some things are just wrong.

i'm not sure if i've made mention of how much i dislike the hype about MJ's death. overall, i'm not really one to drool over tabloids or gossip blogs or get overly emotional about celebrity happenins and such.

it's true that MJ's death is sad and his music was influential. there's no denying that. did i looove the black and white video with macaulay culkin? you know i did. do i own the jackson five christmas album? you better believe it. with this being said, i still don't understand why weeks after his death people are still trying rekindle the hysteria.

for instance, i was toolin' around on salon.com and i saw the title: "Michael Jackson's hair to be made into diamonds" my first reaction was to regurgitate my breakfast. the second and conclusive reaction was to click on the link.

i won't ruin the article for you. i'll let you see it for yourself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jul/27/michael-jackson-hair-diamonds

basically, the next time you think about buying a diamond (which i'm not totally against as long as they are from canada) let this be your driving force to NOT purchase one that are related to such circumstances. perhaps Blood Diamond didn't sway you but maybe this will.

WrItInG tHe wRoNgS.

So, I came across an article in the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/opinion/20hotchner.html

The title caught my eye: "A Moveable Feast" - quite possibly one of my favorite literary treats. As I got to reading this treatise, I was a bit floored. Who in their right mind would allow someone to re-write another man's memoir? For reals?

Sure, at times we find ourselves borrowing from those who inspire us - but we surely don't mutilate their work. So, at what point should a line be drawn between borrowing and defacing? Sure, renditions of famous paintings cause no real harm - in fact one pays a sort of homage by doing so. In any art form you can borrow to adhere to your own, but in no way should it be appropriate to amend an individual's praised and completed work...simply because you do not agree with what that individual has written.

In the case of literature, it's completely acceptable to form your style around the works of another author. However, it is not appropriate to take one's book, re-write sections of the story (that you feel are the correct set of occurrences)and then keep the title, with the author's name, and adding your own. I'm completely fine with someone taking the work and responding to it in a matter that they feel rights the wrong - but in their own words, on their own pages with their own title. Honestly, when this sort of thing happens I feel there is only one to blame - the publishers. As keepers of the books that authors entrust to them, they have no right to allow such blatent disgrace.

I seriously hope people do not buy this book if Scribner does decide to publish the piece. Srsly, now.