Bryce Moore's Blog, page 274

Vodnik Commentaries: Chapter Four

A short little chapter this time--and almost all of it is new, compared to the first draft. First off, let me just warn you that there are some SPOILERS in this commentary, so don't read this unless you've finished the book. Got it? Okay.



So there are two big reasons this section earned itself an chapter, and they both come down to characters. The first one is pretty obvious: Vitazoslav. In the original version, the vodnik doesn't show up until Tomas goes down the well. He's alluded to, of course. Lesana shows up and warns Tomas about him. He's told to watch out for him by Ohnica. But the vodnik doesn't make an actual appearance until page 188 (in the current book). For a main character--one which the book is named after--that's just way too late. And it didn't make sense, either. Why in the world would the vodnik just sit back and never try to contact Tomas? So I added this scene with him in Vitazoslav disguise here in Chapter Four.



To a Slovak, this scene would be rather less spoilerific. As soon as I describe Vito as dripping water, a Slovak would totally know he's the vodnik. It would be akin to me mentioning offhandedly that there was a guy who had no reflection in a vampire book. My wife was worried enough about it when she read the revision that she questioned whether it was a good idea revealing so soon who the vodnik was. I told her not to worry. Was I right? I've had a couple of people guess early on, but a lot of others had no clue. And in the end, I don't mind if the audience guesses/finds out before Tomas. The trick is making sure that Tomas doesn't appear stupid for not getting it earlier.



That's a fine line to walk. When you have a mystery, how and when do you reveal it? How many clues do you put in? When? What do you leave out? Put in too many, and your audience all gets it too soon, and they might get irritated that your main character doesn't get it earlier. Put in too few, and your audience can get angry that it was too hard to guess. Too obscure. You want just enough to string the audience along--keep them guessing at all times--but still make the reveal clear enough that they feel like they should have gotten it all along.



So far I've heard few people complain that it takes Tomas too long to figure out who the Vodnik is. I think for the most part it worked quite well. What did you think?



The other main difference is that I gave Adam a bigger part, so that when I killed him halfway through the book, his death would have a bigger impact on Tomas and the audience. I know. I'm a total jerk. The thing was, in the first draft, Adam's a friend of Lubos, but he's no one really identifiable. So he dies, and it's sort of like, "Meh." I didn't like that response. So I had Tomas totally relate to the guy. Had him be awesome.



And then I still killed him.



Being an author is having to make the tough calls sometimes. Sorry Adam. It wasn't personal. It was business.[image error]

Movie Review: The Avengers

I'm not even entirely sure why I'm reviewing The Avengers. I mean, from the numbers, it looks like everyone in the world has already seen it, so that makes a review like this kind of redundant. But hey--I like to review things, and this is a movie that demands a review. Even if it's only to say, "Everyone is right. This movie is awesome."



Because it is, of course.



But the thing is, it could easily have been awful. Think about it for a moment. So many big name actors in one place? Huge stars and story lines forced to interact? It could have been a train wreck. It should have been a train wreck. How do you keep that many balls in the air for 2 and a half hours, and have them all come together at the climax in a believable, moving fashion?



I was blown away by how well Joss Whedon pulled it off. Each hero remained distinct. Each story had its own development and growth. Better yet, it all made sense! I had read a quote before about how they were using Transformers: Dark of the Moon as a pattern for Awesome. Um . . . no. Transformers has a lot of robots fighting, yes. But you don't really care about any of them. (I didn't, at least.) Seeing a bunch of special effects is worthless if you don't actually care about the characters involved.



If this movie had been all about superheroes battling, it would have stunk. Instead, it's about characters--and that's what really sets it apart. I love that it took its audience seriously. It treated the characters as people, not pawns. Sometimes when awful comic or fantasy movies are made, I wonder if the creators ever even talked to a fan. Ever treated the audience like thinking people. That's definitely not the case here.



Really, the only thing that caused me any concern through the whole film was, "When will we ever get the chance to see something like this happen again?" I'm just not sure if The Avengers 2 can be pulled off, with all the same characters. The stars had to align just right for this one. Then again, with all the money it's taking in, maybe I don't need to be concerned. They certainly set up a sequel well--while keeping the film contained to a single movie.



I also loved how they pulled off the Hulk in this film. He's not broody and conflicted through the whole movie. He has some great action scenes, and is a lot of fun to watch. A+ for that.



In any case, if you haven't seen the movie, go and watch now. It's such a great fun comic book movie. The Dark Knight was a great dark comic book movie--and I love how we're starting to see different types of these films. (Not sure if I really want another Spiderman, though. They had the preview for the next one in front of The Avengers . . . meh.)



What did you all think?[image error]

Writer Q&A: How I Edit My Novels

Trevor Green over at Beyond Dragons and Wizards wanted to know a bit about how I go about the editing process. I thought this would make a great blog post, so I'm answering his questions for you all to see right here. Hope this helps some of you!



Q: First off, how long do you generally wait before coming back to a first draft? Do you wait until you've practically forgotten what the book is about, or do you just want to forget the sentence structure, etc.?



A: I give it a while, honestly. As long as I can. Back in the days before I was published and working on deadlines, I'd like to wait at the bare minimum for a half year or so, especially when I'm gearing up for the second draft. For me, second drafts still have a great deal of discovery left in them. Things aren't nailed in place. I'm not worried about refining sentence structure--I'm worried about changing plots and characters. Massive, big changes. Because sometimes something looks great in an outline, feels great while you're writing it, and then . . . isn't great. Your writing group and alpha readers just can't stand it. I like to have enough distance from the book to be able to tell for myself if I agree with them or not. When I'm still too close to the writing, that's hard to do. I'm inclined to like it--I just wrote it. Also, I like to distance myself from criticisms. Just because somebody didn't like it, doesn't mean that it needs to change--at least not the way they said it should. Sometimes someone might just be noticing that something feels off. They think they've found the solution, but when you read it over yourself, you discover it's something deeper that's wrong, which is causing some symptom problems elsewhere.



