Monthly Archives: June 2010

Still frustrating

I cannot quite get my schedule organized.
Part of the problem is that the census is so unpredictable: Some days I’m slammed, some days it’s like a walk-on part. And whether I fill in the non-census time with eHows or Applied Science stories, it never seems to add up to the full week I intended.
Part of it is just that I’ve gotten out of the habit of having a day job and it’s a big adjustment to be working on something other than writing.
Partly it’s just that the census tends to cut up my day into bits—a couple of hours in the morning before the meeting, then lunch, then out for the afternoon, then in, then cook dinner, then out, then in … It’s hard to build momentum or focus effectively when that’s happening.
But the short stories are due and there are other projects I hope to be working on, so I guess I’d better find some way to get my act together.

Leave a comment

Filed under Personal, Writing

What’s your motivation?

A few months ago, I read Brak the Barbarian, a sword and sorcery novel by John Jakes, now best known for North and South. I’d read the later novels in the series back in my teens and hadn’t been impressed; reading the original novel (actually a collection of linked short stories) I was surprised how much I enjoyed it.
Rereading the second Brak novel, Brak the Barbarian—the Sorceress, I’m inclined to think my teenage self was right. The novel is certainly better written than many Conan knockoffs, but Brak is lacking in something Conan was never short of: Motivation.
Conan gets into adventures because he wants things. Wealth. Wine. Women. Sometimes obtained as a thief or a bandit, sometimes as a mercenary. Eventually as a king. When he winds up fighting monsters instead, it’s usually because they’re in the way, or because he can’t get back to the wine, wealth and women until they’re done.
Coupled with Robert E. Howard’s writing—he invested Conan with a real intensity—it makes the Cimmerian more believable than you’d think. As one writer put it, Conan doesn’t win because he’s stronger than anyone else, he wins because he’s tougher and more determined than anyone else.
Brak, by comparison, just gets into adventures because … well, he happened to be standing around when they happened. This wasn’t a big problem in the first book, where he kept running into menaces on his quest for fabled Khurdisan; in this one, where he’s in one place, fighting one threat, it sticks out like a sore thumb. There’s no real reason for him to keep fighting the sorceress Nordica other than … well, the plot needs him to, right?
It’s one of the standard writing-advice messages that your characters have to care, passionately, to keep your readers’ interest. By failing to do so, this book shows why it matters.

1 Comment

Filed under Reading, Writing

The mote and the beam

As I posted on America is Angry a while back, it’s possible to make too much fuss over hypocrisy.
When Indiana Rep. Mark Souder, a right-wing family values, abstinence-education supporter, retired over his affair with a staffer, some liberals were quick to point out the hypocrisy. That may be an effective political tactic, but I don’t think it’s the real issue; the real issue is that abstinence education is a lousy idea that doesn’t work and wastes millions of dollars (did you know the government even funds abstinence-only training for twentysomethings? Adults?). If Soulder had been an absolutely faithful married guy who tried to live by the standards he espoused, the policies he championed would still suck.
But then we have Washington Post writer Michael Gerson asserting that Souder is still preferable to the people who opposed his standards because at least he had standards to fall short of: “The failure of human beings to meet their own ideals does not disprove or discredit those ideals … I would rather live among those who recognize standards and fail to meet them than among those who mock all standards as lies. In the end, hypocrisy is preferable to decadence.”
Where to start? Well, for one thing, Gerson’s alternatives are crap. I didn’t see the bloggers criticizing Souder proclaim that the ideal of marital fidelity had been discredited or that “all standards are lies.” That’s just a throwback to the old idea that the left rejects “moral absolutes” or similar bilge The criticism of Souder focused on the fact that he’s pushing others to live up to a standard he couldn’t live up to himself, and that’s a very different thing.
In the Gospels, when Jesus discusses hypocrisy, he wasn’t talking about people who failed to live a moral life; he was quite forgiving of them (though as with the woman taken in adultery, it was with the understanding they should go and sin no more). What he targeted were the people who focus on sawdust in other people’s eyes and ignore the beam in their own. Which is what we have with Souder.
If Souder had been a regular guy who cheated, nobody would be accusing him of hypocrisy (which is not to say he’d be forgiven—adultery’s a bad thing in its own right). But he was a politician trying to push his standards of moral behavior on other people when it turned out there was a beam in his own eye. That’s an entirely different thing.
Newt Gingrich played the same card regarding his own unethical activities: Yes, I’m a sinner, but everyone is, so let’s move on. Sorry, dude, nobody gets to absolve themselves of sin or tell other people to ignore the beam in their eye.
And this is the most charitable interpretation, that the traditional-values warriors aren’t just shamming virtue for the benefit of votes. Sure, Gerson insists that Souder is a deeply moral man, but pretty much everyone accused of scandalous behavior claims the same. It’s worth remembering that Bill Clinton publicly apologized for his affair (and for lying about it), and asked for forgiveness; the right didn’t give it. Almost like they had a double standard or something.
Gerson quotes C.S. Lewis to the effect that “a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.” The trouble is, his column makes it clear he prefers the self-righteous prigs.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics

