Bryce Moore's Blog, page 271

First Time Trawler: Fishing with TRC

A friend took TRC and me out trawling yesterday evening. (You know, for some reason, I'd always thought it was spelled "trolling." Go figure.) For those of you who don't know, this is a kind of fishing where you toodle around in a boat with your line trailing behind you, with bait that spins in the water, pretending to be a little fish. Bigger fish try to eat it, and voila! You've caught a fish.



We went out on North Pond (in case you were interested), and we caught about 50 fish (I lost count) in about an hour and a half. (My friend caught 109 in an hour when he went out last week with two other people.) If you don't typically fish, let me just assure you that that's an awful lot of fish. They're white perch, and there's no limit to the number you can keep of them. Still, we released about half. Most of them were in the 9-10 inches range.



TRC had a complete blast. For the first 45 minutes, he'd caught maybe 10 fish and I'd caught 2--he was feeling quite the fisherman. He was convinced the fish were coming to him because he was eating tic tacs. And I must say--once I ate a couple, I started catching plenty, too. So maybe there's something to it. (Or maybe my breath was really that bad?) By the end of the day, TRC was casting the line out by himself, reeling in by himself--he was doing everything but taking the fish off the hook once he brought it in the boat. (White perch are pretty scaly, with sharp fins. I cut myself on one yesterday while I was cleaning them.)



We stopped and fished with worms for a while, too. You could just see entire schools of fish at the surface, gobbling up whatever they could see. Put your hook in, and five seconds later, you'd caught a fish. It was getting to the point that it felt like cheating, it was so easy. They'd even bite at bare hooks. (You have to wonder what some of those fish are thinking. They've got a bunch of buddies at first, and then their buddies start disappearing, one by one. And yet they keep doing the same stupid thing they were doing. Maybe fish have watched too many horror movies.)



The most fun was definitely watching TRC enjoy himself so much. He couldn't stop talking about how much fun he was having, and how he wanted to do this all the time. I'm going to try and go get some poles for ourselves, and then take him out to some rivers and streams to fish. We don't have a canoe or a boat, but we can fish from the shore just as easily. I'll just have to make sure to wear some bug repellent. :-)



Pictures were taken, but I don't have any copies yet. I'll post them to my Facebook page when I do.



Happy Friday, all!

Portamancy Unleashed: A Discussion of Grittiness and Magic

Back when I went to Boskone a while ago, I made several new friends. One of them is none other than the illustrious Myke Cole--new author and fellow JABberwock (and future roomie at WorldCon). He was kind enough to give me a copy of his book, Control Point. And I responded by not reading it until now, months later. (Sorry Myke--my To Read list can be quite lengthy at times.)



I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Military fantasy action conspiracy goodness. (It's definitely an adult book--for language and violence--but that sort of goes with the territory, ya know?)



I think the thing that stood out most to me about the novel was Portamancy--the magical ability to create portals to a different world. On the surface, this sounds fairly intriguing. Until you weaponize it, at which point it becomes fairly awesome. Control Point is very much a modern book. It takes place in the here and now, with the exception that magic is real. And while you could argue that many books take place in the here and now (like Harry Potter or Narnia, when it was written), there's usually a wide range of realism and grittiness.



To use movie examples, Black Hawk Down and When Harry Met Sally both take place in the present day, but on opposite ends of the grittiness spectrum. (Wouldn't a crossover mashup be awesome? When Black Hawk Met Sally?) Much of what writing a story is all about is deciding what elements to focus on. You could easily have a movie that starts out with Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan falling in love, and then ends with them having a gun fight ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Guns exist in the world of Harry and Sally. But they're conveniently missing for the purposes of the movie. Just like romance and giggles exist in the world of Black Hawk, but they have no place in the story.



The same thing holds true for magic. At any point in Harry Potter, Harry could have been the victim of a drive by. Or maybe Ron gets gunned down, and Harry turns to a life of violence to get revenge on the random Muggle who killed his best friend.



Have I rambled enough yet? I've got digressions within digressions.



This is all just to say that when Myke has portals in his book filled with guns and explosions, they aren't portals to Care-a-Lot. His main character, Oscar Britton, discovers those portals act like razor blades when they open up. So you can slice someone in half with one. But he also learns how to use them to affect the physical world. Throw someone through one that leads to a spot 30,000 feet up in the air, for example. Or, of you're falling from that height, you could open one up that shoots you up into the air in the opposite direction, so now you're flying upward instead of falling. Then, just when you start to fall again, open one up beneath you and miss the whole splatting at the bottom thing. (Myke, you could actually use Portamancy to fly pretty effectively, could you not? That would be awesome.)



