Bryce Moore's Blog, page 235

Third Draft of THE MEMORY THIEF is Finished

That’s right–it’s done. I cut abut 6,000 words from the draft. Tweaked a few characters, but it was mainly a tightening pass through. For those of you who are interested, I updated the chart for the book. I don’t know if these are interesting to anyone but me, but the charts are *dang* interesting to me, and so I inflict them on you periodically. It’s just fun for me to see how the book clipped along (or didn’t, as the case may be).

So the next question is “What does Bryce work on next?”

As I posted a few days ago, I have some ideas on how to fix GET CUPID, and I ran those ideas past friends and agents alike, and they think they’re pretty solid fixes, too. (Or at the very least worth giving a whirl and seeing what happens.)

But.

As I looked over the novel, I started thinking it was all too familiar to me. Too fresh still. Ideally, I’d like some more space between me and it before I go back to revise it once more. Since I (hopefully) have a different book that’s almost ready for submission (cross your fingers for MEMORY THIEF), I’m not in any real rush to get a second one ready to go out the same month or anything. So I think I have some time, and I’ll let the book mull a while longer.

So what else do I have on tap? I’ve sent my agents a number of ideas, and we’ll see what they think sounds most intriguing. I had a concept for a dystopia a while ago, but I’m kind of thinking those are played out at the moment. I’ve got an idea for a horror story that might be fun. (More horror than MEMORY THIEF, which turned out to not be that horrific, after all.) Then there are some other revisions I could look at, or some older ideas I’ve had for a while.

While I mull that over, I’ll likely work on this year’s Christmas short story that I send out to family members as part of my yearly Christmas gift. Not sure what I’ll do this time. I’ve had talking mice, talking groundhogs, a Christmas trap, Buttersby saving Christmas . . . part of me would really love doing a VODNIK Christmas, and it’s early enough in the season that I might be able to have enough time to pull it off. Tomas sees some of the Slovak Christmas traditions, and a few of them get more up close and personal than he’d really like them to get. Something on the short side, and fun. But can I write it, plot it, and revise it in time? (I don’t think I could publish it online for all of you faithful readers, alas. That might tromp on some contract’s toes. Maybe first I’ll see how it turns out, and if I stick with that idea at all. One of these days I’d like to lump all the Christmas short stories I’ve done and sell ‘em as ebooks or something fun. In an ideal world, I’d commission a Buttersby Christmas illustration to go with it all. Because nothing says yuletide cheer like an alpaca in a Santa suit.

Anyway–that’s all I’ve got for you today. Catch ya next week!

Movie Review: Olympus Has Fallen

I’ve been home sick the past few days, and you know what that means: movie time! (It’s important to have things to look forward to when you’re sick. For me, at least.) A film that I’d seen pop up on Netflix is Olympus Has Fallen: the White House gets taken by North Korean terrorists, and it’s up to King Leonidas–sorry, Gerard Butler–to save the day. Since watching The West Wing, I’ve been up for pretty much any White House-related piece of media, so why not this?

And I could have done a lot worse, really. It delivered on its absurd premise. There were lots of explosions, and reality didn’t get in the way of plot. I’d give the film three stars, because I’m feeling generous.

But because I’m lying in bed and have some time on my hands, I couldn’t help think about the plot some more. (Note to self: as soon as “think about the plot” and “Olympus Has Fallen” occur in close proximity, you’re asking for trouble.) I don’t think I’m spoiling anything for you fine people out there. (Because first off, the movie’s predictable as all get out. And second, it’s R-rated for language, which eliminates a lot of you as well.) But here’s the deal: terrorists take the White House. And the nation grinds to a halt.

And I’m like, really?

So they took the White House (and the President and VP hostage), but . . . really? They demand that we leave South Korea, and this is a matter of no little debate? Isn’t this why we have a chain of command? But wait–it’s not that simple. Because there’s this Cerberus device that can deactivate all our nukes, and the pres, vice pres, and secretary of defense have the codes, and they’re all hostages. So first the terrorists torture the vice pres, and he’s being stalwart, but the President can’t stand seeing him hurt, so he orders him to give the code. “Don’t worry,” says the pres. “They’ll never get my code.”

Okay.

