of ancient myths were the offspring of those who survived a cataclysm of 7 million years ago.

3. Why can’t we recreate the level of achievements they left behind, given our computer advantages, and other developments that would surely outweigh the flaws you say are inherited from the past and a previous, repeated mindset.

The flaws inherited from the past have been in our misinterpretation of events and circumstances. Our repeated mindset is the battle between truth and belief. What we accept as truth is limited by what we can imagine as possible. What we imagine as possible is limited by what is presented and agreed upon. What is presented and agreed-upon is limited by the scientific and not so scientific assessment of the information and the predispositions of an authority.

4. I read authors like Andrew Collins and Graham Hancock who also share your interests. What do you think of their investigations and conclusions?

Their investigations, among others, were paramount in providing the evidence I needed to faithfully assert that science and archaeology are equally as biased in their determination of history as religion. It is equally absurd to believe in the 6000-year-old creation story as it is to believe that the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid. Thanks to them and others like them, I was able to provide my theory.

5. Your book is heavily based on the Bible, and your discussions of the angelic/divine relationship between heaven and earth reflect this. How many people think of the Bible as a history book, not just a book of inspired writings from long ago?

I'm not sure how many people, as a percentage, view the Bible as a history book. I don’t want people to think my book is really “based” on the Bible, because that might imply that I accept the literal translation. My book is a NEW way of explaining it and other pertinent mysteries relating to our past and the inevitable future to which it is bound. The book of Revelation is a cryptic message that has unveiled more than just the future to me.

6. The Book of Revelation features strongly in your work. Do you think it’s possible to avoid the apocalyptic forecast of what will come, given the nuclear arms race, the declining state of the planet, and man’s inhumanity to man? Or is it too late?

All events and circumstances are shaped by Truth to reveal the errors in our beliefs. If we really believe that we create our own destiny, then our choices and actions will affect our future both individually and collectively. All of our choices and actions are based upon our beliefs. If there are errors in our beliefs or assumptions, we will make the wrong choices, and suffer the consequences.

War, devastation and all of life's tragedies are inevitable until we completely awaken to Truth. The events, which have always been attributed to God's judgment, are really a gift that will eventually lead us back to the Omega, which is absolute fulfillment of Truth and Knowledge. So yes, the events are unavoidable but so is the return to Paradise!

10 Reasons Why We Love James Bond



Daniel Craig



The recent James Bond film festival on television and the 2012 release of Skyfall sparked this post. Who is James Bond and why do we love him? The movies are possibly the best way the world has come to know and appreciate Bond.

Bond the Moneymaker: The James Bond film series is a British series of spy films based on the fictional character of MI6 agent James Bond (code designation "007"), who originally appeared in a series of books by Ian Fleming. Earlier films were based on Fleming's novels and short stories, followed later by films with original storylines. It is one of the longest continually running film series in history, having been in ongoing production from 1962 to the present (with a six-year hiatus between 1989 and 1995). In that time, Eon Productions has produced 23 films, at an average of about one every two years, usually produced at Pinewood Studios. The series has grossed just over US $5 billion to date, making it the second-highest-grossing film series (behind Harry Potter), and the single most successfully adjusted for inflation. Six actors have portrayed 007 in the Eon series, with the Sean Connery films largely setting the style and mood of the series, and Roger Moore starring in the most films.



Sean Connery



Bond the Character: In Bond and Other Conspiracy Theories journo Stephen Kelly says: “There’s always been something a bit off about that suave, mysterious, sexually charged murderer, James Bond: he appears to be a shape-shifting immortal. Or at least that’s what the franchise suggests, what with the same man being played by six people over 50 years, making for quite the hefty 00-pension. But where pop culture logic is broken, there’s a fan theory to fix it. In this case: that James Bond is not a single man, but a code name given to agents who fit a certain profile.



George Lazenby

 Makes sense, doesn’t it? For even if this is a profile to which psychologists refer as the Dark Triad of the psyche—a combination of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and a psychopathic disregard for life—each incarnation does come with its own set of characteristics.

