Music Tuesday Debut: Guest Post by JT Twissel–The World’s Worst Folksingers

November 26, 2014JT Twissel Leave a comment

Here is a post I wrote for Mary Rowan whose first two novels deal with (amongst other things) the effect music has on our lives.

MaryRowen.com

Today is the first day of a new blog series called MUSIC TUESDAY. If you’re familiar with my books LIVING BY EAR and LEAVING THE BEACH, you know they both have strong music themes, although they’re very different stories.

I’m excited to have the wonderful author JT Twissel begin the series with her post, THE WORLD’S WORST FOLKSINGERS. So, without further ado, he-e-e-e-rs Jan!

———————————————————————————————————-

This post is going to age me somewhat but here goes. My father refused to buy what he called a “boob tube” until I was almost fourteen. Instead, our entertainment on cold snowy days consisted of listening to classical music, or show tunes, or the irreverent monologues of comedian Bob Newhart,* who we’d seen many times performing in either Reno or Lake Tahoe. (I was raised in Reno, Nevada).

My father had extensive knowledge of the Classics as well as Greek and Norse mythology…

View original post 594 more words

Let’s go fly a kite!

November 19, 2014JT Twissel 12 Comments

The other day I watched Saving Mr. Banks, a fictionalized account of the filming of Mary Poppins, which I have to admit was not my favorite Disney film. Apparently, PL Travers, the author of the book, had an even stronger reaction. She gave ole Uncle Waltie such gas that at first she wasn’t even invited to the premiere. The reasons she gave for her disapproval were: the nanny wasn’t strict enough and Disney insisted on adding animation. After her experience, she refused to allow him to film any of her other books. (Watch the trailer from Saving Mr. Banks.)

The movie Saving Mr. Banks implies that Travers’ hatred of the movie went far deeper than a dislike of dancing penguins. Apparently the filming brought back memories of her delightfully fanciful

The “loathsome” penguins.

but totally irresponsible father and the stern aunt who arrived after his premature death to pull the grieving family together. In the Mary Poppins’ books, the nanny is able to save the whole family whereas in real life, help arrived too late. So you could say PL Travers used fiction to save a father she’d tragically lost and for that reason, seeing him and her beloved aunt portrayed as Disney caricatures must have mortified her. I can understand this feeling well. The other day someone commented that the Captain Wug character in FLIPKA was a “crazed geezer.”

From Bing images

Since that character was based on a decorated war hero, I freaked. What have I done, I thought. Turning the beloved people in my life into caricatures? The person who made the comment was surprised by my reaction. Many memorable characters in fiction began their lives in the impressions of children, he pointed out, and thus are often capable of the improbable, the fanciful, and the heroic. They are also subject to caricature. Every book we publish is like a kite we launch into the sky. Everyone who sees the kite will see it differently and about this fact we can do nothing except be happy the kite is flying.

By the way, PK Travers was not the first nor will she probably be the last author to hate the film version of their baby:

I don’t know about Papa, but this book cover implies a little hanky-panky might be going on.

About the movie adaptation of The Shining, Stephen King complained the hotel was not sufficiently “evil” and Jack Nicholson acted “too psychotic.” Having read the book and seen the movie, King’s comments made me think he doesn’t know what he wrote! I could say the same thing about Ernest Hemingway’s response to the first adaptation of A Farewell to Arms. He felt it was “too romantic.” Okay. Here’s what I think. The heroine was based on his first wife and by the time the movie came out he was probably on his third. Sounds like the rascal was just trying to save a marriage!

The list goes on to include so many authors that I decided if anything I write is ever made into a movie or play, I’ll try to keep this in mind – it’s only a kite I launched which once airborne belongs to the world.

Let’s go fly a kite (click for video)
Up to the highest height!
Let’s go fly a kite and send it soaring
Up through the atmosphere
Up where the air is clear
Let’s go fly a kite! – Robert B. Sherman

Click here to read about other authors who hated the movie adaptations of their books.

Why obeying your husband is against tax law

November 13, 2014February 21, 2020JT Twissel 8 Comments

The last novel I published was loosely based the fourteen years I spent battling the State Franchise Tax board. How boring, you say. No vampires. No zombies.

We’re from the IRS!

The fact of the matter is, not understanding your liabilities under tax law can result in a truckload of vampires arriving at your front door, IRS agents whose bonuses and raises are dependent on how much blood they suck from a delinquent taxpayer. Followed by the courts of last appeal whose zombie lawyers blindly follow the tax code regardless of what they see or hear. Nothing but complete surrender will drive them away. At least, that’s what they want you to believe.

In honor (or horror) of the coming tax season, here is my story:

If you ever find yourself divorcing a con man, there’s just one way of escaping a shared tax debt without providing your death certificate or going to prison and that is to prove you were too stupid and dimwitted to understand the tax forms you signed.

The ideal innocent Spouse Candidate

If you can’t prove you’re a moron, you will be charged with willful avoidance.

Willful Avoidance means, in brief, that it is your duty as a prudent taxpayer to fully understand tax returns you have signed. It doesn’t matter if you’re married to a billionaire with more properties than you can count, Swiss bank accounts, and an office full of tax accountants. If your spouse disappears owing taxes, the IRS will be after you, particularly if you’re living in the primary residence. And you can’t claim you knew nothing; they will harass you continually as each day brings rising penalties and interest on your debt until it’s so ridiculously inflated that one lifetime alone will not be enough get out from underneath.

For this reason I believe a taxman should be in attendance at all wedding ceremonies and that the following should be written into the vows:

Preacher: “According to IRS Code, Section 40.01(c), Article 99, Rev. Proc. 2013-2014, do you, Chester Morton, promise to provide your wife with an audited set of financial records every quarter.”

Groom: “I do.”

Preacher: “And do you, Sally Murgatory, promise to fulfill your duty to the IRS as a prudent taxpayer, by scrutinizing all financial records and tax returns with the help of CPA and refusing to sign anything you do not completely understand?”

If the bride objects thusly: “Golly Preacher Man, shouldn’t I be obeying my man and making him feel like a king in his castle?”

The taxman in attendance must interject: “To blindly obey your husband constitutes Willful Avoidance, a crime in the eyes of the IRS!”

Granted it would probably take some of the romance out of a wedding to have a taxman standing between the bride and groom, but it needs to be done! Too much of that honoring and obeying is what leads to willful avoidance and you don’t want to go there.

Here is another fact about marriage and tax law which should be made clear to both bride and groom: Even if a wife doesn’t work, even if she stays home to take care of the children, no husband has the right to say the following:

“It’s my money. I made it and I don’t have to tell you what I do with it!”

WRONG! In the eyes of the tax man, both spouses are equally responsible for paying taxes on any money and or property brought into a marriage. State laws may differ but I wouldn’t bet the bank on it.