So then they torture the Secretary of Defense, and she’s being all stalwart too. Until the pres says, “Give it to ‘em. They’ll never get my code.”

Riiiiiight.

Because he’s just proved that he can’t stand seeing his people tortured. So what did he think would happen? Do the terrorists have a “only torture each person one time and one time only” rule that means they won’t just resume said torture when they want to get the president to give up his code?

Here’s how I see this going down in real life. First off, there’s no way that the White House is getting held hostage. But if it were, we’d do a whole lot of no negotiating and move on. This country isn’t about one man or woman–and thank goodness it’s not.

But like I said, I’m really reading too much into this movie by thinking about it at all. All I wanted was something that would distract from sick, and it did that admirably.

Humor Impairment Awareness Drive

As we approach the holiday season, it’s important to take a moment and consider those less fortunate than ourselves. To reach out to the downtrodden. To lift up members of our community who might be dealing with struggles that make life much harder for them. And let’s face it: most charities do a wonderful job covering all your typical bases. These days, there’s a fund for just about anything.

Except one thing.

I’m speaking, of course, of the Humor Impaired. You see these people every day on the streets. At your job. Sitting next to you at church. People who really have no sense of humor whatsoever. Individuals who suffer from the inability to lighten up and laugh a little. The sad thing is, there’s no real way to identify these poor members of society other than when they reveal themselves in public, and the stigma against those with no humor is such so that a lot of them do their best to pretend they’re not suffering at all. They laugh along with everyone else, but really they have no clue what they’re laughing at.

Often, this causes no immediate consequences, but there are occasions when the Humor Impaired unintentionally out themselves in public. Sometimes they take a story on The Onion literally and post their outrage on Facebook. Sometimes they read a blog post and just don’t get the humor and get grumpy and upset instead. At times, situations like these have led to public shaming and mocking, and there’s really nothing worse for an individual suffering from this disease, because no matter how much you try to explain it to them, they just don’t get it.

Thankfully, science has developed some fairly accurate tests for this disease. There’s the famous “Arrested Development Marathon Test,” where you sit down and start watching Arrested Development, and you’re measured by how many hours it takes before you stop watching. People who suffer from Humor Impairment (HI) might be able to fake interest for an episode or two, but they rarely get past an entire hour. Preliminary studies show this test can be replicated with other series (Seinfeld, Modern Family, Better Off Ted, 30 Rock, etc.), but further research is needed before these are as clinically proven.

(Note: Studies have shown that there is a related disease: Abhorrentes Humore. This affliction causes people to think certain things are funny, despite the fact that those things aren’t really funny at all. The most famous current symptom is Two and a Half Men, of course–though there have been other well known examples throughout history.)

What can be done for these individuals? Studies have shown that with repeat exposure to genuinely funny material, a real sense of humor might be grown over several years. But unfortunately, most subjects refused this treatment without the liberal use of duct tape.

So if the HI aren’t going to watch funny things on their own, what can we do? We can go for the “Rising Tide Lifts All Boats” approach. If we support genuinely funny movies and tv shows and books, more of those shows and movies will be made, which in turn increases the likelihood that more of the HI will be exposed to this material. It’s a wonderful cycle where everyone benefits.

But beyond that, the best thing you can do is take someone aside when you realize they’re suffering from Humor Impairment. Tell them that you understand their pain and struggles, and that you’re willing to help them. Introduce them to real humor, and take the time to explain why things are funny. Gently correct them when they gravitate to the stupid. This might mean you have to call their cable provider and block CBS to keep them from watching Two and a Half Men, but really–isn’t it worth it? Suggest they get a subscription to Netflix instead–so you can carefully monitor their viewing habits and nudge them in the right direction. Years late, I’m sure your friend will thank you as he or she is leading a life much richer and fuller, blessed with the gift of humor.

If nothing else, just share this post with your friends and family and on your social networks. Let’s reach out to the Humor Impaired and let them know that we understand and want to help them. Let your friends know they’re safe confiding in you. Do your best to spread the gift of funny. Because Humor Impairment is no laughing matter.

