James Franco to Publish His First Novel on Amazon

America's favorite jack-of-all-trades is at it again.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Eric Charbonneau / WireImage / Getty Images

Filmmaker, Oscar host, serial grad student, avant-garde artist, and occasional actor – James Franco has almost done it all. And now, in what seems like an attempt to round out his college applications, he adds a new title to the list: published novelist.

That’s right, this jack-of-seemingly-every-possible-trade has penned his first full-length novel, Actors Anonymous, which is said to be a semi-fictional, semi-autobiographical account of his experiences as an actor. His first foray into literature was a collection of short stories called Palo Alto, which received less-than-rave reviews back in 2010. This time, he’s skirting the traditional publishing house route and has sold his book directly to Amazon.

It remains to be seen how Franco’s newest project will fare amid his prolific repertoire of creative endeavors. But given his track record, maybe he should have just quit while he was ahead after the genius that was Freaks and Geeks.

MORE: James Franco to Teach College Course — About James Franco

17 comments
nolanmar
nolanmar

Humanity now resembles Wile E. Coyote. We have run off the cliff and our feet are still pumping wildly in mid-air, but our fate is sealed. It would literally take Divine Intervention to prevent the worst case scenario from coming to pass.It will take thousands of years for this to play out, but there is no going back. We have sentenced our descendants to a future that makes the Dark Ages look like a sunny, summer picnic. It is unfortunate that most people are too uninformed, misinformed, or just plain stupid to realize this.

vortex100
vortex100

Did anyone else hear the atmosphere go "TIP"? Too late to do anything now. The point of no return has been passed. Party on.

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

This farcical play reminds one of the Obamacare scandal. Hit the suckers hard and often before they can recover. This climate change nonsense benefits the few who grew rich by fooling the poor suckas.

They should at least listen to other respected scientists who have their own side to present before deciding.

WallyLind
WallyLind

Could be. I don't see ANY evidence the eye can see or ANY believable science to back it up. The Ocean levels are NOT rising. There are NOT more or more severe storms. The idea that the climate causes earthquakes is ABSURD on its face. The temperatures of the globe seem to have stabilized for 15 years. The polar ice sheet is coming BACK, this year. The Antarctic ice sheet is GROWING. There is evidence that some of the UN figures were fabricated. I favor cleaning up what we can clean up, but I don't buy that its' all mankind's fault. That doesn't make sense. Nature is generating plenty of those pollutants too. I also don't buy this emergency stuff. It's all very convenient to the new inquisition of the Mother Earth Religion. We do have a provision of the Constitution that separates church from state.

DavidNutzuki
DavidNutzuki

Can the same world of "science" that denied the dangers of their pesticides also be capable of riding the back of "climate blame" by saying only "could be" and "95% certain" for another 32 years?

Only science, not a mob of determined "believers" can have certainty before we condemn our children to a global crisis. My children deserve more than just "maybe".
So you can call three decades of "95%" anything you like but don't call it sustainable and don't tell kids that science "believes" as much as you remaining "believers" so eagerly do. Now who's the "neocon"?

serinanth
serinanth

@ReneDemonteverde The fact you bring up politics first lets me know you gather all your info from political blogs = F in science.

serinanth
serinanth

@WallyLind 

Believable science... Here are the simple facts that can be proven in a high school classroom. CO2 absorbs more thermal energy than the major constituents of the atmosphere, being Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. Increasing the levels of CO2, will increase the greenhouse effect, a concept so simple it was observed in the 1820's and fully realized in the 1890'.

We are measuring the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and it correlates to our production which is measured in billions of tonnes of CO2 a year. Nope, no evidence there.  And yes there are natural processes that cause CO2 but the earth regulated that very well on its own with carbon sinks like new biomass, oh wait, we are just burning those forests releasing that carbon into the air again. And dont forget the Ocean that sucks up plenty of CO2, increasingly so that it is actually acidifying the ocean. Do you even know what that means? Have you not read anything about how the coral reefs across the world are starting to die off due to this? 

I agree that climate change will cause earthquakes is absurd and I question the source you read it from. 

 

Global sea level rise is measured MEASURED at around 1.8 +-.5mm a year. I agree the media is definitely overzealous about this.


The polar ice sheet comes back every year, so does the Antarctic Ice shelf, but that's sea ice, which has no effect on ocean levels, if you cant figure that out go drop some ice cubes into a glass of water, measure the level and let the ice melt. Let me know if somehow the level goes up. The landmass ice, is shrinking across the globe You need to do more reading on that subject.

You sir, blow my mind. Go see your one out of five dentists and bury your head in the sand. This is really simple science to know that we are in fact causing our atmosphere to change. The effects are the complicated part, the homeostasis of the earth is incredibly complex, and we definitely need to do more number crunching but to say you see no evidence?

