Bill Conrad's Blog, page 32

Men in Black International

A few weeks ago, I watched the movie Men in Black International. Overall, I felt the movie to be worth seeing, but it didn’t exceed my expectations. A few days later, I came across a YouTube video that examined the core issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBi2W...
Wow, I had no idea a single move could contain so many large flaws. Over the years I read/watched many movie teardowns and this one should have been no different. However, this particular disassembly took a deep dive into plot/character logic and motivation.
The video revealed many plot errors, missing narrative driving goals, incomplete objectives and the lack of emotional investment. It explained the problems were the result of script rewrites and production issues. For example, the main character’s motivation came from an incomprehensible flashback. She spends her entire existence perusing the career goal of becoming a Men in Black agent and the audience is never informed why she has this deep desire. Her goal lacked any urgency or timeline.
A review quote, “This is want versus need conundrum without any reward for success.” “The main character is a passive reactive passenger who is swept along the movie.” The review pointed out that the characters said many times, “The universe has a way of leading you where you are supposed to be at the moment you are supposed to be there.” Wait a minute. The universe wanted her to be a Men in Black agent and not the incomprehensible flashback? Wow, what a complete mess.
The host of flaws gave me a lot to think about and this resulted in a revelation about a book I am writing. The lead character undertakes an epic journey to locate a woman. What is the timeline, goals, and motivation? Is he a “passive reactive character who is swept along the book?” Dang!!! That hit close to home.
After giving the matter lots of thought, it became clear that this negative description fit. Now what? If you are one of the four followers of my blog, you will know that I am (now) a believer in using a book outline. I read over my outline and identified the big motivation gap. Darn, I should have found that earlier.
After brooding about this issue for a few days, I looked over the section where the character decides to undertake his journey. It’s clear that readers wouldn’t understand his motivation. Later, my story reveals his true motivation (his love for the women.)
Clearly, I needed to update this section in order to better explain my character’s thought process. Unfortunately, the plot centers around the main character and he is a passenger to the plot. My counterargument is that we can undertake epic journeys while being the passenger. For example, my family took a trip to Paris. I didn’t fly the plane, and we had a great time. In my opinion, not all stories require a dominate take-charge character. However, stories that have this type of character do read better.
I would like to thank the creator of this video. I gained some knowledge about basic story and I think the result will be a better book after some editing to that section. A negative review resulted in a positive outcome. Well. What have I learned? It’s clear that I need to think more about character motivation while creating an outline. My characters need to step up their game and lead the story. Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work. Perhaps I should watch Men in Black International when it comes out on DVD and blissfully ignore the flaws.