Revising: Knowing When to Stop Cutting

I’m finishing up the last few chapters of my revision of THE MEMORY THIEF right now, and I’m very much in “cut” mode. I realize that I have a tendency to write more than is needed in my prose, so I typically go over what I’ve written and try to cut at least 10% of whatever’s there. It’s scary how easy it is, really–and it helps in a whole lot of different ways. First off, it helps me be less repetitive. When I’m cutting, I notice tons of places where I’ve said the same thing twice–just in different ways. Or where I have the action repeat itself. All of those things can just get snipped. I pick the description that’s strongest, and that stays.

Then there are the junk words that I pepper throughout my writing. The “justs” and the “thats” and the “thens.” Those all can go. Same with a bunch of adverbs that snuck in when I wasn’t looking. Cut cut cut cut. Passive voice needs looking at. Descriptions need tightening. And all of it’s for the better.

In the end, I believe it makes a big difference. The pacing feels tighter. A book that was 48,000 words long is suddenly 42,000 (roughly)–that’s a chunk of words, really.

But the trick is that when you get down to it, there’s never a spot where you just have to stop. You can always say things in fewer words. Instead of having something happen in scene, you can put it in exposition. You can simplify the sentences. You can cut all the way to the bone, and then just keep on going. A 48,000 word story could end up a one page summary, if you get my drift. And clearly when someone’s wanting to read a book, they’re not in it just to find out what happened as quickly as possible. Much of the fun is the journey.

So you need to cut, but not cut too much. Keep the voice. Keep the things that make the story unique and fun. Some scenes might not do much to advance the plot, but they do tons to advance character or setting or description. So you’re in a constant state of deciding what needs to stay and what needs to go. That’s why I like the 10% rule. If I find myself going much over that, I take a look at what I’m cutting, and I try to ask myself if I’m cutting too much. If I’m cutting less than that, I’m almost always just being lazy–or it’s a scene I’d already worked on a lot.

The good news is that I usually only do this when I’m about done with a book. After I do the 10%, there’s not much more for me to do until I get notes from an editor (or my agents, if they still have things they’d like to see changed). So THE MEMORY THIEF is getting very close to being sent out to editors. Yay for that.

And in other good news, I’ve been thinking more about GET CUPID, and I might have come up with a way to really kick the book up a few notches. It’s an idea that potentially fixes one of the last big problems I know is present in the book. I’ve got some people reading it for me now. When I hear back from them, I’ll ask about this idea and see what they think. If it works, I might be revisiting that novel sooner than I’d thought. We shall see.

Back to editing!

Total Cop Out

It’s been a while since I just totally whiffed on a post, but that’s what I’m going to have to do today, folks–sorry. I’m just swamped with work, and the brain energy to write a post just fails me at the moment. Some days you gots time, some days you don’t.

Today I don’t gots it.

The Top 100 Novels Ever Written. In 1898.

I came across this article the other day, providing the list of the top 100 novels of all time, as picked by a critic in 1898. One novel per author, and every author had to be dead. (Pretty harsh requirements there. But still.) The list is absolutely fascinating. Yes, it’s just one critic’s opinion, but I still feel like it highlights some really interesting points. Les Mis is only #85? Dickens doesn’t pop up until #63. But what’s really interesting to me is how many of these novels I’ve just never even heard of. I don’t consider myself your average reader. I’m a librarian. I have a Masters in American Lit. So I’m not the elite of the elite or anything, but I like to think I’ve heard of a lot of novels.

I haven’t heard of the vast majority of these authors, let alone the books themselves.

(Please tell me I’m not alone.)

And it all just leads to the question of “How do books fall off this list, and how do they get added?” Not this list in particular, but lists like this in general. Over time, you see new works elbow their way onto top 100 lists, and for every new work that appears, an old work is kicked to the curb. You just don’t notice it as much when it happens year by year, decade by decade. Give yourself a century of perspective, however–and then it’s crystal clear.

Some works hang on by sheer reputation alone. They’re what gets studied by new students and scholars, because they’re what their teachers and professors studied before them.

What will our top 100 lists look like, 100 years from now? What authors will have disappeared? On the one hand, I think it’s inevitable that most of what we hold as important and of great value will be forgotten. (Ain’t that a cheery thought?) But even more, I look at how splintered today’s lists are to begin with. The sheer volume of books and movies being produced across the globe, and the ease with which we can access them all, leads to a dearth of a singular “canon.” Part of me is relieved, because that canon is notoriously racist and sexist. But on the other hand, we haven’t really had anything to offer a valuable replacement to that canon. As it goes away, so will the cultural memory of “important books.”(To put it in sports terms, it’s as if the BCS is finally done away with, but at the same time, all the bowl games and rankings are sort of just forgotten, as well.)