Books and Movies

WHEN HARRY MET SALLY (1989) is, of course, the tale of how Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan go from finding each other Obnoxious and Irritating to becoming best friends to becoming lovers to breaking up … This is one of those stories whose elements have been duplicated so often since (I can see a lot of Friends in this) that it no longer looks as fresh as it once did. Even so, it’s still charming and with a winning cast. “He was the head counselor at the boy’s camp and I was head counselor at the girl’s camp.”
The infamously dreadful SHOWGIRLS (1995) is much more of a backstage musical than I expected, as ex-hooker Elizabeth Berkley struggles to claw her way to the top of Vegas entertainment, much to the displeasure of queen bee Gina Gershon. While the gratuitous nudity, sleaze and sexism would have turned me off to this in any case, the Vegas setting makes it even worse—becoming the star of a Vegas show just doesn’t have the cachet of seeing your name in lights on Broadway. “Did you push her?”
STRAY DOG (1949) is the Akira Kurosawa drama in which cop Toshiro Mifune is humiliated that a pickpocket swiped his gun, then horrified when it’s used in a series of robbery murders. One that could be adapted almost unchanged to an American setting, showing again that Kurosawa’s talent extended to more than just samurai films. “A murderer always goes in straight lines.”

THE SHAKESPEARE WARS: Clashing Scholars, Public Fiascoes, Palace Coups by Ron Rosenbaum does an excellent job discussing scholarly disputes over Shakespeare (do the three 17th-century editions of Hamlet represent successive revisions or misprinted versions of a lost original?), theatrical debates (director Peter Hall’s argument that iambic pentameter should not be broken up to follow the natural speech pattern), whether humanizing Shylock is a mistake (“A sympathetic Shylock implies that even good Jews only want to plunge knives into Christian hearts.”), why such arcane matters as Shakespeare’s original spelling are of vital importance, the dust-up over a supposedly Shakespearian funeral elegy, and bigger questions such as what we mean by “Shakespearian” and whether Shakespeare is “just” great or great beyond a level that anyone else could be. Rosenbaum spends way too much space venting his distaste for deconstruction and post-modernism, but for anyone interested in Shakespeare, this is great reading.
ABSOLUTE CONVICTIONS: My Father, a City and the Conflict That Divided America by Eyal Press, chronicles the right-to-life movement’s growth from Roe vs. Wade to the 21st century as seen by Press, whose Israeli-immigrant ob/gyn father was performing abortions in Buffalo during some of the worst protests, including the shooting of another provider (Press sees his father’s background as an Israeli as central to his refusal to quit under pressure). While hardly sympathetic to the right to lifers, Press does a good job portraying their views, which he sees as drawing strength from the general frustration of Buffalo’s working-class community as the economy tanked (“Class warfare no longer means rich against poor, it’s about the belief that an intellectual elite is trying to force their standards on everyone else.”). A good job.
WHITECHAPEL GODS by S.M. Peters is a steampunk fantasy in which Whitechapel has become the domain of two cosmic machine intelligences who are slowly transforming their subjects into cyborgs while working on something Even Worse (which, come to think of it, we never learn), resulting in a resistance movement attempting to overthrow them, while one schemer hopes to elevate himself to the same level of cosmicness and push the overlords aside. Good.
Although KINGDOM COME was Mark Waid and Alex Ross’s take on 1990s comic-books, it holds up surprisingly well today, mostly because the underlying themes about heroism and humanity still work. The story opens in a world where superhumans brawl and batter each other with little regard for the innocent bystanders until Superman, who withdrew from the never-ending battle a decade earlier, finally has to intervene again. But is it too late to stop a cosmically powered apocalypse? Not only fascinating in itself, it’s interesting how many elements of this (Red Arrow, the new Blue Beetle, the son of Batman by Talia) show up in the real DCU later.

