Monday, March 22, 2010

Is the US Constitution Viable in the 21st Century

Today, it seems many people question the viability of our Constitution in a world that has dramatically changed since 1787. People ask if 18th century men could anticipate the complex issues of the 21st century. In other words, can something written over two hundred years ago direct a government in our modern world? 

The short answer is yes, but let me explain.

When James Madison brought the Virginia Plan to Philadelphia, it was not a list of laws, but a system of government. A system that forthrightly recognized the weaknesses of man, and delineated a set of checks and balances to distribute power; not just between the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the states.

Although the delegates debated endlessly over the elements of the design, and made major revisions to Madison's plan, they always kept the debates focused on limiting centers of powers. They were serious men designing a system of government for the ages to protect liberty for themselves and their posterity. Although not a common phrase at the time, every one of the fifty-five men at the Federal Convention would agree with the maxim that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, defines powers and, more importantly, limitations on powers. It is a brilliant system to govern people in an imperfect world. This was the original intent of the Founders. Since the nature of man has not changed, the Constitution is as valid today as it was in 1787.

When I started writing Tempest at Dawn over twelve years ago, there was no Constitutional crisis. I was drawn to the story because it was filled with giant personalities, and it was a unique event in the history of man. At no other time was a standing government changed with thoughtful reason, instead of the sword. The United States Constitution is a living document, not because it can be wrenched to fit politicians' whims, but because it bequeath to us an eternal system that inhibits the natural tendency of man to dictate the habits and liberty of fellow citizens. This is a truly astounding story, and I can only hope I did it justice.

From the Publisher

The United States is on the brink of total collapse. The military has been reduced to near extinction, economic turmoil saps hope, and anarchy threatens as world powers hover like vultures, eager to devour the remains. In a desperate move, a few powerful men call a secret meeting to plot the overthrow of the government.

Fifty-five men came to Philadelphia May of 1787 with a congressional charter to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead they founded the longest lasting republic in world history.

Tempest at Dawn tells their story.

Tempest at Dawn at Amazon

Monday, March 8, 2010

Oscar Night Ramblings by Raymond Chandler

Whenever the Oscars come around, I'm reminded of this article written by Raymond Chandler in March of 1948. By the way, in 1948, the Oscars were broadcast on radio. I hope he will forgive some editing for brevity. The highlights are mine, of course.

Oscar Night in Hollywood
By Raymond Chandler

It isn't so much that the awards never go to fine achievements as that those fine achievements are not rewarded as such. Technically, they are voted, but they are not decided by the use of whatever critical wisdom Hollywood may possess. They are ballyhooed, pushed, yelled, screamed, and in every way propagandized into the consciousness of the voters so incessantly, in the weeks before the final balloting, that everything except the golden aura of the box office is forgotten.We elect Presidents in much the same way, so why not actors, cameramen, writers, and all rest of the people who have to do with the making of pictures? If we permit noise, ballyhoo, and theater to influence us in the selection of the people who are to run the country, why should we object to the same methods in the selection of meritorious achievements in the film business?

If you think most motion pictures are bad, which they are, find out from some initiate how they are made, and you will be astonished that any of them could be good. The point is not whether the average motion picture is bad, but whether the motion picture is an artistic medium of sufficient dignity and accomplishment to be treated with respect. Those who deride the motion picture usually are satisfied that they have thrown the book at it by declaring it to be a form of mass entertainment. As if that meant anything. Greek drama, which is still considered quite respectable by most intellectuals, was mass entertainment to the Athenian freeman. So was the Elizabethan drama. It might reasonably be said that all art becomes mass entertainment, and that if it does not it dies and is forgotten.

Not only is the motion picture an art, but it is the one entirely new art that has been evolved on this planet for hundreds of years. In painting, music, and architecture we are not even second-rate by comparison with the best work of the past. Our novels are transient propaganda when they are what is called "significant," and bedtime reading when they are not.