How great of a loss is that?

Part of me wants to rush out and start reading these novels right now. To see what it was that people 100+ years ago saw in them. To get a sense of where our literature today came from, and how it got to be where it is now. But I know I won’t. There’s just too much to read, and I have far too little time. So I suppose I’ll have to read this list over, peruse it for a few minutes, and then forget about it.

Which somehow feels both very fitting, and very tragic.

TV Series Review: Under the Dome

I’d heard a lot of good things about Under the Dome when it was on TV, but honestly I’m to the point that very few shows interest me enough to want to watch them on a week to week basis. I like to watch a show all at once–or at the very least season by season. (Strange to hear myself say that, but it’s true. Netflix has changed the way I prefer to consume my television. And why not? Who wants to suffer through week after week of cliffhangers?) The one bad thing about Under the Dome was that it was only going to appear on Amazon InstantWatch. Well–bad for you, maybe. For me? I’m a Prime subscriber, so it made no difference. Denisa and I gave it a whirl.

It’s based on the book by Stephen King, and it has a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses of that book–which means it’s a pretty darn good show. The premise is strong and simple: a group of people in a small town discover one day that a gigantic invisible, impenetrable dome has settled over their town. They don’t know why it appeared, and they don’t know how to get rid of it. Drama ensues. The strength of the novel–and the show–lies not so much in the plot, but in the characters themselves, as they react in realistic ways, all of them trying to find a solution in their own manner. Some decide to use the change as an excuse for a power grab. Some step up to lead. Some panic. Good stuff.

The tv show departs from the book in several ways, though I won’t list most of them. This isn’t the sort of show you want spoiled. There are twists and turns to the plot. I’d say the biggest weakness of the show is that it was originally conceived as a 13 episode mini-series. Halfway through the series’ run, they realized they had something popular on their hands, so they decided to streeeeeeeetch it out. As such, the show clips along wonderfully until the midway point, and then it loses that blissful pacing and gets far more deliberate. Still fun to watch, but frustrating.

Another weakness of the show is that the characters aren’t quite as consistent as they are in King’s novel. I never like it when characters do stupid things because stupid things need to be done for the plot to advance the way the author has planned, and this show breaks that rule fairly consistently. Not enough to get me to stop binge watching, but enough for me to have paused the show frequently to yell at the characters and explain my frustrations to Denisa. I don’t think she minded the offenses as much. Maybe it was just me.

In the end, the show reminded both of us of Lost in many ways. It’s based on a mystery and characters. It just doesn’t have the flashbacks. I’m very interested to see what happens in the end–what the explanation of the mystery will be. (Because it very well may not be what it was in King’s book–significant changes have been made.) That explanation may well make or break the show, but in the meantime, it’s a fun way to spend 13 episodes. I’d give it a 7.5/10. The first few episodes are closer to a 9/10. Some of the middle dips down to a 6. If you subscribe to Prime, you should check it out.

Anyone already seen it? What did you think?

The End of Blockbuster

I came across an article yesterday announcing that Blockbuster would be shuttering its few remaining brick and mortar stores, and as I read it, I had mixed feelings. On the one hand, there are many things about the movie store experience that I won’t miss. Blockbuster employees probably swindled me out of hundreds of dollars over the years, as they always seemed to contrive ways to claim I hadn’t returned my lousy movies on time. (Well, maybe not hundreds of dollars, though then again, this is 1990s dollars we’re talking about. Maybe it was *thousands* of dollars in today money.) And this means I won’t ever have the feeling of standing there in a room with thousands of movies, overwhelmed by indecision as I try to figure out what I want to watch. (Or worse yet, try to convince a group of people what they want to watch.)

That said, there’s a lot I actually miss about the movie store experience. In many ways, it felt a lot like a library to me. (And why not–it essentially was a movie library that charged for circulation.) All those movies–all those choices. Yes, I still have a similar range of options when I turn to Netflix or Amazon InstantWatch, but there’s something different about having the movies physically present. Seeing the condition they’re each in. You could tell a popular old movie just by looking at the case. You knew what the new releases were simply by glancing at the number of copies on the shelves, and you knew just how popular a new release was by seeing how many of the copies weren’t available.

