Michael Offutt's Blog, page 61

Why is our society so merciless?

I've spent a lot of time pondering this question. My father has reached a point in his life where I'm deciding on putting him into an assisted living facility. Right now, he has expensive home care which is slowly (if not inexorably) marching his lifetime of savings toward a zero balance (but he gets to live in his home). Assisted living will essentially cost the same thing, but will hopefully solve some issues he brought up to me regarding loneliness and boredom. My father planned well financially, he did all the right things, but the cost of home care for aged folks is staggering, and there is no insurance that pays for it except Medicaid. And Medicaid kicks in only after you're down to your last $2,000.00 of everything that you own.

I think this future that waits for most Americans is disheartening. A few are oblivious to it. They either don't want to know, or they don't want to think about it. But our healthcare industry and long-term care for people in their 80's and beyond is functionally broken and terrible. Add to this the complexity of filling out things like taxes for old folks who no longer understand how to gather together documents, and it becomes even worse. Our society is relentless, with monthly recurring bills, annual taxes that need to be filed and paid, insurance documents that need to be kept track of, accounts that need to be checked, and the list goes on and on. When I visited my father last week, he had a stack of envelopes on his desk in his office. He shrugged and told me he was overwhelmed by it all. So I spent hours going through them, paying bills, setting up autopay, etc. These are things that the care provider we hired wouldn't touch. She just wants to provide care, not get entangled in understanding paperwork or finances.

This is a new development with my father who seemed fine in just November of 2018. However, things can change rapidly for older folks. I guess I don't understand (and am a little frustrated) by how complicated our society is. I do hundreds of things every single day to keep track of just myself. I check credit cards to make sure there are no erroneous charges, I check my bank account, I check four different email addresses for correspondence, I open letters that get sent to my mailing address, I watch to see if subscriptions change their pricing and start to charge more, I clip coupons for groceries, and the list goes on and on.

Folks, you may not be aware of it, but our society is so complicated that it takes a fully functional brain of more than average intelligence to be on top of all this. But the thing is, not everyone is born with all the same tools as everyone else. And age robs us of abilities to do things that we previously took for granted. My big question about this is why? Why isn't life easier? Wouldn't it make logical sense to make a society that the lowest common denominator could easily negotiate?

It's a legitimate question with seemingly no available answer. It's no wonder that our population is plagued with anxiety. Who wouldn't be when the society at large is filled with relentless trauma and never-ending work? I wonder what the breaking point will be, or if there even is one.

Ooh the Insecure Writer's Support Group question is about using wishes on your writing this month.

I'd just got done watching the latest trailer for the Disney adaptation of Aladdin online, when I clicked over to the IWSG question to compose my post for April. Lo and behold, it's about using magic to help with writing. And not just any magic, but the all-powerful "Wish."

As a caveat, I would probably want to use a wish on something else other than my own writing. Winning Lotto numbers for a $750 million jackpot seems like a good use of a wish. But that isn't the question. The question for April is this:

April 3 question: If you could use a wish to help you write just ONE scene/chapter of your book, which one would it be? (examples: fight scene / first kiss scene / death scene / chase scene / first chapter / middle chapter / end chapter, etc.)

This is an easy question for me to answer. I'd use a wish to write the ending. Endings are always hard, and I find (quite often) that I tweak them over and over, always searching for something that will be satisfying. I was in awe (recently) when I read the ending to the Riyria Revelations, specifically the ending to the book Percepliquis, by Michael J. Sullivan. He'd subtly threaded throughout his entire story this myth of a god that was walking the earth trying to atone for a great misdeed he had committed upon his own daughter (a fellow goddess). Each time that he pleased her by doing something for a mortal, she would send him a single feather as a token of her approval.