I Wish I Read More

Literature and media provide us with a rich diversity of time travel stories. Of course, physics explains that time travel formulas require a substantial amount of energy. Plus, the predicted result wouldn’t fall in line with popular plots. At best, our bodies would be frozen in a single moment without the ability to feel or interact. At worst, our bodies would be disintegrated.
Placing physics aside, it would be amazing to see dinosaurs and meet famous people. Teddy Roosevelt, Tesla, Columbus, Einstein, Creaser, and Pocahontas. How about having a beer with George Washington?
From my own life, I would like to meet my young grandparents. Recently, I became aware that my grandfather had been a badass OSS agent. What adventures did he have? Our family has a minor mystery. My great Grandfather got dementia and took out a large loan with his company as collateral. Where did the money go? He couldn’t remember and the company folded.
Growing up, I made many mistakes, and I have wondered what it would be like to go back in time and correct those mistakes. For example, I didn’t regularly brush my teeth until the age of 10. Of course, by that age, I had a mouth full of fillings. However, there is a problem with this scenario. Let’s pretend 50-year-old Bill meets 6-year-old Bill. “Brush your teeth!” “No way. Old man!” I remember 6-year-old Bill. He’s a kid in the 1970s who did his own thing and wouldn’t listen to anybody. I see the same behavior in my daughter when I try to get her to brush her teeth. That’s the problem with lofty ideas about changing the past. What happened, did so for a reason and simply desiring to make a change is not as easy as it might sound.
In the ’70s, my mother took us to the library, and I selected the typical books like the Hardy Boys. Unfortunately, I didn’t read beyond boy’s fiction and reading didn’t occupy much of my life. Part of the problem stems from the poor selection of 1970’s books. Another issue involved the tedious task of returning them.
An underlying time travel goal has been to ask my younger self to read more. Why? I feel it would have made me a better person and improved my English skills. Plus, I wouldn’t have wasted so much time watching the 70’s television.
Let’s explore this concept. Old Bill convinces young Bill to read more. The result would be a more educated adult Bill with better English skills. Now, hold on. Part of childhood is wasting time doing kid things. Riding bikes, talking to friends, watching useless TV, sleeping in and annoying parents. This change would alter the balance between reading and doing kid activities. As a result, present Bill’s social skills would be less evolved. Would this tradeoff have made me a better person? I cling to the belief that it would and yet my heart disagrees.
Childhood is difficult, and the playground taught us more lessons than in the classroom. How does a boy deal with the bully? How does that boy become the bully? How does a shy boy ask a pretty confident girl out on a date?
Let’s do another time travel experiment. Young Bill’s family is transported to the present time. Life has changed since the ’70s. We have more books and they are easy to obtain. The playground is understood and more forgiving. Yet, cell phones, the internet, and modern pressures have made modern children social introverts. There is certainly more to read, and it’s easy to download books. Now, kids get their “social” over their cell phones. Would future 50-year-old Bill wants present 6-year-old Bill to read more?
I suspect future 50-year-old Bill’s social skills would be reduced, he would read more and he would have a better education. Our modern age no longer requires social skills. Is that a sad reality or an improvement? The present Bill needs to read about this topic and decide in private.

Writing Humor

I consider The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy to the funniest book ever written. Douglas Addams breezes from one humorous concept to the next. Yet, the movie and television show was awful. Why? Funny books are difficult to translate into funny movies because authors must take different humorous approaches. Jokes in books require long setups, visual humor does not work and comedic timing is impossible to convey.
For example, The Hitchhikers Guide contains a funny reference to the number 42; the answer to life the universe and everything. It took several chapters to build up to this funny conclusion. Yet, when the TV show unveiled the answer, it didn’t make me laugh. Why? The movie presented the number as an inconsequential fact without buildup. Of course, the result would not be funny.
Media depends on subtle nuances. For example, in the Monty Python TV show, the actors do a comical goose-step walk. A riot to watch and terrible to read. “Bob walked in using a comical goose-step.” Not funny at all; nearly an insult to readers. Media takes advantage of timing, facial expressions, sounds, comical voices, strait person impact, and audience laughter.
Humor may be used in several ways. For example, a protagonist uses humor to display cruelty, intolerance, stupidity or arrogance. It also breaks up a scene to keep the plot moving. A comical scene may reveal a character’s depth. Even telling a bad (not funny) joke may be funny, revealing, insightful and character defining.
I have written several funny scenes. Unfortunately, they rank at best 30% on the Douglas Addams humor scale. In-person, I consider myself funny but I find it difficult to write humorous scenes. As an example, the character Grace discusses how her old house could become popular and another character calls it Grace-Land. During an actual conversation, a real person would at the very least smile. Yet this mild humor took a lot of effort to create and isn’t too funny to read.
Well, can an author fill a book full of jokes? “Why did the police arrest the turkey? They suspected foul play.” Ha! Really funny. Well, no. Joke books have been available for years and don’t fly off the shelves. Are jokes and funny scenes required? In all the Tom Clancy books, I don’t recall a single humorous moment thus proving that an author can do well without humor.
However, we clearly see that humor is important. It adds to the flow and rounds out characters. On a subconscious level, humor tugs at the reader’s heart and adds to the experience. As an author, I need to stretch my boundaries and introduce more humor. Now if I could only find a funny way to end this blog…