Sean Connery, for instance, was smooth and deadpan; George Lazenby: clunky and… forgettable; Roger Moore had fun with the role; Timothy Dalton preferred a serious approach; cigar-smoking Pierce Brosnan played it rugged and old-fashioned; whereas Daniel Craig, moonlighting from his full-time job of protruding out of Mount Rushmore, portrays a more tortured, layered Bond.”

Bond the Hero: For me, James Bond is the hero we love. He’s flawed, he’s brave, he is what we all want—what more can I say… he’s a hero!

Here are my ten reasons why James Bond is the perfect hero. And heroes, to be heroes, are not perfect!



Timothy Dalton

1. He sets out to be a hero, although he may deny it.

2. He saves the world, no matter what the baddies throw at him.

3. He is flawed. He makes mistakes, he lets his heart rule his head, and he always goes back to save the girl.

4. He suffers loss, pain, and anguish. Sometimes a friend dies, sometimes the woman he loves dies, and it cuts him to the core of his being.



Roger Moore

5. He always gets the girl in the end. Despite the fact we know he is a womaniser/playboy/Casanova, we want him to ride/fly/float off into the sunset with the Bond girl in his arms (and all the actresses who’ve played a Bond girl say the same thing!)

6. He has a great sense of humour. Dry wit and a martini shaken not stirred are his trademarks. He laughs in the face of death and usually flings a (cheesy) quip at his nemesis.

7. He loves gadgets, and boy does Q make sure he has plenty of them. Cars that can assume an invisibility cloak as well as packing an arsenal in the trunk, exploding pens, belt buckles with escape wires, watches that can set off bombs, even watches with lasers installed—Q has a gadget for every day of Bond’s week.



Pierce Brosnan

8. He is fanatically loyal to Queen and country. He serves the crown and he will die for his country’s security. You can’t get more loyal than that.

9. He has feelings although he may hide them under that impenetrable mask.

10. If he could, he’d date Miss Moneypenny!

So, out of all the Bond actors, who portray Bond the best?

POV: Three's a Crowd!

Point of View is something that besets and often bedevils many writers. It took me ages to work out the nuts and bolts of this technique. However, I could not explain it to anyone in terms that they would understand. Luckily for writers out there, here's an excellent article by Randy Ingermanson, and all is revealed.

Is Headhopping A Sin?

 Every so often, the issue of "headhopping" comes up among writers, and the fur soon begins flying. It came up recently in a circle of novelists I belong to. Some writers insist that there is no sin more vile than headhopping, except possibly teaching the cat how to smoke. Other writers claim that headhopping is an acceptable practice in romance, where many readers like it and a few editors even insist on it.

Is headhopping a sin? If it's so horrible, then why does Joe Bigname Author hop heads like crazy? Is headhopping just another "gotcha" invented by writing teachers to put newbie writers in knots? Isn't headhopping just the same thing as the omniscient viewpoint?

First things first -- we need to define "headhopping."

To do that, let's review the main alternatives. The two most common points of view in fiction are first-person and third-person.



1st and 3rd person POV

• In first-person POV, the author writes as if she is one of the characters, using the pronouns "I" and "me" to refer to that character. When you write in first-person, you put your reader firmly inside the head of that one character and it would be unnatural to get out.
• In third-person POV (the most common POV these days), the author chooses one particular character in each scene to be the viewpoint character. The author uses the pronouns "he" and "him" or else "she" and "her" to refer to that character.

When you write in third-person correctly, you put your reader firmly inside the head of that one character. You show only what that character can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel. Nothing more. So third-person is very much like first-person, except for the pronouns you use.

Either first-person or third-person puts your reader on intimate terms with the viewpoint character for the course of any given scene. This makes it easy to give your reader a Powerful Emotional Experience, which I believe is the main goal of writing fiction.

Now of course it's possible that a writer will do a bad job of writing either first-person or third-person, which means that the reader will have no Powerful Emotional Experience. But tens of thousands of professional novelists use these viewpoints effectively because they work.