Well we got introduced to a ton of characters in these books, but a minor one (in about book three) became a real joy. He was an old man that went to work in a royal household and his skills focused on heraldry, chivalry, and all the nuances of proper royal behavior. He quickly became a confidant of the new Empress, who knew none of these things, and became the head of the household, advising her on all the things she needed to know regarding banquets and guests and politics, etc. He was quite the delight (all the royal pageantry was essentially based on French royalty before the revolution). Anyway, his insights over the course of three or four books made possible the threading of a very convoluted and world-shaking plot that recharted the course of humanity for generations to come. At the end of the book, this minor character (the main characters were the bulk of the story) was offered a permanent position at court to which he politely declined. One of the main characters watched the old man walk away on a road on a sunny afternoon when he heard a thunderclap in the sky that made him jump. A single feather appeared and floated down to the old man and he caught it. Then he smiled at the main character and vanished.

And that was the end of the book. I thought to myself, "Wow! I never expected that, and the ending couldn't have been more perfect than that." I guess the author agreed, because he said in his notes at the end of the book (and has written on his blog) that he doesn't think he could ever write sequels to that story. So he's focusing on other stories that take place beforehand and with other characters.

So yeah, long story short: I would use my wish to write a perfect ending. That being said (and with a dearth of wishes to spare), it looks like I'll just have to settle with toiling over them until I feel they are ready to be released into the world.

I'm glad Arrow is ending.

I've enjoyed Arrow, but the last few seasons have not been as good or as fresh as the storylines it used to tell. Oliver Queen got a kid, and there was a lot of drama about that. They switched to fast forwards instead of looking back on the island (which was a running theme for so many years of the show). But the old switcheroo was kind of jarring for me, and it still is. I guess there are no more good stories to tell in Oliver Queen's past. And Felicity Smoak's character has evolved in ways that I didn't really like, as did Diggle's. And then all the secondary characters just kind of took over somewhere in all that mess. I mean, there was an entire show a few weeks ago that didn't even feature any of the main characters. I was like, "Who are these people and why should I care about them?"

Good shows need to end. When they don't, it's kind of like they sacrifice all dignity for the sake of a money grab, and everything seems so drawn out and not fun. Supernatural became this for me around season 8 (so I stopped watching). The Walking Dead reached this point with me early in this season when they abandoned Rick as a main character and he wandered off to the discard pile.

So yeah, I'm glad Arrow is ending. I'm not so glad that Emily Bett Rickards (she plays Felicity) posted that she won't be back for the last season of the show. It feels very much like what happened with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, when the actress who played Jadzia Dax decided not to renew her contract, and the showrunner decided to kill her character off and replace her with Ezri Dax. That change (for the last season) forever left a sour taste in my mouth regarding Deep Space Nine, even though I do enjoy watching reruns of it on H&I here in Utah. I mean...the wedding episode of Jadzia Dax and Worf was so spectacular, and that barely happened when they abandoned the character. What a waste.

So yeah, I'm glad Arrow is ending. I just hope it doesn't spell doom for the other CW shows. I rather like Legends of Tomorrow and The Flash. And we are getting a Batwoman series, which I think will be rather interesting. I wonder if the League of Shadows will make an appearance in Gotham City. Personally, I think the League of Shadows was the most interesting aspect of Arrow, and they kinda went downhill once they abandoned the Ra's al Ghul storyline. It takes a good villain to drive a good story, and the League of Shadows does that in spades. I guess only time will tell.

Taking a one week break. I'll be back on April 1st.

Can you believe March is almost over? It's insane how fast this year is going. Three months in the basket already. Before long, I'll be mowing my lawn.

I'm taking a week off. I'll start blogging again on April 1st. That's when Legends of Tomorrow starts up again, so I think the timing will be perfect.

See you then.

I'm a little disappointed that Captain Marvel has an Achilles Heel.