Numbers

Modern society runs on numbers and it’s essential for all of us to understand their significance. We have stock markets, accountants, statisticians, mathematicians and computers which are all dedicated to numbers. Together, they produce petabytes of data every day that fill every corner of our lives. Today, I weighed 120.2 pounds. Yay! How about 220.2 pounds? Is that too much? My weight is only a number and yet, I am aware that it is a measure of my health and how others perceive me.
Numbers quantify and distinguish with infinite precision. “Bob tried to start the car three times.” Why not four or two? The number three precisely describes Bob’s tenacity and the car’s status. Yet, only readers who use cars are able to appreciate this number. “Karen needed $120 to pay for the ticket.” This number directly relates to Karen’s finances. For a wealthy person, this sum would be insignificant while it would exceed the life’s savings of a poor person.
We are only able to quantify time with a number. “Fred used 15 minutes to complete his task.” The reader can now precisely comprehend Fred’s level of frustration, time management, and time investment. Readers appreciate his sacrifice as they have worked on tasks requiring 15 minutes.
Humans love to round numbers. “How many nails do you have? About a hundred.” Why not, “Exactly 98.” Or, “About 110.” Sometimes we round to even, tens or five’s. “That took over 20 minutes.” “The speed is 55 miles per hour.” “It’s 50 kilometers to Chicago.” “We need 12 eggs.” Has anybody ever needed 11 or 13 eggs?
We also need to correlate our numbers to something intangible. I suspect we have a primal instinct to depend on known values that provide our lives with references. 220 pounds is a good weight. 15 minutes is not enough time to walk to school. $100 dollars is too much.
Numbers allow us to have descriptions containing great precision. Bob cannot start the car 3.5 times. He either turns the key or not. Yet, I can define my weight with near-infinite precision, 99.12345678 pounds. Yes, I did make that number up. It’s obvious because the fractional part of the number is in numerical order. Plus, readers know that bathroom weights work in increments of 0.1 pounds.
Humans cling to strange numerical beliefs. Seven is a lucky number. Thirteen is unlucky. Cats have nine lives. We even have a numerical religion/belief called Numerology. For some people, their weddings must occur on a certain day. Houses may not be purchased with a street number containing a 9. Being born on the first day of a month is a bad sign.
As a writer, I think a lot about numbers. What is a good number of attempts for Bob to start his car? How would my character react to spending $120? How long does a task take to complete? It’s important for characters to properly interact with realistic numbers. Sally finished her minimum wage job and spent $500 on a burger. A perfectly valid sentence, yet readers easily spot the error.
In a good story, the proper use of numbers is essential. Errors are easy identified and a less than perfect number will leave readers annoyed. Yet, numbers represent power. A writer may define characters with extreme precision. Bob tried to start the car over 100 times. What a fighter! The ending of this blog took only one sentence.

