For those who've been disheartened by Matt Bomer not getting the part of Christian Grey in Fifty Shades of Grey, I recently came across the film, In Time, where Bomer plays an interesting character that basically sets the stage for the rest of the film.
It is the year 2169 and humanity had been genetically engineered to be born with a digital clock, bearing a year's worth of time, on their forearm. At the age of 25 a person stops aging, but their clock begins counting down; when it reaches zero, that person "times out" and dies. Time has been turned into the universal currency; one can give time for products or services, as well as transfer it to others. The country is divided into time zones based on the wealth of its population. The film focuses on two time zones: Dayton is poor, with a populace that has learned indifference to the timed-out bodies on its streets; and New Greenwich, the wealthiest zone where inhabitants enjoy the benefits of their immortality and wealth, but are constantly surrounded by bodyguards and spend their time worried about accidental death.
You can read more here at Wiki.
I'm not the biggest fan of this genre, however, this film is excellent. The concept will make you stop and think about how you've always thought about time. And Bomer is great as always. His part is small, but you can't stop thinking about what he did throughout the entire film. Of course Justin Timberlake holds his own, too. I feel a little guilty, as if I'm betraying the gay guy here, because I do like Matt Bomer. But Timberlake is the man of which all dreams are made.
Foot Cream Kills HIV
Whenever I see something like this I like to post about it because it creates a continued sense of hope that one day, hopefully in our lifetimes, there will be an end to HIV/AIDS. Now there's evidence that a common foot cream might be beneficial to those with HIV.
In a study performed at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, not only does the drug Ciclopirox completely eradicate infectious HIV from cell cultures, but unlike today's most cutting-edge antiviral treatments, the virus doesn't bounce back when the drug is withheld. This means it may not require a lifetime of use to keep HIV at bay.
If this is accurate, it's highly significant for anyone who is HIV positive and is now taking HIV meds. HIV is looked upon as a chronic illness, and in order to keep the virus at bay expensive drugs that have multiple side effects have to be taken daily. It's a very difficult lifestyle that requires constant blood work and monitoring, not to mention discipline. And if they can come up with something to keep the virus at bay millions of lives will be vastly improved.
There are some very strong opinions on the web about authors paying for book reviews. And a few things I didn't know...like google can penalize you if you get caught buying reviews for your books or any product you're hocking to the public. This article covers all businesses on the web that depend on reviews. But from what I hear, it includes authors, too.
Google states that they have methods in place to automatically remove reviews that they believe may have violated their guidelines. They also pre-apologize because they know they might incorrectly remove some perfectly valid reviews.
I can just hear the free speech zealots harping on that one.
In this next article the blogger is adamant about authors who pay for reviews. Adamant to the point of stating it as bluntly as possible so there's no misunderstanding.
Paying for reviews is stupid from a marketing perspective. As an author the only feedback you should care about is honest feedback. And you’ll never know if you’re getting honest feedback when you pay for that feedback. Even if you don’t insist on a positive review, not all reviewers going to tell you what they really think. They’re too afraid of how you’ll react or they’re afraid others won’t pay them for the same. There are ethical paid reviewers out there. But you’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference. And you can’t improve your product or your marketing strategy based on a bunch of bullshit.
I actually posted about this dude in August 2012. He started out with the best of intentions trying to market and promote authors. However, he found out there's an easier way to make a buck.
Suddenly it hit him. Instead of trying to cajole others to review a client’s work, why not cut out the middleman and write the review himself? Then it would say exactly what the client wanted — that it was a terrific book. A shattering novel. A classic memoir. Will change your life. Lyrical and gripping, Stunning and compelling. Or words to that effect.
In the fall of 2010, Mr. Rutherford started a Web site, GettingBookReviews.com. At first, he advertised that he would review a book for $99. But some clients wanted a chorus proclaiming their excellence. So, for $499, Mr. Rutherford would do 20 online reviews. A few people needed a whole orchestra. For $999, he would do 50.
I don't see the paid for book review issue disappearing. It's part of our culture now, and unfortunately retail web sites promote the behavior. I just wish they would be a little more discreet about it, is all. I've discussed this with other authors I know in private and we all agree that when you see a book being released by a relatively unknown author and the very next day after the release that same relatively unknown author has over fifty five star reviews on Amazon something's rotten in Denmark and it's not the cheese. And no matter how many times they swear on their moms, dads, kids, and dead dogs, that they aren't buying reviews, once the red flag is up there's no turning back.
I'd like to see the FTC getting more involved.