Two or more POV

 Now we can define headhopping. Headhopping is like third-person, except that the author uses two or more viewpoint characters within a single scene. In headhopping, you put your reader firmly inside the head of one character for a while and then hop into another character's head for a while.

Let's look at those questions we raised at the beginning of this article:

Is headhopping OK?

My own opinion is that it's OK to do this IF you do it well. But it isn't easy to do it well, for two reasons.

• First, those pesky transitions from one head to another are hard to get right. If you confuse the reader, then that's a speed bump in the reading experience and that's bad.

• Second, even if you do the transitions well, doing them too often will make your reader feel jerked around.

 Why does Joe Bigname Author use headhopping in his novel?

Good question. Some authors actually don't know any better (and neither do some editors). Some authors know that headhopping is risky but do it anyway because they believe they can do it well and the rewards are worth the risks.

Is headhopping just an invention of selfish writing teachers who want to earn more money by putting up more roadblocks for new writers?



Three's a crowd!

Not that I can tell. Headhopping is hard to do well, and very often it just plain doesn't work. Headhopping by novice writers almost always doesn't work. Writing teachers spend most of their time working with novice writers, so they spend a lot of time telling them not to hop heads.

Is headhopping exactly the same thing as the omniscient viewpoint that was used so successfully by the great 19th century writers?

In my opinion, no. I believe that omniscient viewpoint means that the narrator is actually omniscient and can know things that NONE of the characters know. I am tempted to say that all right-thinking people must agree with me, but I know at least one writing teacher who believes that headhopping is the same thing as omniscient.

I'm afraid that rational discussion will never settle this argument. However, kicking, biting, scratching, and hair-pulling might, so I have hope that someday all writers will agree with me on this point.

Let's fight about it!

So should you hop heads? Will you suffer eternal torment if you indulge in the forbidden fruit of headhopping? My own opinion is that if you're a new writer, then it's best to avoid headhopping, for two reasons:

• Headhopping requires that you master third person viewpoint AND that you master transitions from one head to the next. It's easier to master one skill than two.
• Some editors will reject you outright for headhopping.

 Once you've learned to write third-person Xtremely well, then you'll have the skills to try hopping heads when you have a scene where you believe it makes sense.

At the very least, if you're going to hop heads, you should be aware that you're doing it, you should have a reason to do so, and you should make it work.

The goal in writing fiction is to give your reader a Powerful Emotional Experience. Do whatever it takes to do that.

Award-winning novelist Randy Ingermanson, "the Snowflake Guy," publishes the free monthly Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine, with more than 32,000 readers. If you want to learn the craft and marketing of fiction, AND make your writing more valuable to editors, AND have FUN doing it, visit http://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com Download your free Special Report on Tiger Marketing and get a free 5-Day Course in How To Publish a Novel.

Randy Ingermanson Publisher, Advanced Fiction Writing E-zine http://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com/ezine

5 Easy Steps to Better Writing

John Yeoman has a novel approach to writing—he suggests a lazy 5-step program to improving your writing. Lazy? LAZY???? Does the word even feature in any dedicated writer’s vocabulary? Aren’t writers supposed to slog all hours that God gives in order to squeeze out some creative scribblings that may or may not be the next Amazon bestseller? I must admit, I feel guilty if I miss a day of writing. I read the phrase “It’s like having permanent homework” somewhere and it’s true. However, John has some very good advice in his article, which I have reproduced here with his kind permission.


A Lazy 5 Step Program to Make Your Stories Glow
Yes, and a thousand writing mavens on the web will hustle to reveal it to you. Truth is, there’s only one formula that succeeds, time and again. And here it is... the 5-step program that most top authors use, although they’ll rarely spell it out for you.

#1. Don’t be afraid to write dross: We’ve all heard that we must write every day, and it’s true. But what shall we write? Perhaps we’re developing a story or novel. We know where it should be going, but we’re stuck for words. Solution? Write garbage. And write it fast.

Drop in the first phrases that come into your head. Your object is not to write great literature—just to get that wretched episode finished! There’s no point in playing word games. Not just yet. Probably you’ll junk that whole episode anyway at the final ‘cut’.