I don't know. I guess I just got a kick out of how Myke used what's often the mechanic to bring people into a world of wonder, and then turned that into a way to kill people. Maybe that says something about me. I'm trying not to overthink it.



(And as a final aside, one other thing I've been noting (hard to miss it these days) is how often books and movies are taking one trope and then throwing it into another to see what the result is. Everything from Shaun of the Dead to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Some do it well. Some, not so much. But I'm usually up for something new and different. I like the ones that do fresh things with it. The ones that don't try hard enough . . . not so much. Please also note that Control Point really doesn't fall into either category. This is just a thought that occurred to me while I was writing this post.)



In any case, if you like military action fantasy with a hard edge, you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't check out Myke's book. (Maybe I should have just tweeted this post and saved us all a lot of trouble.)

Pro Dad Tip: Journaling with Children

I've been doing something with my kids now for a good four years, and just the other day I realized that I haven't told anyone else about it--despite the fact that I really enjoy it, and I think others would benefit from it. Not like it's rocket science, or anything, but I help my kids keep a journal.



How it works for me is simple: about once a week, I sit down with my kids and ask them to tell me about their day. I transcribe what they say, word for word--obviously, this is easier if you're a fast typer. The key to me is to capture exactly what they say and how they say it. I started with TRC back when he was in preschool and only four years old. I've started with DC even earlier.



This is a great thing on many different levels. First of all, it's something I can do for my kids that I think they'll enjoy in later years. I remember writing a journal when I was little (like 8 or 9). I've since lost it, and I have no idea what was in it. I would really love to have it back. For my kids, I store their journals in the cloud. No risk of losing them. They're backed up.



Sooner or later, they'll take over their journal writing on their own--although I might keep having them do the journal with me, even once they're writing solo. I keep a daily journal. My blog is honestly a better depiction of my thoughts and actions, but I keep doing the journal because I'm never sure when I'm going to have something important to say. When I do, I know I wouldn't write it down unless I'm in the habit of doing that every day.



My kids love to read what they've written before. They love it the same way they enjoy watching family movies. I love these journals because they're practically a time machine for me. I can read them and be back at that instant, remembering writing them with them back when the entry was first created. I don't know . . . something about it connects me with the past in a different way than videos and pictures. Maybe it's because I write so much already.



The entries aren't always long. And they're not always on what was happening that day. Sometimes my kids would rather have me transcribe stories they make up. Other times, I have to ask a few questions to get them started talking. But it takes only a few minutes, and it all adds up over time.



Anyone else out there do this with their kids? Any questions about how I do it? Feel free to ask.[image error]

This Mormon's Take on Gay Marriage

Whoa boy. This isn't really a topic I've had any desire to write about over the years that I've been blogging--despite the fact that Mormonism and gay marriage have no small amount of . . . history. I don't typically like or enjoy opening my virtual mouth when it comes to hot topics like this, and that's why I've done my best to steer clear.



So why have I decided to tackle the subject today?



Good question. I think some of it has to do with this post. If you don't feel like clicking over to read it, it's written by a gay Mormon who's been married for ten years and is finally coming out of the closet publicly. If that guy could come clean with who he is and what his take on all this is, then me writing a simple column on my blog should be easy peasy.



No. I'm not gay, if that's what you were wondering.



But I am Mormon (not like that's a big revelation on this blog.) Many of my most popular posts have been focused on me explaining why I believe what I believe. Many people have been at least somewhat interested to read about it. So today I'm tackling gay marriage.



Joy.



I think most people are aware of Mormonism's stance on gay marriage--meaning, we're against it. (Officially, the church has endorsed nondiscrimination ordinances in matters of housing and employment. It's the rights that go along with being officially married that are the hang up.) And I think in many ways, the Mormon church has been set up to be a bit of a punching bag in this arena. We're all against it, we're homophobic, we're dated, we're . . . whatever other mean label you want to attach to us.



My hope in writing this post today is to explain why I personally believe what I believe. Why this issue that so many people have told me should be a clear cut, easy decision (and I've had people on both sides tell me this) is actually pretty darn complex when it comes to me personally.



To adequately explain my views as a Mormon, you have to understand what I believe. First and foremost, I believe there is a God. We're His children. To me, the issue of whether God exists or not isn't affected one whit by what I personally believe. It's a factual thing. Every human on Earth could decide to not believe the sky was blue. Their lack of belief in a blue sky wouldn't make the sky turn green. Belief doesn't affect facts. Either God exists, or He doesn't.



Assume for a moment He does. Mormons believe that the purpose of life is to get to know God better. Understand the rules by which He lives His life, and become more like Him. We believe our church is the one true church, that Christ is at the head of it, and that He leads the church through revelation to living prophets on Earth today.