I wrote in an earlier post that there were no counters to Captain Marvel's powers in her movie. Well I learned from IGN recently that it's true, Captain Marvel appears to be unstoppable. However, in that same article, Kevin Feige assures us all that Carol Danvers will in fact have an "Achilles heel." So basically, she's just like Superman now. Why am I disappointed? I guess I was getting on the train boarded by George R.R. Martin who wrote:

"The movie is hugely entertaining. I look forward to seeing how the Marvel teams uses the captain in the forthcoming Avengers movie. Once she comes fully into her powers, she is far and away the most powerful character in the MCU. She could eat Iron Man for lunch and have Thor for dessert, with a side of Doctor Strange. Thanos is in trouble now."

Well, I guess Thanos is in trouble provided he doesn't exploit the afore-mentioned "Achilles Heel." But something tells me that this will be exactly what happens.

It all seems so "constructed," doesn't it? As if it were all carefully plotted...painstakingly so...and the fate of all these characters were left...god forbid...up to writers.
Oh geez...I think I just popped my own bubble of suspension of disbelief. Don't go there, kids, just don't. It's no fun to peek behind the curtain and see the Wizard of Oz for what he truly is.

The final season of Game of Thrones is less than 30 days away.

The final season of Game of Thrones is less than 30 days away as of this writing. It's been a long wait to see who will take the Iron Throne. Just to show you how much it has been on my mind, a frenemy (I realized after I was his friend that he was a narcissist and psychological abuser) that I haven't spoke to in over a decade died in January of kidney failure (I didn't really feel anything at the news, but I did wonder why someone even bothered to tell me). However, when I was told the news through an acquaintance (who I also haven't seen in person for over ten years--the message came through Facebook messenger of all places), the first thing that popped into my head was, "He doesn't get to see how it all ends." It seemed like a fate that was just salt in a wound, you know?

I hope that I never die when I'm about to finish something that's gripped my attention for years. And all this speculation of course is assuming that this frenemy even watched Game of Thrones. But, I had little doubt though that he did. When we were on speaking terms, it was apparent that we were passionate about the same things, and Game of Thrones has pretty much dominated all of fantasy fiction for the last decade. Kudos to George R.R. Martin to getting us so enraptured into the politics of some fictional kingdom whose ruler (I might add) won't even be ruler of the world of Westeros. Nope, they'll just be the ruler of seven smaller kingdoms on a continent that's smaller in land mass than the rest of the land on Westeros. It just goes to show you that politics and conflict can be small and yet remain incredibly interesting.

According to Entertainment Weekly in an article posted just a few days ago, each episode has an average final length of 72 minutes. Episode one is 54 minutes long, episode two is 58 minutes long, episode three is an hour and 22 minutes long, episode 4 is an hour and 18 minutes long, and episodes five and six are each an hour and 20 minutes long. The showrunners have also stated boldly that the final battle will put to shame any fantasy or fictional battle that has ever been seen on big screen or small. That includes the final battle of Return of the King, i.e., the golden standard known as the Battle of the Pelennore Fields. For what it's worth, April cannot get her soon enough. With my taxes already out of the way, April with Game of Thrones and spring and Avengers: Endgame is going to be the best month of the year.

Valar Morghulis everyone.

Will Disney use the powers of the Reality Stone to remake the MCU to introduce the X-Men and mutants?

The second full length Avengers: Endgame trailer dropped this week, and I had a thought that was along the lines of: Where does Marvel go from here? only I combined it with the real world knowledge that Disney has now acquired the X-Men and the Fantastic Four and Deadpool when they bought them from Fox Studios for a pretty penny.

So here's my thought: Is the Reality Stone going to remake the universe in a kind of reboot? Allow me to explain before you decry the cheesiness of this idea. It seems to be the only way I can think of to preserve continuity and introduce mutants. The MCU hasn't been able to talk about mutants at all up to this point, because they haven't had the rights to do so. Instead, they've used the Inhumans, which really isn't the same thing, and their first outing with the Inhumans was pretty much a disaster. Put another way, I've never seen a flop like the Inhumans was come out of the Disney-controlled Marvel studios. It was like they had no idea how to handle them at all.