Life is Always More Complicated

It’s tempting to describe our lives using simple concepts. Sally entered the conference room and yelled at her coworkers. Why? Person one knows her to be a mean person. Person two is aware of Sally’s personal issues which clearly affected her judgment. Person three is convinced her anger resulted from their project failing to meet the required numbers. Person four insulted Sally last week and this is retribution. Four different people and four different conclusions. Yet, each person is convinced they understand Sally.
In the above example, the “truth” is likely a combination of factors, a single overriding factor or something unrelated. Humans can be unpredictable, distracted, confused and obsessed. What’s worse is that the very element which guides us (our minds) may be damaged, obsessed or drugged out. The possibility also exists that our emotions result from boredom, mistakes, or somebody else’s involvement. To make matters worse, we lie, deceive, hate and are confused.
If we invented a scanner to see inside Sally’s mind, it’s likely that her anger resulted from a specific issue. Before she entered the room, she focused her anger enough to speak. Let’s pretend that the logical conclusion is correct; the team’s bad numbers upset Sally. The last time this occurred, she yelled at the team resulting in workplace improvement. Yet, during Sally’s rant, she didn’t mention numbers. Did she lose her cool and forgot the main topic?
What kind of person is Sally? Is she a jerk, uncontrolled, stupid, arrogant, over-confident or spiteful? Did she make an honest mistake? Is this event indicative of her life? Will the team’s performance improve? Plus, we have not considered what will occur after the event. There may be weeks of hurt feelings, retribution, slowdown, HR reports or sabotage. Perhaps there will be growth, change, energetic coworkers and improved numbers.
What’s the point? It’s easy to assume that Sally is not a complex person. She got mad one day and nothing more. I disagree. Sally is a mature woman with a developed personality based on a lifetime of education, experiences, social experiments, observation of others and mistakes. Even if she had a single overriding reason, many aspects came into play. It took effort to speak up and Sally made a choice.
Now that we have discussed Sally’s complex life, let's write about it. That endeavor presents a problem. Most fictional stories have many characters. She may simply be a minor character to move the plot along. Alternatively, Sally might be the main character with an extensive background. Her motives must be explained and fully vetted. This will allow the reader to appreciate her role, decisions, actions, and reasoning.
Even if Sally’s character contains a well-described background, no book could fully capture her lifetime of experience. As readers, we understand that the simple act of yelling at a bunch of people contains more depth. Every word, action, and reactions are essential to understand the overall incident. (For example, did Sally swear, quote the bible, talk down or provide an inspirational message.) If an author were to describe Sally in-depth, the book would be massive, boring, overly descriptive and difficult to publish/write. To solve this issue, we accepted an uncomplicated Sally; one day, she yelled at her team.
Nonfiction authors must travel down a different path. Let’s pretend Sally is actually the famous aviator Amelia Earhart. Amelia walked into the room and yelled at the people about her flight plan. Umm... It’s not that easy. While Amelia is no longer with us, we must answer many questions. What is the foundation for her anger? Why did she choose to speak up that day? Is she always this angry? Readers must understand her personality/motives/history in order to put the significance of this historical event into context. Unfortunately, Amelia's actions are in the past, cannot be changed and she cannot be interviewed. As a writer, the only option is to explain her actions/decisions in the best possible context.
Why? As humans, we cannot accept the basic premise that (the real) Amelia randomly yelled at a group. Something needed to guide her actions and readers need to understand the source of her anger. However, the writer describing the incident needs to guess about her true motives. The result is a fact-based opinion that explains her actions.
In life, we have a different method of looking at people. In the above example, we would be either person one, two, three, four or Sally. Let’s pretend we’re person one. Sally is a mean person, she yelled at me and I no longer like her. Simple. Right?
Life is more complex. It’s likely that after a good night’s sleep and things would not seem as bad. She might apologize or at least appear to be disappointed about her actions. Or we could calmly discuss the matter. Alternatively, there could be negative consequences. However, from that point forward, the relationship between Sally and me would change. Humans have excellent memories and they use their experiences in many ways.
This point of this blog is that life is quite complex and a simple event is not simple. Humans have a lot going on and yet, we try to write about complex events as if they were simple. It’s fun to explore people and characters. Yet, we can never fully capture them.