(Yes. I know that above statement can come across as very insulting, particularly to believers of other faiths. But this post isn't about which church is true. It's about why I believe what I believe. I don't mean to put down your faith--Mormons also believe that all good people can be saved, regardless of which religion they belong to right now. But that's a post for a different time. One huge topic at a time, please.)



If you don't believe God exists, then yes--this whole gay marriage thing becomes a lot simpler. Humanity can muddle along as best it can, making the decisions at the time that seem like they're the best choice available. But I believe God does exist. Why do I believe that? Because I have had personal experiences in my life that show me He does. I've experienced first hand things like direct revelation, spiritual healing, prayers being answered. These events in my life are not up for debate. They happened to me, and nothing anyone can tell me will change that fact.



So for me--a believing Mormon--life isn't just about doing what I think is best. When I was a missionary, I met a lot of people who wanted to find a religion that agreed with them on everything they already believed in. I don't particularly think that's how religion works. It's not a self-help institution. It's not about finding a place where you fit in. Religion--to me--is about finding out what God wants you to do. Chances are, you're doing things God doesn't want you to do. No matter how sensible and reasonable and splendid a fellow you are, some of those thoughts and reasons are going to be off base.



(In many ways, this reminds me of some conversations I've had with my kids. They think themselves very grown up, and they think their issues and problems are quite complex. Yet some of the things they come up with are . . . very inventive, and in no way based in reality. I love my kids, but eight and four year olds just don't have a complete grasp on how the universe operates. I think God likely says the same things about us often. "I love my kids, but forty and fifty year olds just don't have a complete grasp on how the universe operates.")



Because we humans are an imperfect lot, Mormons believe God calls a person on the earth to be the prophet and leader of God's church. This prophet receives revelation for the entire church. Today, the prophet is Thomas S. Monson. Is all of this making sense? So to a devout Mormon, when the prophet speaks, he's speaking for God.



It's through prophets that many of the things Mormons do (or don't do) have come about. That whole no drinking coffee thing? That's from a modern-day revelation. And I think a lot of the public perception problems Mormons have today stem from non-believers looking at some of the things we Mormons do and trying to explain them through secular means.



Take, for example, another sort of marriage we Mormons had a run in with over a hundred years ago: plural marriage. For decades during the mid to late 1800s, some Mormon men had more than one wife. Why? Prophets said that was what was supposed to happen. Much of America derided Mormons for this practice. And then, just as Utah was trying to become a state, the prophet received a revelation ending the practice of plural marriage.



"How convenient," the world says. The secular explanation of all of this is that Mormon men wanted to shack up with a harem of Mormon women, and when they wanted to become part of the US, they decided to magically have God tell them to stop.



Take another hot button topic for Mormons: blacks and the priesthood. Prior to 1978, blacks couldn't get the priesthood in the Mormon religion. That had been the policy for over a century. Then, just at the tail tail end of the civil rights movement, the Mormon prophet get a revelation saying blacks could now have the priesthood.



"How convenient," the world says. Mormons decided to get with the program, culturally speaking, and poof! Another revelation telling them to stop doing that mean discrimination thing they were doing.



I'm not an idiot (usually). I know how this all looks to a non-believer. But then again, if you look at things a bit closer, you'll see that if all of this revelation was happening for the sake of convenience, it would have come a whole lot sooner. The church is dealing with fallout from polygamy and accusations of racism to this day. If those revelations had come earlier, much of that fallout might have been avoided.



And there are other areas where the church hasn't bowed to public opinion. Women still aren't allowed to have the priesthood, for example.



But if it wasn't convenience that caused these revelations, what was it?



My answer? I don't know. Why in the world did the church wait until 1978 to give blacks the priesthood? I have no idea. God didn't think the church was ready for it? I could come up with a slew of reasons, but they'd only be conjecture. Why was polygamy fine and dandy one minute, then against God's will the next? Dunno. Again--there are some reasons that seem to make sense, but when you get down to it, it's all conjecture again.



And you know what? This makes sense to me. There are times when my son asks me a question, and I want to answer him completely, but I don't. Why? Because I know a complete answer is going to go right over his head. He won't get any of it. The same thing happens in mathematics. I remember when I got to calculus (it's been a long time, folks), my teacher explained that some of the "facts" we'd be told were rock solid weren't quite so rock solid after all. They were incomplete explanations that had been simplified to make learning the basics easier.



Mormons believe the organization of the church is changing and evolving over time. That's what modern prophets are for. Right now, the prophet has spoken out against the legalization of gay marriage. Why?



When you get down to it, I don't know. There are a lot of reasons I could try to come up with. Some of them might even be the right ones. But again--I truly don't know, and so to provide some explanation would be off base, in my opinion.