I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out that the MCU has also explored the Inhumans to a greater extent through the ongoing Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series (its final season will be airing soon), but it still hasn't been all that compelling (even though I've found it more interesting than say The Gifted or some of the other Marvel series that have been showcased on Netflix). The reason behind my lackluster interest in these stories is that I'm tired of mutants feeling oppressed by humans and there just being plot after plot of humans abusing mutants and then mutants turning around and doing the same. It's like beating a dead horse. That being said I also don't like it when shows are canceled as it just seems to be pointless to watch what remnants there are that have been uploaded for your viewing pleasure. So, I haven't even bothered to watch the second seasons of Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist. It all just seems to be a waste of time, which I can devote to series that are invested in storylines that won't be canceled prematurely: think Star Wars: Resistance.

So back to my little theory: The Reality Stone, as you may know, is one of the six Infinity Stones. From what I can gather, it is a remnant of a singularity that predates the universe, and it can basically alter reality itself on a grand scale. Thanos demonstrates some of its power in Infinity War both to show Tony Stark what Titan used to look like and to make Drax and Mantis into slinkies. Anyway, all that mumbo jumbo aside, I think it has the power to alter reality so that the X-Men and Mutants can be a part of the MCU. That seems like an easy fix, right? And it's a great way to reboot all the X-Men storylines that Fox has been unable to accomplish. For example, this new Dark Phoenix movie that Fox is advertising looks absolutely terrible. Dark Phoenix was a villain on the same scale as Thanos, and her lifting up trains and stopping bullets is just stupid. This was a villain that ate entire suns to fuel her powers.

So what do you think? Could the Reality Stone remake the universe to allow the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, and Deadpool to suddenly be a thing in the MCU? Do you think Disney would do that?

So far in the MCU Captain Marvel pays no price for the use of her powers which cannot be countered in any way.

Like most of America, I went to see Captain Marvel this last weekend. I enjoyed it. I thought it was good (not great), and it accomplished what it set out to do: tell the origin story of the latest superhero. I literally knew nothing of Captain Marvel going into this movie aside from (at some point) Rogue steals a good deal of her powers and can fly around and possesses super strength. And she looks really cool in the trailers with the photonic energy flowing around her (and her eyes are blazing with power). Oh and the helmet she wears pushes her hair into a mohawk...that's kind of cool as well.

I guess when I look back at the film, I was a little underwhelmed by the photonic laser beams that she can shoot out of her hands because they just seem so straight forward and an easy solution to everything. Spoiler Alert: there is nothing that can counter them. They basically destroy everything, so there is that.

But that's both neat and not so neat. I mean...if all you have to do is blast something...and it goes away...then there really is no build-up, right? That's pretty much what Captain Marvel does the entire movie. One thing gets in her way and bam, it's gone. This includes multiple Kree spaceships at some point...and none of them (and their advanced weaponry) stand a chance. I imagine she wouldn't need the weird forge from a neutron star that we saw in Infinity War to melt the uru metal and create Thor's weapon...she could probably just use her light beams and melt anything that was needed (no matter how fantastic) and it would just make her hair glow and look all nice while she was doing it.

Based off what I saw in Captain Marvel, she could have just blasted Thanos in Infinity War and he'd be done mid-speech. Again, there seems to be no counter to her power. Or maybe there is one, and we just haven't seen it? But I think I'd hate that with a passion. And this brings into question the whole "suspension of disbelief" argument. It would be a painfully obvious plot device for Thanos to suddenly have some kind of foil for Captain Marvel's blast em laser beams. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but if nothing in the universe seems to be able to stand up to them prior to "X" event, why should "X" event even be a thing? It's the same problem I have with superman's powers, i.e., "Ha ha I'm invincible and can do anything...oh! Kryptonite! I'm powerless!" and yada yada yada.