Show business has always been a little over noisy, over dressed, over brash. Actors are threatened people. Before films came along to make them rich they often had need of a desperate gaiety. Some of these qualities have passed into the Hollywood mores and produced that very exhausting thing, the Hollywood manner, which is a chronic case of spurious excitement over absolutely nothing.

If you can go past those awful idiot faces on the bleachers outside the theater without a sense of the collapse of the human intelligence; if you can stand the hailstorm of flash bulbs popping at the poor patient actors who, like kings and queens, have never the right to look bored; if you can glance out over this gathered assemblage of what is supposed to be the elite of Hollywood and say to yourself without a sinking feeling, "In these hands lie the destinies of the only original art the modern world has conceived "; if you can stand the fake sentimentality and the platitudes of the officials and the mincing elocution of the glamour queens; if you can do all these things and not have a wild and forsaken horror at the thought that most of these people actually take this shoddy performance seriously; and if you can then go out into the night to see half the police force of Los Angeles gathered to protect the golden ones from the mob in the free seats; if you can do all these things and still feel next morning that the picture business is worth the attention of one single intelligent, artistic mind, then in the picture business you certainly belong, because this sort of vulgarity is part of its inevitable price.

Perverse fellow that I am, I found myself intrigued by the unimportant part of the program. I was intrigued by the efficiently quick on-and-off that was given to these minnows of the picture business; by their nervous attempts via the microphone to give most of the credit for their work to some stuffed shirt; by the fact that technical developments which may mean many millions of dollars to the industry, and may on occasion influence the whole procedure of picture-making, are just not worth explaining to the audience at all; intrigued most of all perhaps by the formal tribute which is invariably made to the importance of the writer, without whom, my dear, dear friends, nothing could be done at all, but who is for all that merely the climax of the unimportant part of the program.

If the actors and actresses like the silly show, and I'm not sure at all the best of them do, they at least know how to look elegant in a strong light, and how to make with the wide-eyed and oh, so humble little speeches as if they believed them. If the big producers like it, and I'm quite sure they do because it contains the only ingredients they really understand—promotion values and the additional grosses that go with them—the producers at least know what they are fighting for. But if the quiet, earnest, and slightly cynical people who really make motion pictures like it, and I'm quite sure they don't, well, after all, it comes only once a year, and it's no worse than a lot of the sleazy vaudeville they have to push out of the way to get their work done.

But that is the real point, isn't it?—whether these annual Awards, regardless of the grotesque ritual which accompanies them, really represent anything at all of artistic importance to the motion picture medium, anything clear and honest that remains after the lights are dimmed, the minks are put away, and the aspirin is swallowed? I don't think they do. I think they are just theater and not even good theater.As for the personal prestige that goes with winning an Oscar, it may with luck last long enough for your agent to get your contract rewritten and your price jacked up another notch.

Monday, March 1, 2010

More on the Kindle and e-books

Last post I said that 42% of my January books sales were Kindle. Now, two months into the year, Kindle sales are 44.2%. More startling to me, 78% of Tempest At Dawn sales are e-books.

Anecdotally, on recent flights to Boston and back, my seatmates in both directions had Kindles. Both said they loved their Kindles and no longer bought print books. A year ago, I seldom saw another Kindle, and now I know many people who own e-book readers. The trend toward e-books seems to be moving faster than I expected, and I was an early adopter and Kindle enthusiast.

So … what does this mean? Everybody's up in arms over the dominant position of Amazon, but the current pricing dispute won't move the flag. Nor will pitting Apple against Amazon. For one, Apple is not a good opponent for Amazon. The Apple iPad may end up a barn burner, but the narrative word is not Apple's primary target. Once again, Apple is trying to capture people who like motion. The kind of customers that talk, text, and tweet people and share videos and photos of friends and celebrities. Games and music are good too, but long text narratives are generally a bore.

For the moment, everyone in the industry seemed focused on pricing. Wrong. In business, pricing makes a good weapon, but a lousy bulwark against attack. The industry needs to reassess the entire value equation for books, assuming that e-books will grab a larger and larger market share. Publishers might also take an under-graduate course in elasticity of demand.