Why would the vast majority of scientists be lying to us? What do they have to gain? Its not about politics for everyone you know, we want to survive as a species, but if we keep on keeping on the way we are going every city is going to end up like New Dehli or Bejing.


Get off the political blogs and actually read some real science papers.



vortex100
vortex100

@WallyLind So, we must be reliant on you keen scientific observations and mind, Wally? We should all ignore the vast majority of climatologists in the world, because YOU see no evidence? Where are you getting your observations and scientific facts, Wally? Why should anyone be interested in, must less listen to, anything you have to say? No reliable climatology expert has EVER said climate change has anything to do with earthquakes, for instance. Did you just make that up? Was this in some news article you read somewhere, or did it come from a reliable scientific journal? Talk about not knowing what you are talking about!

ReneDemonteverde
ReneDemonteverde

@WallyLind  Because some people are making money out of this fear mongering. Look at Al Gore. Do you think he would be in it if not for the moolah ? Much as the libturds denigrate Dubya but America dodged the bullet twice. First when they rejected Gore then rejected Kerry. But unfortunately it failed to dodged Obama.

WallyLind
WallyLind

@serinanth @WallyLind Land Ice is what they are reporting as increasing in the Antarctic, by a substantial amount, not sea ice. I do not question that we are affected the environment. But I do question that it is some dire emergency, when there has been little prior occurrence of it. There were dire warnings in the 1970s, with the vast majority of scientists agreeing then. It didn't happen. I don't believe your technical papers, because I believed them then. Each dire prediction has failed to materialize. From a common sense perspective, you guys don't know what you are talking about.  You have a majority, but a slipping majority, of public opinion. But something visible better happen soon Pal, or your credibility and money are going to vaporize. And talking down to people isn't going to improve your prospects.

serinanth
serinanth

@WallyLind Correction sea level rise is actually 3.1 +-.7mm a year at the moment.

Tage37
Tage37

@ReneDemonteverde The Tinfoil hat is strong with this one.

"Let's not take care of the planet we live on because: political conspiracies." Yea, good idea. How about the fact that the majority of scientists in this field agree on climate change? "Screw them and all their education and studies, and peer review, empirical evidence, etc. I have a High School diploma, I know better." Who's the real idiot?

WallyLind
WallyLind

@serinanth @WallyLind OK. I'm not a scientist, nor am I competent to judge what science is valid or not, but it is the era of questioning even your doctor. The people on the other side of the argument, when you set aside the name calling, have just as many degrees, and make arguments just as logical, as the alarmists. And people like Al Gore and the UN make the Global Warming thing look real bad. Fudging data does not inspire confidence. Like I said, reasonable pollution control is big to the voting public, including me, but the things that the fanatics talk about are just turning people off. 

serinanth
serinanth

@WallyLind

I apologize for that, I have said the same thing to others about talking down to people and ones credibility, definitely just made me feel like an a$$. I get frustrated hearing hearing the pseudoscience and BS like the earthquakes thing.

From what I understand and have read the land ice is declining, but it is only visible over longer periods of time and it seems many skeptics are picking and choosing data points to make it look otherwise. Or simply going on a visual representation and not the radar data.

While certain areas are most certainly increasing, its the overall picture that hits home.  Using satellites its estimated something on the order of 70 gigatons ( I can't even fathom that) of ice loss per year, and it also equates to the 1-3mm of sea level rise that again, we are actually measuring.

The only things I know of from back in the 70's well other than the one year of it that I was living, was the effect of aresols on the ozone layer, deforestation, and particulate pollution.

Considering Big data has only been around for several years I am sure some of those papers have been questioned as well. Our number crunching computers are increasing in power exponentially and once the quantum computers become mainstream we are going to have more information than we know what to do with, and perhaps they will refute the claims being made right now. Though I am confident they will affirm our current studies.

I think the biggest problem is the media hype, people don't understand that we are not speaking in the short term. This is not going to happen overnight, or in 40 years. I laughed when I saw the article about the statue of liberty ending up flooded. That's going to take hundreds and hundreds of years!

I also question anyone that is politically or financially motivated regarding this stuff, no one has made a dime from me because I am afraid central MA is suddenly going to become beachfront. I know that I am not going to see most of the changes that are predicted, let alone my children.

The earth is an incredibly complex system, and we only know the very basics of what our impact is going to cause, but we are most certainly changing our environment, and unfortunately, it does not look like for the better for the current flora and fauna.  Then again, the dinosaurs enjoyed a much longer reign than we have and the earth was a hotter, more oxygenated place than it is now.