I think I prefer superheroes who always have to struggle. Like their powers make them clearly superhuman, but their superhuman foes can easily keep them in check and there's this tug of war that happens in any combat between them because anything could happen. Hulk is super strong but can get knocked out by similarly strong things. Black Widow is a great fighter but ultimately a bullet can end her. Doctor Strange has all the magic stuff, but he's got to have the finesse to cast the spell and the stamina to withstand the price the magic use extolls upon him. Captain Marvel blasts things, none of the blasting drains her in any way, and nothing can counter the blasts (it either explodes or is destroyed). She feels very much like a deus ex machina...a thing that can just fix anything by just showing up. Her presence feels oddly out of balance with everything else.

Anyway, my guess is that Captain Marvel as a standalone movie, isn't a wide enough view of this character. I think when the next Avenger's movie hits in a month, we'll see that there are checks on Captain Marvel's powers, and that she's more in balance with the bad guy, Thanos. And by that, I mean she won't be able to just take him on herself and will need the other Avengers. I just didn't see it in this film. She could basically have done all the Avenging herself and wouldn't have needed anyone else.

The Orville has turned into Star Trek the Next Generation.

When I first started watching The Orville, I got the impression it was going to be a tongue-in-cheek version of Star Trek: The Next Generation much in the same vein as the "old" movie Galaxy Quest. However, that's not what we got. In the second season, I was really struck by this when the show invested so much time with Bortis (and the complications of his alien species and their view of sexuality), and then it went straight off a Borg script by turning Isaac (who is a Kaylon diplomat) into the equivalent of Locutus of Borg by having him be instrumental in restoring order to The Orville and thus having a hand to play in the high stakes battle to save Earth from annihilation.

That it is a love letter to Trek is no secret. McFarland has long waxed poetic about Trek, and he probably launched The Orville to give fans something to watch who felt spurned by the fact that Star Trek: Discovery (also in its second season) is behind a paywall. As a side note, I do love and look forward to Star Trek: Discovery far more than I do The Orville (which usually waits on my DVR until Sunday before I watch this week's episode, whereas I watch Star Trek: Discovery the moment it is available). For me, Star Trek: The Next Generation was never good enough, but it had those Borg episodes that just kept me on the hook. The Borg were a fantastic villain and foil for the Federation.

To explain a little regarding my comments on The Next Generation, I didn't really like the episodes where Picard plays his flute because he spent an entire second lifetime learning about an alien race that implanted in his head a memory so that someone would mourn their passing. It was good and I'm glad I watched it, but I have no desire to see it again. Sacrilege, right? I didn't really like the episodes where we saw what it was like to serve on a starship as a member of the lower decks. In other words...I didn't like all the slow stuff. I didn't like all the hours and hours of character building or the conversations in Ten Forward. I liked the action, the times when the Enterprise faced off against the Borg, or when the Enterprise was involved in a horror-like mystery with high-stakes implications. I also like serials, i.e., when the story continues and evolves with each passing episode. You only get that in "To Be Continued" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and by extension, The Orville. But its in every single episode of Star Trek: Discovery.

I guess this puts me at odds with some Trekkers out there who dislike new Trek (I guess that's as good a reason as any to appeal to a new audience and discard the old). It also makes sense from a money-making point of view. Tastes from young people are quite a bit different from those who grew up in the eighties (I seem to be an exception because my tastes align with a much younger crowd). Some of the older Trekkers (my peers) are vehement in their complaints with things like, "Look at what they're doing to Spock!" and "Klingons don't look like that!" and the list goes on and on. They say things like, "The makers behind Star Trek: Discovery are going to cut their nose off to spite their face and alienate their base." Eh? Not really. This so called "base" is a lot smaller than those who are whining about Star Trek: Discovery would care to see. CBS All Access hit its money-making goals one year ahead of schedule, because of Star Trek: Discovery. And its eye-popping subscription numbers are behind launches of "All Trek, All the Time" on the app going forward.