I have a lot of fond memories of trips to Blockbuster. Before my mission, I joined their frequent renters club (whatever that was called), and I would check out something like 5 movies at a time, go home, binge watch them, and then go back for more. Sometimes you’d get idiots at the stores who didn’t know what they were talking about when it came to film, but often there’d be people who knew their stuff. It was a great place to trade picks and get recommendations.

Blockbuster was a big part of my teenage years. Hopping in the car with friends to go get a movie. It’s not something I experience as much anymore, though that’s not really due to Blockbuster closing. These days, if I watch a movie with friends, it’ll be at the theater. At home with family, we have the debate over what to watch on Netflix–but it just isn’t the same. In some ways, going to Blockbuster felt a bit like gambling. You might have an idea what you wanted to watch, but what if it was checked out? Were you willing to stake a half hour of your life on it being there? What was your back up selection? Your back up back up?

And of course, Blockbuster closing leads me to the next question: will the same thing happen for libraries? If ebooks were to become readily and easily available on some sort of consortial basis, many people wonder if libraries become redundant. The answer is easy if you know libraries well: libraries are about much more than books these days. People who argue otherwise are almost never people who actually use libraries. But that’s a topic for a different day.

For today–for now–I just want to observe a moment of virtual silence for an institution I loved and hated and hated to love and loved to hate. A company that like it or not played a big part in fostering my love for movies.

 

Thank you, Blockbuster.

How about you all out there? Any favorite Blockbuster stories (or horror stories) to share? Speak up!

Movie Review: Oblivion

After yesterday’s somewhat controversial post, how about something a bit more mainstream? Like a good ol’ movie review? Denisa and I had the chance to watch Oblivion the other day. Going into it, I didn’t know a whole lot about it. Tom Cruise. Post apocalyptic sci-fi. Go!

You really don’t need much more to go on than that, it turns out. The movie feels like they took a wide range of better films, stuck them in a blender, and jammed the Puree button down. You’ve got pieces of everything from Wall-E to Independence Day to 2001 in here, with some Sleepless in Seattle thrown in for kicks and giggles. In an ideal world, you’d end up with something greater than the sum of its parts, but this is a Tom Cruise starring vehicle, so . . . that ideal world never comes to fruition. I found a lot of the film to be fairly predictable.

The movie was diverting enough, but it failed to really soar to any spectacular heights–with the exception of the visuals. (Really, the movie is awesome in that department. You can tell a lot of work went into making these soar, and I’d argue it might well be worth the watch for that alone. Picking out the different New York City sites was a fun game to play throughout the movie.) In the end, I’d give it about 2.5 stars out of four, but I’m beginning to think I want to shift my rating system to a 10 point scale, since it’s easier to capture nuances with that. This movie would be about a 6. It would have been a 5, except for those wonderful visuals.

If you’re up for a better science fiction adventure, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. Moon did what Oblivion wishes it could have done, for example. Anytime I watch an okay movie, it just makes me pine for those other movies that are so much better.

For Mormon Eyes Only: On Missionary Work

Well, it’s not as if this is top secret stuff I’m going to be writing about here, but I’m not sure how interesting it’ll be for non-Mormons, so if you’re a coffee drinker, this one might not be for you. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I was having a conversation with my brother over the weekend. He was recently called to be the Ward Mission Leader in his congregation. (An assignment I had for over a year here in Maine. I wrote a talk on my thoughts on the calling back when I received it.) In our chat, he expressed his frustration with some of the expectations placed on Mormons when it comes to missionary work. And let’s be honest: they are legion. It’s easy to feel at times (if you’re a Mormon) that unless you go to work each day with an “I’m a Mormon” button on your shirt and have a minimum of three gospel-related discussions with non-Mormons, then you aren’t fulfilling your God-given duty to spread the Gospel.

Which is complete hogwash, if you ask me.

But why it’s complete hogwash didn’t  snap into place until I was in the middle of that talk with my brother. And once it did snap, I knew I had to blog about it.