Emotional Writing

As a result of my endless hours of editing, I wanted to discuss a reoccurring pattern. It’s easier to edit sentences that are logical, factual or funny. I blast through grammar checks and the sentences don’t require large changes. Why? These basic concepts don’t require lofty explanations. X leads to Y, which causes Z. Simple, clear, basic and easy to explain.
Passion, sadness, anger, and joy complicate writing. X happened and Bob feels… Gahh. What does Bob feel? Bob is upset. No, let’s make him angry. Is “upset” different from “angry?” Well, sort of; that’s complex. X happened and Bob feels angry. Wow, that reads awful. Bob cannot suddenly feel angry, something must have set him off. Plus, we cannot randomly inject a basic feeling, it must be carefully described.
Bob is so angry that his blood boiled. Much better. Now, Bob requires a complete back-story with supporting dialog to reveal how his anger affects others. “Sally, I feel terrible. X makes my heart ache; like it is being crushed by a thousand needles.” Powerful and incomplete.
Does a human heartache as if it is being crushed by a thousand needles? In reality, an emotional event doesn’t send needles into a heart. Also, needles don’t cause “ache” they cause sharp pain. Wow, this basic emotional description became complex.
Let’s play with this sentence. “X makes my heart ache like it is being crushed by a thousand sharp rods.” Better, but wrong. Alright, let’s fix the original sentence. “X makes my heartache under the force of a thousand needles.” Worse, yet more “correct.” This sentence must be scrapped and the author needs to go in a different direction.
Last night, I edited two paragraphs for style. These paragraphs addressed the main character giving his horse to a family. It took me over an hour to fix and the results still needs work.
Why? The main character liked the horse, and the family wanted to show their appreciation. I needed to share his thoughts and get an emotional reaction. At the same time, I needed to make sure I used good logic, grammar, and flow. Finding that balance between emotional content and good sentence structure is difficult. To make matters worse, I often add the words “I” “feel” “he/she” and “me.” The result reads like a stuttering child who discovered a thesaurus. Drives me crazy.
On the other side of the coin, there must be distance, reflection, and regret. How did Bob feel after the event? Well, why not skip that emotional junk? That’s easy. Readers hate dispassionate stories.
The core of every good story rests on an emotional foundation. It’s a key part of building the bridge into a reader’s mind and I enjoy writing about emotions. It’s fun to dig deep into a character’s mind to pull out their most sacred thoughts. However, the result is difficult to edit. The sentences read like a five-year-old describing his first bike.
In reading other works, I am not alone. Many books overcompensate or miss the mark with regard to emotions. Normal characters are emotional messes and horrific characters are confusingly nice. It’s a great feeling to know that I have company in this area.
Fortunately, I see this area as something that I can improve upon. This struggle makes my heartache like a…

Predicting the Future

We often attempt to predict the future. “The stock market is going up today.” When our predictions fail, we dismiss this onetime mistake. Our ability to predict the future extends deep into writing. As an example, nearly every science fiction movie/story is set in the future. Readers and viewers love futuristic technology and societies that have futuristic problems.
However, we haven’t come to grasp with how bad our future predictions are. Is the stock market going up or down? This simple question has a yes/no answer, yet we cannot reliably answer that question. Of course, not being able to predict the future isn’t necessarily bad. If we had this ability, we wouldn’t have sports, gambling or news. However, wars, car accidents and crime wouldn’t occur. Amusing tradeoffs.
Let’s explore a basic example. A few weeks ago, I got a flat tire. How could I have predicted that? Math can answer this question. On average, cars get X number of flat tires per year. This means I had a Y% chance that day. Given the types of roads I travel, I estimate my odds at 1:500 or a 0.2% chance of getting a flat tire. Of course, we accept that this percentage is an estimate and not a prediction. Why did my number come up that particular day? My luck simply ran out.
This 0.2% situation is understandable at a basic level (we accept that cars get flat tires) and yet, I am unable to predict it. A random nail, ended up on the road I chose to travel down on that day and I randomly struck it.
What about a non-random event? It took thousands of people many months to plan the Pearl Harbor attack. Every one of them knew the attack would occur and chose not to share this information. While there were warning signs, the attack caught the military by surprise. Could that large event have been predicted? In my opinion, the warning signs should have been taken more seriously. However, history records that many sources of information were ignored and thus, nobody accurately predicted the event.
Of course, our lack of future predicting ability does not prevent authors/screenwriters from trying their best. We even have futuristic shows like the Jetsons where an entire society is visualized. The problem with such situations is they are largely incorrect. In the 1950s, writers predicted flying cars, atomic wars, space travel to distant planets, thinking computers, robots, and perfect health. All of this would occur in the 1980s.
In addition, the 1950s authors did not predict the amazing things which did occur. We now have powerful cell phones and the world watched the rise/fall/rise of China/Russia. However, our society is mostly the same, and the predicted atomic wars didn’t occur. Not much drama. Where is the disconnect? Let’s look at the single topic of computers. In the 1950’s they were huge and expensive. It seemed reasonable they would evolve to be smaller and faster. However, the people who imagined what they could do misinterpreted the fundamental computer basics.
At the heart of a computer is a processor, and this runs software. As a system, computers are limited to the available information and their programming logic. The prediction that computers will “think” like us is flawed. This is because a person can imagine, explore and come to wild conclusions far beyond available information and logic. Computers will never be able to act with such chaos. Yet, authors and screenwriters continue to ignore this fundamental fact.
What about Siri and Amazon Echo? We can speak to them and they “think.” Not exactly. “Hey, Seri. What is 2+2?” “Four.” “Hey Seri. I have two oranges and two apples. How much fruit do I have?” “I’m unable to answer that.” Is that a real question? Of course. Does it have a logical answer? Sure. The problem is that the answer is abstract, and the world is 99% abstract. I am sure Siri will evolve to the point where basic questions may be answered, but a computer equivalent to a person is a long way off.
The reality of life 100 years from now will be 10% amazing and 90% the same. People will still put on socks one foot at a time, drive cars with wheels, go to work with lousy bosses, eat food from farms, go to school with teachers and sleep on beds. What if aliens land? Those aliens will be from planets that are 30% amazing and 70% the same as earth. Their alien children will go to boring alien schools with alien teachers that go home and sleep in their alien beads after eating alien food grown on alien farms.
One last thought. In the Dick Tracy comic strip, they use communication watches. Wow, just like an Apple Watch with Skype. Yay, the predictions did come true. Hold on. While visually similar, they are not at all the same. The Dick Tracy watch is an extension of television and radio. Dick Tracy uses his watch to communicate directly to his boss over radio. He cannot call up a random person and have a visual conversation like we can with an Apple watch.
Overall, an Apple watch is not a communication device. Instead, it allows many applications to interact with the user. Could the author of Dick Tracy have predicted this device? In my opinion no. Why? It took many leaps in technology to get to an Apple watch; far more than could have been predicted.
Where does this lead us? Reading stories that take place in the future is exciting but they will never be accurate. That’s fine as long as we remember this fact. Will I attempt to write stories set in the distant future? Of course. Predicting the future is fun. Plus, it is easy. The future has not happened yet and who is to say I am wrong until we get there.