New viewers, I think, are more aligned with things people (like me) desire. For example, I'm the World of Warcraft player that enjoyed raiding and instance runs more than standing around in cities, conversing with others and crafting things to be sold on the auction house. I love action. I love fighting and doing things. I'm not so much into exploring, unless exploring means that there's a fight I can participate in (and demonstrate skill) in a previously unexplored area. I'm the perfect "Diablo" player where there's combat and then magic items. In other words, fight and then reward and rinse/repeat.

This translates into my diet of television a lot. In my opinion, The Orville rocked it strong when it made the Kaylon into villains and played down the humor by substituting in some serious drama. Then they just kept adding to the pile by having the Orville crew discover huge tunnels filled with the bones of an entire race that the Kaylon annihilated in order to throw off the chains of their enslavement. Then of course was the assault on Earth, which had a dramatic battle that was every bit as epic as the one that took place at Wolf 359 in Star Trek: The Next Generation. I like that kind of stuff, and as long as I get it in doses...I'll probably keep watching because I'm on the hook. The formula is probably ten parts boring episodes and one part exciting one, and then you've got me.

But I love Star Trek: Discovery. No episode is boring. It's like Game of Thrones. Everything is serial and builds on episode after episode. The production values make every single episode look like a movie. The acting is incredible, and there's enough odes to the old stuff that it hits all my pleasure buttons. I'm so happy it has been renewed for a third season, and I'm pleased that there are going to be five more Star Trek series that get launched behind the CBS All Access paywall. Those are going to be so good. All Trek, all the time. And (at least as far as my tastes go) the producers seem to know what a viewer like me wants. "Give me Game of Thrones! Give me The Expanse!"

I do feel sorry for you Trekkers out there that want The Next Generation back, and I'm glad you have The Orville. I like the nostalgic feel of The Orville too. There's a lot that reminds me of the nineties, and it's more than just McFarlan's periodic speckling of the dialogue with eighties music and old movies. However, I'm also grateful that the things that I like are being catered to by people in the entertainment industry, and I like my space opera with lots of action and things happening and high stakes. I want it in every episode if possible, hold all the filler please :). And yes, I'm willing to pay for it outside of cable.

Today's Insecure Writer's Support Group question reminds me why writing from unused perspectives can freshen up a story.

Today is the first Wednesday in March of 2019, and that also makes it Insecure Writer's Support Group day. This is a blog fest that happens once a month (and has been a recurring event for many years now). Here's a link to their official BLOG that explains all about it. If you sign up, you'll get an opportunity to really connect with other writers out there.
March 6 Question: Whose perspective do you like to write from best, the hero (protagonist) or the villain (antagonist)? And why?
This is a real thinker. Historically, I've written a lot from the perspective of various protagonists because it seemed like the thing I was most comfortable in doing. Many of the books I read (while growing up) seemed to have this kind of structure to them. You got introduced to the hero, then the hero was presented with an opportunity of some kind, or a conflict of some kind, and you followed them along on their journey. Because it was so prevalent in fiction, I absorbed this as a means to tell my own story, and it's very straight forward.
But now that I'm older, and I've read books by George R.R. Martin, Thomas Harris, James S.A. Corey, and Richard K. Morgan (just to name a few), I've realized the power of telling a story from the anti-hero and antagonist point of view (or at least devoting as many chapters to their perspective as I do to the hero's perspective). The reason? It seems silly to me to insist on villains being all good or all evil, even though that's the diet of fiction I was pretty much raised on. People are only villains when they have motivations that are the opposite of whomever's point of view you are looking through to understand them. Increasingly, I find more value in discovering this, and a lot of the way I've been doing it (in some short stories I've written) is through the antagonist's perspective. 
How a writer chooses to tell a story is just as important as the events of the story that take place. In other words, it's just as important as the plot. And by selecting different points of view than the traditional hero-first perspective, a writer can even retread tired old stories because this new point of view makes them all fresh again. So really, it's just another trick a writer can use to hone their craft.