Amazingly, the garbage approach works. We have no problems going back to a page of rubbish and, with an amused sigh, editing it into something sensible. Writer’s block? Forget it. There’s no anxiety in this approach so our mind stays calm. We can hack out 1500+ words a day, without pain. Make it your goal to draft total nonsense for an hour. How can you fail? You can then have fun improving it later.

#2. Study television dramas: Now you have a great excuse for watching television. Study how the actors in sitcoms and soaps behave. Every five minutes, somebody will insult, distress or romance somebody else. Watch their faces, lips, and body movements. Also hear how their voices change. Jot it all down. True, the actors overact. But you could use that body language, toned down, in your stories.
Also take careful note of every ‘scene hanger’, the way an episode closes. Maybe it’s an unresolved question or note of alarm. That uncertainty will tease us into the next scene, even across a commercial interlude. Adapt those scene hangers and you’ll soon have a wealth of ways to link the episodes in your own stories, so the reader stays hooked.

#3. Act as a walking tape recorder: Christopher Isherwood inspired the phrase ‘I am a camera’. It described his work. He had reproduced, without judgement or interpretation, what he actually saw and heard in post-war Berlin. You can do that in conversations that you overhear. Take a discreet note of every colourful turn of phrase. Folk say the most amazing things that you would never be able to invent for yourself.

Okay, we know that ‘real’ people do not speak the way they do in books. But you may be amazed at how often people fail to complete a sentence, or reply to a question, or even speak coherently at all. Almost all communication is done ‘between the lines’. If you get that sub-text into your stories, your characters will seem ‘real’.

#4. Find something boring to observe: Boring? Yes. Here’s a wonderful way to make a walk productive. Stop at random, wherever nobody can see you. And just look. Are you staring at a shop window? A poster? A car-filled motorway or a placid park? And is the scene boring? That’s wonderful! Why? Imagine what a child would make of that scene, if they had never seen it before but possessed an uncanny gift with words. A bare brick wall becomes a magic landscape. A mundane street is an adventure to be explored...

Write a description of that scene, using all the five senses—as if you had never seen anything like it before. And pack all that sensual detail into one sentence. Now is not the time to be lazy. Use words that precisely convey the uniqueness of that moment. In effect, write a haiku.

True, this is a tough exercise. How can we describe, say, a graffiti-covered wall in words that make it fascinating? But it’s the key skill of a great writer. Master it and you’ll be able to ‘switch on’ this habit of perception instinctively.

I once had lunch with a popular UK author. ‘Look over there,’ she said. ‘Who?’ ‘The man with a face like a pork pie.’ She was describing her publisher, who had just entered the restaurant. I wager that phrase found its way into her next novel (if not her conversation with him). Point is, she couldn’t stop herself using colourful phrases, even in casual observations!

#5. Acknowledge that your story will never be perfect: Can you write a perfect story? Of course, not. Nobody can. Even Shakespeare’s plays have lines that make no sense at all, even to scholars. (Perhaps he was drunk...) Point is, you have to re-write a story at least a dozen times before it’s fit to present to anybody, let alone a publisher.

One painless way to do this is: get your story as good as it’s ever going to get (you think). Then drop it into a closet for a month. Drag it out and try not to laugh at how bad it has become, all by itself. That wonderful paragraph you spent hours on? Dross. And why do your characters drone on, and on...

The ideal time to re-write a story is when it has spent a year in limbo. Of course, you can’t afford to leave a story on the shelf if you write for a living. Professional authors have to make do with getting their work 80% perfect and letting their agent and copy editor tidy up the rest. Still, everything they submit will have gone through the ‘closet’ process a good many times.

Yes, there is a sure-fire formula for writing stories that succeed. It’s the one above and it has been around since stories began. Of course, no formula will work unless you have some writing talent. If you have, it’s just a matter of developing good habits, like those above. It's how every pro author started...

John's free book How to Win Story Contests for Profit and free 14-part course in story writing for the commercial market can be found at:

http://www.writers-village.org/writing-ideas.php

I selected this post to be featured on Book Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!