Defining Fear

Evolution provided our minds with a healthy sense of fear. Long ago, we learned not to touch fire, say mean things to big strong people or walk close to a cliff. Those individuals with a weak sense of fear passed away without offspring. Today we fear many subjects which range from minor annoyances to fictional horrors beyond imagination. For example, scientists remind us that a meteorite could wipe out all life on earth. Yes, this occurred in our distant past. Yikes!
Let’s start this blog off with a good scare. What is the most (safe) fearful activity a person can experience? How about a Halloween amusement park? A person walks through dark rooms, listens to scary noises and suddenly, an unseen hand reaches out. Boo! Wow, that does not read scary, but in real life, such experiences gets our blood pumping.
This weekend, the movie IT Two is playing. It’s loaded with scary music, bloody graphics, intense surprises, and dramatic build-ups. These movies certainly scare audiences. And yet, terms like “bloody graphics” do not evoke fear in readers.
How about a less than safe experience? A person walks around an abandoned building, stands on a cliff, hangs from a tree branch or drives recklessly. All terrifying experiences, but, not too scary to read. Bob waked near a cliff. And nearly fell off! Ohhh. Scared me to death.
I gave the topic some thought and came up with the most terrifying (short term) situation possible. (As opposed to being locked up for a lifetime of torture.) Bob meets a person and they reveal his social security number, address, bank account balance, daily schedule and family member names. How does this mystery person know Bob’s personal information? In real life, this experience would be frightening. Why? The mystery person only said a few words. No threats, consequences, demands or actions. No panic room could save Bob from calm words.
Let’s take this situation a step further. The mystery person tells Bob a personal detail he never revealed. Can this person read minds? Now, let's take this situation to the edge. “Bob, that scar on your leg. I cut you on your eighth birthday.” What the heck? How did that happen? Time travel? Is this person related to me? Now the final push. The person reveals they are able to harm Bob in the past. Bob understands he is completely at this person’s mercy. The worst possible fear.
Umm… Not reading too scary. Yet, if this occurrence happened to us, we would be terrified beyond comprehension. It’s difficult to convey deep fear in a written format. Movies are able to provide viewers imagines conveying emotions. Audiences see fear in expressions, which helps them to connect with their own fears. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Written stories must take a different approach. The author first connects with the reader through character development. Readers become comfortable and form emotional bonds. Only then can an author dramatically harm a character which will instill a reader’s fear.
What are some great ways an author can do this? Umm. I am still figuring this out. Sorry. My best approach is to do a great job of connecting with readers and then build suspense. Do my readers experience a good scare? Umm, probably not.
I’m not into reading scary books and this limits what I am able to write. The stories I have come up with do contain far more drama than my own life. For example, in one scene, two characters climb up a cliff and nearly die. I think this part of the book reads scary. However, experienced readers would appreciate that an author cannot kill off the main characters at the beginning.
Emotions are difficult to convey in written form and fear is no exception. I do my best to keep readers in suspense and then and bring them back to a comfortable setting. I suppose my disdain for suspenseful reading material limits my market. Or is that fear talking?