So why do I go along with it? I have friends who are gay. I have many more friends who are staunchly in favor of gay marriage. I like these friends. I like to consider myself to be a pretty darned open-minded person, for a Mormon. I don't think of myself as bigoted or homophobic. (But then again, I realize that bigots and homophobes rarely do.) In part of my circle of friends, being against gay marriage is definitely a no no. It's so obvious to people why gay marriage is fine, and any religious person who gets in a huff about it is just being short-sighted and rude, forcing their own world views on the rest of the world.



But you know what? I think a lot of what the world thinks these days is completely off base. I'm constantly dismayed at how romantic love and sex is portrayed and thought of as the ultimate trump card. In an unhappy marriage? That's okay--just have an affair. That's what Hollywood would have you think, at least. Not married? No problemo. Sleep together as much as you want. Sex is looked at more and more as an inherent right: I should be able to have sex with whomever I want, whenever I want.



I disagree with that sentiment.



Just remember. I have a strong belief that the worldview of Mormonism is the true one, not the worldview of the world. I don't think there's been a time in history when people have taken a look at themselves and said, "As a species, we're pretty darn stupid." There was a time when everybody knew the world was flat--even though it wasn't. Everybody knew the sun circled the earth--even though it didn't. The best way to cure a sick person is to cut 'em open and let 'em bleed. Lead paint is perfectly safe. People are constantly thinking things that just aren't true.



I don't mean to diminish the issue of gay marriage. I realize how serious it is, and how important it is to so many people. But I also believe that my understanding is limited. For now, the prophet has said to be against gay marriage. Why? I'm not entirely sure. Is it too much to think for a moment that there might be ramifications caused by something? Consequences we don't see in the here and now? Of course it isn't. That's what prophets are here for--to help us make decisions when we have a tough time making those decisions.



And so people will read this and accuse me of following blindly. Of just turning over my decision making processes to another person. I hope that if you know me, you'll realize that's not how I operate. I've thought this matter through. I've prayed about it. I'm not against gay marriage because someone told me to be. I have a firm belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly, but wrongly, referred to as the Mormon church) is true, that it's led by a man who speaks with God, and that this current position against gay marriage comes from God.



Fine, people will say. If you don't want to support gay marriage, then don't go out and get gay married. Why have my religion butt its head into other people's lives? Setting aside the morality of the issue (which I'm doing my best not to touch with a ten foot pole in this post), my belief is that God wants what's best for His children. If the prophet advises against something, it's not because God feels like being particularly vindictive right then. It's because that advice is what's best for us at that time. That might change. But remember, I believe that the God I believe in is the only God out there, and He's your father just as much as He's mine--even if you choose not to believe in Him.



I do my best to try and understand how other people think and feel. I would hope people would do the same for me. I know some people who read this would say the obvious thing to do is to leave the church. Anything that teaches something that people define as hateful and discriminatory can't be true. But again, to me there's a distinct separation between what we define as hateful and discriminatory. My son thinks I'm an absolute jerk when I make him do his chores or don't let him have a third helping of dessert. I don't think it unreasonable that humanity still doesn't understand everything God does.



I know I'm the worst guy to be writing about such a sensitive topic. I'm white. I'm American. I come from an upper-middle class background. I'm male. I'm straight. Look up "privileged" in the dictionary, and there's my smiling face, right next to Paris Hilton's. I know it's hard to be non-white, non-American, non-male, and non-straight--theoretically, at least. I've never been any of those, after all. And I never will be.



I see the writing on the wall. I see that the country is headed toward accepting gay marriage. Does that fill me with dread? Am I worried my marriage will evaporate once it's approved? No. Humanity is really good at not doing what God wants us to. No killing. No lying. No adultery. How are we doing at all of that? Not too great. Has the world imploded yet? Nope. Life continues. I'll be happy for my friends when gay marriage is approved. Something they've really wanted for years will be here. I won't have taken part in that. In fact, I'll have been an obstacle to it. I won't be convinced it's the best thing for the country, but such is life.



Will the Mormon church ever come out in support of gay marriage? Again--no idea. I personally would be quite surprised, but stranger things have happened. Realize that according to Mormon doctrine, marriage is eternal. You're still married to your spouse after you die. You can still have children in the next world. That's one of the reasons of the entire universe. And try as people might, two men or two women can't have kids. Yes, they can adopt or have a surrogate, but you need a male part and a female part.



Anyway. I'm a bit typed out at this point. Hopefully some of this made sense. As always, I'm open to comments and questions. All that I ask is that they stay respectful--on both sides of the issue. I will delete anything dismissive or demeaning toward gay marriage or (as is often the case with articles on Mormonism) toward Mormons. So keep it civil.