3 Comments

Filed under Movies, Reading

Frustrating

Did not get anywhere near done what I wanted this week, despite starting on Sunday. Of course, a large part of that was due to some very distracting plumbing problems in TYG’s house, so hopefully I’ll do better next week.
And I did finish the next draft of Blood and Iron, the next Applied Science story and that was the big one.
Now, the latest eHow work:
• Medical Transcriptionist Tools
• Charity Tax Deduction Rules
• Court Interpreter Requirements
• Futures Trading Margin Requirements
• College Requirements for Pediatricians
• New Jersey Artist Grants
• Medical Billing & Coding Job Duties
• Management Analysis Training
• Job Description for Sales Audits
• HR Audit Training
• Amblyomma Americanum Life Cycle
• Mental Health Nursing Certification
• How Was Heartworm Medicine Invented?
• Citrus Aphid Life Cycle
• Silver Hallmarks Explained
• What is a Master Promissary Note?
• Importance of Courtesy in Business Communication
• How to Mediate an EEO Case
• How to Train to Be a Veterinary Practice Manager
• How Do I Calculate Co-Op Tax Deductions?
• Solar Tax Credit Rules
• Legal Requirements for Document Retention
• Features of Fixed Income Securities
• Patient Transport Regulations
• Scotland Regulations on Noise Insulation
• Ethical Issues in Psychiatric Nursing
• Insurance Advertising Regulations
• Medical Esthetician Requirements
• Nurse Assistant Interview Questions
•How to Change an Employment Agreement Letter
•What Is Aesthetic Impotence?
•How to Finance an American Business in the UK
•How to Make an Infinity Walk
•How to Tell What Brand of Shingles Are on a House
•What Is Reactionary Colorblindness?
•How to Evaluate a Food Service Proposal
•How to Troubleshoot a FoodSaver Product
•What is the meaning of an interim dividend?
•What is the difference between fixed & variable deductions?
•How to Clear a Responsibility Fee
•How to Manage Enterprise Risk
•How to Audit Real Estate Property Taxes
•How to Improve Communication for Mobile Devices in Disaster Response
•How to Identify Ideal Dolls
•What is construction accounting?
•Third-Party IT Training,
•Office Safety Terrorism Protocol
•Application of HIPAA Regulations to Genetic Information
•What is the streak of limestone?
•Why did Leif Ericson decide to go to the new land?
•End of Life in Product Life Cycles
•How do i start a women’s shoes retail store?
•NCO & Change of Responsibility

1 Comment

Filed under Nonfiction, Writing

Lost again

This post by solarbird captures some of what I was thinking about Lost, but says it better.
Her essential point: Nothing seems to change. It doesn’t appear that Hurley taking over as guardian will affect anything, the Dharma initiative never accomplished anything, Jacob didn’t do anything but continue the cycle, whatever cycle it was.
And her comments, in turn, got me thinking about this post of mine, which discusses the various arcs a story can have: A character arc, a mystery arc (a mystery is presented and eventually solved), a setting arc (you enter a place, explore, leave—hopefully changed), a plot arc.
As a plot or event arc, the Lost ending would have been fine: Everyone’s off the island or dead, the smoke beast is defeated, a new Guardian is chosen. Plot over.
As a character arc it would have been adequate, maybe. It is very much about them all finding a happy ending, but it doesn’t really deal with the character aspects raised in the show other than a kind of deus ex (look! They’re all happy! Traumas over!).
Setting arc? Might have worked. They arrived on the island, they explored, they left.
Mystery arc? There we have the problem. This was never as much about the setting or the plot as it was the mystery (and to some extent the characters): What is the smoke monster? Where did Jack’s father come from? What is the secret of the numbers? Of Claire’s baby? Who are the others and the Dharma initiative? And so forth.
And that’s why leaving so many loose ends doesn’t work. And saying “Well, there could be an explanation” doesn’t work either. And why throwing in the miracle light mid-season—when we’ve never had the slightest hint this cave exists, and still don’t really know what it does—doesn’t work (with no previous hints about it, it feels closer to a deus ex [yes, again] than a revelation).
This show was about cracking the mysteries of the island, and in the end, they didn’t. Or not enough of them.
It reminds me of a comment by the mystery writer G.K. Chesterton about the difference between a true mystic and a phony.
A mystic will show you everything, and you’ll still be mystified.
A phony will hide everything, and when you see the man behind the curtain, it’s a banality.
I know where I’m putting Lost.

2 Comments

Filed under Movies

The story behind the story: The Spider Strikes!

The Spider Strikes, the third short in my Applied Science series, is now out at Big Pulp.
In this story, I introduce Steve Flanagan, the protagonist of Brain From Outer Space. It proved much more difficult than bringing in Gwen or Dani.
For one thing, in writing Brain, I gave Steve a more complicated backstory than the others, and unlike Gwen’s time in the OSS, I found I couldn’t introduce him without going into a lot of detail about his long-lost (and possibly traitorous) brother. I also discovered I couldn’t mention his brother without mentioning the sinister experiments that went on at the orphanage they were both at.
Plus I had to give some feel for Steve as a character (impulsive, two-fisted but good-guy); introduce him to Gwen; explain the creation of the Science Investigations agency she works for; and actually include a story.
It was tough to work all that in plausibly. It was tougher to then trim it to a workable size.
But I think I succeeded. And I think it turned out pretty well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Short Stories, Story behind the story