The Subject of Death

Death has been linked to life since the dawn of the single cell. Our reaction to death evolved into fear, acceptance, enjoyment and finally, infliction. Of course, writers tap into this subject with gusto. Why? Death represents so many extreme attributes.
“Do this or you will die!” “Are you willing to risk your life?” Simple and powerful statements. “Sam died to protect us.” OMG, how terrible. “Jane allowed her child to die in order to satisfy her beliefs.” No subject could be worse and an entire book could be based on that sentence.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have characters who embrace death. “Hi, Mom. I killed 100 people today. That’s nice honey. Dinner is on the table.” To make matters worse, there are actually people who encourage death on a horrific scale. I recently read the book Frozen Hell about the Russian-Finland war. In a single battle, Joseph Stalin ordered 27,500 Russian soldiers to their deaths. All of these soldiers were real people with real families and they died in the trivial pursuit of stealing territory from another country.
Death spans the story spectrum from being comic relief to the definition of horror. No matter how hard we try, we cannot avoid it. However, that stone-cold fact has not stopped people from trying. We created the entire branch of science (medicine) to keep death at bay. There is even the pseudoscience of freezing people with the hope of being brought back to life.
Authors embrace death and revolve their plots around it. When they took the topic to its limits, they developed physics-defying concepts. We now “have” immortals, vampires, and zombies. That’s correct. Authors have successfully cheated death. They even take it a step further with time travel. A child “can” go back in time to prevent their own death.
Fortunately, there is no such thing as time travel and zombies. Pure fiction. Nope. I read all about those 27,500 Russian soldiers as if they were transported into the future. Just like a zombie, these soldiers came back to life to entertain me. Alright, that may be a lofty technicality. However, once I put that book down, those brave soldiers may finally rest in peace. Nope. Just like an immortal, in 10 years, the Russian-Finland war will be “discovered” by another author. This author will go over the historical documents and write another groundbreaking book to entertain a new batch of readers. Zombies are real.
Even I am guilty of snatching death out of the grim reaper icy cold grasp. In my first book, the main character is a 500-year-old woman who survives by killing others. Her character is similar to a vampire and represents deaths ultimate duality. Am I taunting death? Seems like it.
We love fictional characters who take a hard slap at death. The recent Twilight story explored characters who murder without consequence. Video games take this a step further and allow a player to kill other characters. The computer vividly displays the opponent’s deaths by splattering blood all over the screen as if death’s hand is grasping the joystick.
Even non-fiction writers appreciate a good battle scene. In the book Frozen Hell, war is studied, glorified and put into a new perspective. Those 27,500 Russian soldiers are not real people (because they are dead); they are real story. Why would somebody want to glorify death? Good stories sell books and book sales pay author’s rent. Well, at least that is a worthy goal (that I have yet to experience.)
On a personal level, I fear death. I want to experience all I can out of life and I do my best to be healthy. Yet, I am curious. What will happen when I die? Science tells us that nothing will occur. Our cells will stop functioning and decay into dust. Religion, hope, and pseudoscience provide an alternative view. This included reincarnation, heaven, hell, and the afterlife. According to that logic, I can fulfill a minor goal and meet Amelia Earhart. That would be amazing.
I spend a lot of time thinking about death. This includes avoiding danger, embracing the topic in writing, exploring our deadly history and keeping my body healthy. I have come to understand that death is not necessarily bad. If humans were immortal, it would be impossible to feed everybody. Those who seek revenge could never accomplish their goals and wars would continue into eternity. Death wipes the slate clean and provides food for ants.
I suppose we should thank death. He has taken so much from us and left us an amazing world free from dying people. Plus, he provided endless story material. And yet, I really don’t want to die. Perhaps that makes death the best character there has ever been.