When Pop Culture and Mythology Collide: Vodnik Chapter Eight

A big ol' mish mash of material ended up in this week's chapter. You've got the Roma elements--Tomas seeing some of the poorer Roma in town, and then talking to his mother about them. Then you have the pool scene and another flashback to Lesana. So much to discuss, and so little time. So I'll pick something I've been wanting to write about for quite some time.



One of the things I wanted to touch base on was a last minute minor crisis that arose in the writing of the book. Back when I was researching Vodnik, I had a big brainstorming session with my wife, and we went over all the different mythological Slovak creatures she could think of. One of my favorites (other than the Vodnik, of course), was Zubata. According to my wife, she was death personified. Sometimes she appeared as an old woman, sometimes as a young lady. Sometimes she had gold teeth. That was just crazy wacky cool, and I decided right away to put her in the book, after confirming some details about her with my brother in law.



I didn't think any more about it, until we were in the final stages of getting the book ready for print. I was trying to nail down exactly what Zubata looked like, and I started doing some research (sometimes a dangerous thing, for a librarian). I found out through that process that . . .



Zubata doesn't exist in Slovak folklore. As I mention later in the current book, she's actually a character from Perinbaba (aka Frau Holle), a super well-known (in Slovakia--and East Germany at the very least) fairy tale movie from 1985. Let me try to put this in perspective. Imagine someone was writing a book based on American folktales (assuming we had a slew), and he threw in a character called Indiana Jones, who's well known to be a whip slinging archaeologist who saves lost historical treasures.



How would that go over?



Um . . . yeah.



I want to be clear here--it's not the fault of my wife or her brother that this goof happened. I think it's just a natural part of the creation of fairy tales and folklore. Lots of creatures have entered the folklore cannon (in my opinion): Rudolph, Frankenstein, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Jedi, Scrooge--you name it. People tell each other stories all the time. Some of those stories catch on in the collective conscious. Over time, those stories evolve. Hundreds of years from now, who knows what will be viewed as folktales? Growing up, it's not like kids distinguish between stories: there aren't "Modern Stories" and "Folktales." It's all just stories.



So it makes sense that, when asked what Death was like in Slovakia, my wife fell back on the most popular depiction of Death that she knew of: Zubata.



Luckily for me, I was drawing on a universal trope. Death is kind of everywhere, and all cultures have some form of depicting it. Also lucky for me, the traditional Slovak goddess of death is Morena. (I found this out through a whole ton of last minute searching. Gotta love them library skillz.) So the crisis was averted, and I even threw in some of this into the book, by starting to call Morena by the name Zubata, and having her be frustrated with that later on in the story.



Crisis averted.



As for the rest of the chapter, I did want to touch base on the poorer Roma. One my biggest objections to the situation in Europe as regards to the Roma is that people say "Roma are like _________ because they are Roma." That just goes against everything I believe in. People behave the way they behave for any number of reasons. Upbringing certainly has something to do with it. So does the environment they're raised in. And just their inherent identity--the whole nature vs. nurture debate. It's complex as all get out, and it certainly isn't due to some inherent racially-set desire to steal or cheat or do whatever.



Are there Roma who steal and cheat and do whatever? Yes. Lots. But do they do it because they are Roma? Please. There are plenty of people in this world who steal and cheat and do whatever. Humanity does that well. In my experience, people are all people. And it's always easier to blame the Other Guy for all your troubles. That happens in practically every society. Find someone Different, and stick them with the bill for all your woes. Absolve yourself of any wrong doing. They do the bad things because they're different. You would never do those things.



The sooner was as a global community can recognize that this happens on an individual, community, and national level, the better.



And now I'll get off my soap box, and you can resume your normally scheduled Monday activities.

Thoughts on ePublishing--Harder than You Think

While I was out at CONduit, I was on a panel focused on ePublishing. It was well attended (as all ePublishing panels seem to be these days), and people had many questions. Enough that I decided I really wanted to write another post (assuming I already have written one, which is likely, but I'm too lazy to check) about the topic.



When you get right down to it, there are a slew of people out there who write books. Some have never finished one. Some have finished many. And almost all of them want their books to be published. The dedicated ones come to cons, hoping to find the secret to How to Break In--like there's some special handshake or initiation rite, and that once you've done that, voila! You're making millions and drinking tea with JK Rowling.



Then they discover that there is no secret. That everybody ends up taking a different path. That there's some luck and a whole lot of hard work involved, and that in the end, it all comes down to writing, writing, writing. (Seriously. Even once you're published, you still write write write. That's what it's all about, folks. If you're thinking you'll be published and then, like Johnson, Navin R. in The Jerk ("THINGS ARE GOING TO START HAPPENING TO ME NOW"), life will be different. Guess what? You'll still be sitting in front of a computer screen, wondering if what you're writing is garbage or not. Editing. Revising, Wracking your brain for ideas. It's all exactly the same. I don't want to disappoint you, but there it is.)