One of the things I love about Mormonism is how inclusive it can be. I know that sounds strange–especially if you’re not a Mormon. (Why are you still reading this, by the way? Did you not read the bit at the top about how it was going to be boring for you?) From an outsider’s perspective, we can be pretty darn insular. We have strict rules about what we can eat or drink, how we should dress, what sort of language we ought to use, and that’s omitting that huge bit about gay marriage that we’re just not going to get into in the middle of this post. But believe me, once you know a fair number of Mormons, you start seeing that we’ve got a lot of variation between us. Let’s put it like this: we’re a church that can have Glenn Beck and Harry Reid both be active, passionate members of our religion.

I’d say that’s pretty inclusive, wouldn’t you?

But even putting politics aside for a moment, there’s a lot of inclusion in the way people can live their religion. You’ve got commandments that give a great deal of latitude for personal interpretation. “Keep the Sabbath day holy” might mean nothing but scriptures and hymns to one family. It might mean walks on the beach or heading out sledding for another. What I mean is that there are “things we’re supposed to do,” but we’re given a lot of leeway in how we choose to do those things, generally speaking. In fact, Joseph Smith even has a quote that’s often referenced that directly applies to this: When asked how he managed to govern so many people so well, he said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

And that’s how it is for many things in Mormonism–at least in my experience. Yes, there can be overzealous Mormons who get mad if another Mormon is doing something they don’t think is appropriate, but life is too short to worry about what other people are thinking about what you’re doing. This is a religion where you do your best in the way you see best (within a certain definition of “best.”)

But.

When it comes to missionary work, I think this degree of personal choice isn’t as readily embraced, and it should be. The way it’s usually portrayed in the church, we’re all supposed to be always actively looking for ways to inject discussions about Mormonism into our day to day lives. For opportunities to shove a Book of Mormon into someone’s hand whenever possible. It’s like if we don’t invite ten people to church each week, we’re not doing our job.

Don’t get me wrong. If any of the above describes what you do, and you’re comfortable doing it, good on you. I’m not writing this post to say you shouldn’t do that. I’m writing to ask why is it that those who share the Gospel in another way should be made to feel like they’re doing it wrong? (I’m also not here trying to defend myself. I’m comfortable with how I share the Gospel. But I know of many people who aren’t.)

Really, there are tons of ways to share the Gospel. I personally find the most rewarding being the approach to simply be an active Mormon and not be afraid to let people know that. If you’re an active Mormon–really living the Gospel to the best of your ability–then you will be doing some things that normal people don’t do. You will also not be doing some things that normal people do do.When people ask why you are or aren’t doing something, tell them. If they have questions, answer them.

It’s that easy.

But instead of that personalized approach, I feel like the approach preached in the church comes down to a certain scene from Glengarry Glen Ross, a monologue by Alec Baldwin. (I’d link it here, but it’s got some harsh language, and the irony of having an f-bomb laced tired in the middle of a post about sharing the gospel would not be lost on me. But it’s very famous, and it’s a fantastic piece of acting and film.) Baldwin plays a high-powered salesman come to encourage some minions to be better at selling. The top two salesmen for the month will be given prizes. Everyone else will be fired. They’re all encouraged to ABC–”Always Be Closing”. Here’s a snippet that’s clean:

This is not how sharing the gospel is supposed to be. The Gospel isn’t something you shill on QVC. It isn’t something you have to ram down people’s throats. It’s something that’s supposed to be making you genuinely happier on a day to day basis. Something that improves your life and brings you comfort and peace. That’s what it does for me. I’m happy to share that with others if they want to hear about it. Why wouldn’t I be?

Anyway. My main point is that I feel like Mormons should be encouraged to share the Gospel, but the how should be up to them, just like with many things in the church. (I wrote an extensive piece on this idea about four years ago–it’s really good stuff, if I do say so myself. Check it out.)

What are your thoughts, Mormons? Do you see this same sort of thing happen? It’s not really like that in my current ward, but it’s been like that in a lot of other wards I’ve lived in in the past. How do you share the Gospel, and what are your feelings about it? (And if for some reason you’re not a Mormon and have still read all the way to the bottom of this post, congratulations. Also, do you have experience with Mormons who wanted to talk about religion with you? Would you care to share an outsider’s perspective? I’d love to read it–just keep things civil.)