Being a Perfectionist

Children don’t have much control over their environments and compensate by attempting to act independently. For some, this drive leads to huge messes and in others, it leads to order. My childhood contained 90% mess and 10% order.
The order in my life centered around the activities I enjoyed. This included playing with toys and taking things apart to see how they worked. As I grew, my personality changed, and I began emphasizing order over chaos. This change spiked in the ninth grade where my focus shifted towards improving my grades and keeping my room clean. I suppose this is the genesis of my perfectionist attitude.
Over the years, my conscious attitude toward perfection encompassed my job, driving, house, and lifestyle. Of course, I do not apply my compulsion toward all aspects of my life and I have little desire to clean those areas up.
I am aware of my perfectionist attitude and I attempt to manage it. If I were to survey my friends, I suspect they would likely score me at 30% on the perfection scale. This is due to my casual approach to life and lack of confrontation.
When I apply my attitude, I am aware that it can be annoying to those around me. I have an innate desire to keep tinkering. I simply cannot leave something alone until I have fully gone over every aspect multiple times. As an example, I am presently working on a technical drawing that has been submitted five times. Each submission contained minor improvements. However, I am still not comfortable enough to consider it done. Did my perfection result in a better drawing? Did the cost justify the result? In this case, I believe it did, but in the process, I upset two people. In past projects, I clearly should have declared “good enough” much earlier.
Perfection travels deep into my writing. As an example, this blog will be written over the course of 2-3 days. I will then review it for two weeks and do a spell/grammar/style check with two different programs. I put my books through many additional steps plus spot checks.
During book editing, I make many changes and clearly have a strong perfectionist streak. These changes range from single word updates to adding or removing entire chapters. Of course, I see improved results, which clearly read better. Sometimes the story changes, but normally the story is 99% the same. The 1% change comes from filling in gaps and removing distractions. However, one could argue that I should have achieved a state of “good enough” months before the actual release.
Does my perfectionist attitude make a better book? Clearly, the grammar will be better as well as the flow. However, multiple edits can take away the subtle details which give the book its charm. I suppose this makes my works bland and action orientated.
On a side note, I read recently read the book Reamde by Neal Stephenson and I noticed many areas requiring editing. My perfectionist attitude demanded that I edit the work. I found this amusing and strangely compulsive. Overall, it reminded me of what I used to find acceptable.
Another problem with my attitude is that it takes a long time to get through the editing process. My efforts infuriate my editors and cover designers. I am sure they would prefer me to stop meddling with the process. I simply cannot let go and trust them to do their jobs.
In confronting my perfectionist attitude, I have come up with a better plan for my next two works. I am going to do a more disciplined job of editing before turning them over to the professionals. In a way, this will be harnessing my perfectionist attitude. Of course, I have developed a checklist to help in this endeavor. The circle of perfection is complete.
Will I be able to reduce my perfectionist attitude as I grow older? Alas, no. In many ways, I am honing my attitude to encourage perfection. I suppose a perfectionist can never sit still. Dang. The truth hurts. Something for my perfectionist mind to consider.