It's at this point that many people these days start thinking there must be an easier way. Simpler. Smoother. And there's the siren song of ePublishing. Free! Bahzillions of people will be exposed to your work! Put it up on Amazon. Amanda Hocking! You can approach it like a gateway drug. Put your first book up for free, and then when all the peoples are blown away and hooked, start charging the fools money! You're make thousands! Millions!



Um . . . no.



Here's the thing. You're not the only one who's had this idea. In fact, there are tons of people there already, trying to do the same thing. (In contemporary fantasy, there are 7,198 books listed right now. Tons of them are free. Why in the world is someone going to read your book? How will they find it? Let's assume you've made an attractive cover (note: you can't sort Amazon books by "attractive cover"). And you've categorized it well. Here's what 7,000 pennies looks like:




Your book is one of those pennies. Yes, you can plug it on Facebook. You can Tweet til you're blue in the fingers. You can email all your friends. Write guest blog posts. Lurk in dark alleys of the internet, peddling your book to every passerby.



And maybe some people will buy your book. For free.



I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I'm trying to be realistic here. If you're an excellent marketer, then you're one step ahead of the rest. If you've got a really popular blog, great. Just realize that every minute you're promoting your book is one less minute you're writing the next. And remember, it all comes down to writing. So unless you're independently wealthy or have an abundance of extra time . . . ePublishing is going to be a very very hard road to walk.



In my opinion, harder than the road where you get your writing to a level where agents and editors want to publish your book. Because in the end, you've got to perfect the writing. When I was in band, we had a saying: "Practice softly, play loudly." What it meant was that when you were just learning how to do something, it was often better to do that learning on your own. Not out in public where everybody starts to think of you as "the guy who can't play his instrument well." Once you've got everything down, you can come on the scene and wow them all. But first do the practicing.



The same thing goes for writing. I worry that a ton of people who want to jump on the ePublishing bandwagon are doing it because they want to take a shortcut to getting their books in the wild. Often, it's the time you spend working, writing, revising, and agonizing over your writing that teaches you how to be a better writer.



You don't want to take a shortcut around that. Trust me.



Anyway. Those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking to 'em.



Happy Friday, all. See you next week!

Fat, Sick, & Nearly Dead

I've watched  my fair share of documentaries about the food/nutrition/obesity crisis in America. It seems like five more get made every day (seriously--isn't there something else to documentarize about?) So when Denisa said she wanted to watch Fat, Sick, & Nearly Dead, I wasn't exactly enthralled with the idea. Yes, I need to eat less and exercise more. Do I need to watch another 1.5 hour movie to remind me of that fact?



In many ways, this movie isn't much different than many others. It starts with an Australian explaining how he's fat and has developed some immune deficiency things with his body that he has to take medication for, and how he hopes going on a juice diet for 60 days will cure all of the above. So he juices and juices and juices, talking to a slew of people across America about what he's doing, and getting fairly expected answers.



Until he meets a trucker.



And it's what happens after that that set this movie apart from the rest for me. I don't want to spoil what happens next, but I found the whole film to be quite inspiring, albeit in an "I'm not sure at times if this is an infomercial or a documentary" sort of way. Joe Cross, the Australian, is a big believer in juicing, and he has a website now that talks all about it. Some of this makes sense--it's helped him in his life. But I still can't help but feel like the movie is in many ways an ad platform for his juicing enterprise.



Then again, the film makes some pretty darn good observations. A lot of it boils down to "garbage in, garbage out." How should I be surprised if I don't feel well if I only put junk into my system all the time? (Granted, this movie came along to me at a very opportune moment. I'd just spent the afternoon talking to a friend who's given up processed sugar for the most part. I found this out as we were eating lunch, and I made my way to the dessert bar (two glasses of chocolate milk, three big cookies, a butterscotch pudding, and a brownie--they don't call it "all you can eat" for nothing, folks). He didn't get anything, and explained why.



I still finished all my desserts, then went back for a lemon bar later.



Then I watched this movie at night.



Sheesh.



Am I planning to start juicing? Not really, no. I feel like a lot of times people overreact to things. We're eating junk! No more carbs! Only juice! The key is moderation. Of course, it's easy to eat in moderation if you set hard and fast boundaries for yourself--"I will eat only juice for 60 days." It's pretty easy to tell if you're cheating on that diet. "Am I eating something other than juice?" Yes or no answer. Compare that to "Have I eaten more than ______ calories today?" That one involves a lot more calculation.



That said, I do think I need to pay more attention to what I eat, and I'm glad Denisa does a lot of that for me. I've been debating avoiding the processed sugars, like my friend has done.



I'm just not sure if I can do it.



Sigh.



That said, I want to be healthy. I'd like to be in shape. I'm sure eating better would help me feel better and sleep better. No doubt in my mind. The question is how much motivation I need before I actually do something other than blog about it . . .



Any of you out there seen this movie? Thoughts?

Movie Review: The Conspirator

Denisa and I watched The Conspirator the other day. It's the true story of the defense of the mother of one of the conspirators who assassinated Lincoln. That's a bit convoluted, isn't it? Let me explain. Yes, John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln--but he didn't do it alone. He had help from others, and they'd planned to not just kill Lincoln, but several other heads of state. They hatched their plot at the boarding house of one Mary Surratt, mother of one of the conspirators. After the plan went into action, they were all rounded up and tried for their parts in the scandal--and the mother was taken in, too.



This movie follows her trial, and it tries to be as historically accurate as you can expect a Hollywood depiction of the events to be. I quite enjoyed it.



First of all, you've got a really good team assembled. The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) directs. The Princess Bride (Robin Wright) plays Mary (and when did Robin get old? That's not allowed to happen!), Mr. Tumnus (James McAvoy) plays the reluctant defense lawyer, and Otto (Kevin Kline) is the head of the war department, set on hanging everybody he can. (Have you ever thought how cool it would be if actors played one of their previous roles in a different film? I wrote a book that had that as one of its founding ideas--except for books, rather than movies. But maybe it's just me who thinks that would be neat.)



Really, where the movie shines is also where it gets bogged down at times: it's "greater meaning." Redford has a tendency to politicize with too heavy a hand in this film. McAvoy is a young up and coming lawyer with big dreams. He thinks Mary is as guilty as sin, but he's roped into defending her against his will. Naturally, once he gets to know the specifics of her case, he starts to see how she might be innocent, and he ends up defending her too vigorously against an administration eager to be able to pin the assassination on a few individuals, kill them, and then let the country "move on." This movie has a Theme, and that's both a strength and a weakness. It gives it something to shoot for and aspire to, but we're hit over the head with it occasionally.



Redford put a lot of care into the historical aspect of the movie, and if you're a history buff, this would be right up your alley. The costumes and setting are all top notch.



In the end, one of the reasons I'm giving the movie a solid three stars is because it helped me see a slice of history in a different light. I think a lot of the time we read history books and imagine that an entire time period or event can easily be summed up on a few pages. The Great Depression was depressing. Everybody was jumping out of windows or starving. The Cold War was a time when everyone was worried we'd get nuked any minute. Life isn't like that. I imagine in sixty years, history will have relegated the Great Recession (or whatever they call this time we're living in right now) to a few pages, as well. But from what I've seen so far, life is life. It continues in one decade more or less how it did in another. There are shades of good and evil. The Civil War era was no different.



Yes, the movie can be heavy handed, but in the end, it doesn't go too far. Reading up on the trial afterward, it appears to have presented things more or less how they happened, and I can respect a movie for that. If you're a history or legal buff, this is a movie you'll enjoy, I think. If you want explosions and a rollicking plot line, move on to the next.



Anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

Relationship Success: Institute a Statute of Limitations?

So I was thinking some yesterday (as I am know to do from time to time). Actually, I was reading an article in the Ensign (the Mormon monthly magazine) discussing relationships, and it had this piece of information in it:

Personal attacks and dredging up incidents from years past were specific things I didn’t want in our marriage.

I'll admit that I've been as guilty of this as the next guy. (Assuming the next guy is guilty of it, that is. I mean, maybe I'm the only one who does this. In which case, I'm even guiltier than the next guy, who's completely innocent.) I have a good memory. Say something once to me, and if it sticks out at all in my head, then I'm good to go with that comment for the REST OF YOUR NATURAL LIFE. Just ask Denisa. She'll say something in passing, and then who knows when I might whip that comment out to prove or disprove a point during some future discussion.



This isn't fair.



I know this isn't fair, and yet I've done it anyway. (Please note: Denisa and I hardly ever disagree. I know you don't believe this, but it's true. We were play-bickering over how to load the dishwasher the other day, and TRC said, "Guys. Don't fight." I blinked in surprise. Clearly TRC hadn't really ever heard real fighting. I consider that a sign of success thus far in my marriage. Because Denisa and I have yet to really have a real fight. But I won't get into all of that. We've had our fair share of discussions.)



Anyway. I read that quote, and it struck a chord with me. Suddenly I thought--in an all-at-once sort of thought--that what I really need to do is institute a sort of statute of limitations on things that happen in my marriage or in friendships.



People change. It doesn't happen quickly, but it has been known to happen. People also do and say things they wish they'd not done or said. They make mistakes. They do something intentionally, and then later regret that they'd done that thing. And the law has a way of dealing with that. There's a time and place to bring charges against someone, but after a set period of time, that time and place ceases to exist. (For most crimes. Serious offenses have no statute of limitations, and I think this goes for a marriage, too. Abuse of any kind, for one thing.)



So what would such a statute look like in a friendship or relationship?



I think for one thing, it would mean something like "If an issue has been aired and resolved more than a year ago, that issue can be laid to rest. It's no longer fair game to be cited as incriminating evidence in the future."



Now, as I think about this, there are always some things that keep cropping up in a relationship. Consistent disagreements or misdemeanors. And typically what will happen, is that when one of these rears its head again, someone will cite the long history of that issue happening over and over again in the past. I guess this statute wouldn't apply as much to long standing issues. Those are things that need to be ironed out. But things that happened in the past that aren't being repeated now--but which are used as "ammo" when some other argument springs up?



Against the rules. You can't do that.



I'm not sure about all of this. How it would actively work in a relationship? The kernel of the idea is there for me--and I agree with it--but as I'm trying to express it in this post, it seems to be escaping me. Can anyone else see what I'm getting at?



Comments/Thoughts?
[image error]

Pop Culture and Stereotypes: Vodnik Chapter Seven

The tour of the town in chapter seven is also the first time we really get in to any of the racism plot line of the novel. The Bigot Gang is something that came into the book very late in the revision process. In the first run through I did when I was changing the book to incorporate Roma elements, Tomas pretty much just had to deal with general feelings of distrust from the people in the city. He didn't have anything specific to fight against. That didn't work out well, and I think I've noted that before in these commentaries. (Of course, I'd never inserted something into a book on the same scale as changing Tomas's race had been. That affected a whole lot of interactions in many different scenes. Although since in the original draft, Tomas was kind of an outcast and didn't fit in well, it didn't change as much as it would have to if he'd been a football jock and really popular in Slovakia, for example.)





Another issue the book had been having was that Tomas's character was inconsistent. Sometimes he was really into pop culture, and sometimes the references seemed to subside. I had to either fish or cut bait with him--go for more pop culture, or dial it down. I went for broke.




Pop culture and I have a pretty deep relationship, to say the least. I watch movies and tv shows. A lot of movies and tv shows. Much of the way I think about the world is through pop culture. I use it to illustrate points I'm trying to make. I quote it in my everyday conversations. I memorize things pretty easily, and so it just sort of enters my brain and stays there. As I've been writing different characters over the years, they all end up having some sort of connection to pop culture, although I try to use different aspects of my addiction to feed each one. Tomas ended up getting a whole bunch of popular movies, while other characters in the past have had everything from TV shows to film noir to horror. (One area I haven't done much with yet is music. I'm thinking that's time for a change, although I need to find the right character.)




Of course, anytime you're writing a YA book, it becomes tricky to use pop culture well. I'm out of the loop in many ways when it comes to the movies and shows that teens love today. I may watch them, but I interact with those shows differently. I had to make a conscious effort in writing Vodnik to include as much of a wide range of movies as I could--drawing on different time periods. It was interesting to watch test readers respond to the references I included. People responded to the ones they understood, but the ones they didn't flew right past them--enough that at the end of the book, I'd have people warning me that I needed more pop culture references from times other than [whichever time period they were familiar with]. The references are there, trust me.




Anyway--this is all to say that I used the Bigot Gang for two purposes--to up the pop culture quotient, and to become the embodiment of the prejudice Tomas faces in Trencin. Jabba, Gollum, and Draco--easy enough to decide which film series to draw from. I went for as universal as possible. They're a nasty group, or at least they are in this book. If/when I ever get to write a sequel, they'll of course still be present--that's a conflict I look forward to exploring. They're in the same grade as Tomas, but he hasn't yet had to interact with them as fellow students.




It's interesting (to me, at least) that Tomas reduces other people to stereotypes just as they reduce him to stereotypes. I think it's a hard thing for people to break free of. We all interact with people on a limited basis, and we tend to pigeon hole people into categories. Stereotypes. Teen. Grandpa. Professor. Librarian. And we get used to seeing and talking to that person in that role--so much so that we stop thinking about them as anything but that role. Then we see them in a different capacity, or they do something that surprises us, and we have to reevaluate the categories we've placed them into.




This is getting a bit too philosophical for a Monday. I'll just leave it by saying that it would be interesting to study the ways racism and preconceived notions play out in this book. But maybe it's a bit pompous of me to try and think a book of mine could be analyzed on that level. I don't mean to say I'm a genius and put everything in it on purpose. The subconscious takes care of an awful lot . . . 




Have a good one, folks. I'll see you tomorrow.