Q: What's the first thing you do? Do you read it through without picking up the red pen? Or do you dive in and just go for it? For that matter, maybe you do a lot of prep work: note cards, diagrams, character sheets, scene rundowns, etc. What works best for you?



A: I print that puppy out on paper. Then I grab a red pen and start reading. No character sheets. No diagrams. I toss out everything I've done, backstory-wise, and just read it like I'm reading someone else's work. I note what works, what doesn't. I write down ideas for changes. Where I get bored. Again--it doesn't matter if I built the world a certain way in the planning stage. If it ain't working, it ain't working. I try not to be wedded to any one thing in the book.



Once I'm done reading and marking the whole thing up, I look over my comments. That's also when I look over comments my alpha or beta readers had, as well as my writing group. I compile everything into a big honking TO BE CHANGED list, and I start going at it.



In many ways, I edit in layers. I'll note that one character wasn't strong enough, so I'll go through and find all the instances that character appeared, and I'll change accordingly. I'll note that I need to add or change a subplot. I'll do all of that at once, too. It's just too difficult to go through and try and make all the changes chronologically as I go through from start to finish. I start to forget what I changed, and how I changed it. I keep my marked up copy of the book handy throughout all this, to remind myself not just what I wanted to change, but why.



Q: I know a lot of people talk about their tendency to change character personalities halfway through their first draft (I have a quote from Brandon that Isaac gave me last night saying just that), and I know I do that myself. How do you go about changing the previous chapters of that character's personality? It seems incredibly tedious and overwhelming. Do you have any tips?



A: It is tedious and overwhelming. But it needs to be done. I typically don't know my characters all that well when I start writing a book. By the end, I know them much better. By the end of the fourth draft, I'm an expert on all of them. It's really not as hard as it seems at first, to go back and fix all the places where they're inconsistent. Also, a big piece of advice I'd have for you is to not make the mistake of thinking your second draft will be your last. Vodnik went through at least six substantial drafts, as I recall. Revision is hard work. (That said, this only goes for me. It's certainly possible the way you write and revise will be different. But I was really surprised by how much more editing and revising I had to do to get the book to a publishable level. Be prepared for that. Embrace it.)



Q: How many people do you think read your first draft before you begin hacking away at it?



A: Not a set number. As many as I can get to read it. These days, my agent for sure. A few trusted friends. My writing group. But the biggest one is definitely me. What I think of the book after I read it again--see the answer to question 1. I don't think there's a set number of people who have to read it. One or two great readers are much better than 10 or 15 okay ones. Who do you trust? Go with them.



Q: Do you do separate read-throughs for all the different things that need to be fixed (character vs plot vs pacing vs logistics vs tone), or do you try to manage them all at once?



A: In a perfect world, I'd do them all at once. In reality, I end up doing them in stages, continually improving different things with each pass through. Maybe I'll get better at this and be able to take short cuts, but I doubt it.



Q: How do you manage and compile all your reader's feedback? Do you combine them into one Word document as notes alongside your manuscript, or do you juggle them separately? Maybe you ignore them completely.



A: I keep them in whatever form I compiled them the first time. For people who read the whole novel at once, I keep their annotated copy. For writing group, I keep my notes on their comments. But all of that goes to the master annotated copy I make as I'm doing the read through. In the end, it all funnels to that single copy, and then I ignore the other notes, unless I suddenly forget why I wanted a certain change, or something like that.



In the end, editing is work. Very different work from what goes into the first draft. It can be really tempting to just give up on it and go write something new, but if you keep doing that, you'll only be developing half of the talent you need to make it at a higher level. It's going to take time, and it's not going to be easy. But it's definitely worth it. Also--remember to hold some fresh readers back from reading the first or second draft. Once you revise enough, it'll start getting very difficult to know if what you're doing is making things any better. That's when fresh beta readers are an absolute must.



Good luck!




[image error]

On Getting One Star Reviews

Yes, it's true. I've gotten a couple of one star reviews since Vodnik came out. Both over on Goodreads. (Well, technically there are 3 one star reviews over there. But two of them are the same review by the same person, one for her review site, and one for her personally. I'm only counting that as one.) They came out a while ago, and I didn't really mention them. Mainly because one doesn't typically go about highlighting reviews that didn't like your book (although honestly, a lot of that review seemed pretty positive to me. "One thing I did notice was that this book has the same feel as Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Now, I absolutely hated the Percy Jackson series, so there could potentially be a lot of fans of this novel." I'd be through the roof ecstatic to have a book as well liked as Percy Jackson. Also--"This book has a silly feel to it that the younger generation, and fans of the Percy Jackson series, would greatly appreciate." Not the worst recommendation a book could get, you know?)



In any case, I always knew that there would be people who wouldn't like my book. There are certainly plenty of books out there that I personally don't like a whole lot--or at all. (I just don't shout it from the rooftops. Because . . . it wouldn't feel right to me, somehow. I know--I give some movies terrible reviews. Scathing even. And it can be a lot of fun to really tear down a piece you loathed. I do that with movies, because I watch a ton of movies, and I'm not a creator of movies. Once you start creating what you're reviewing . . . I'm not sure you can really impartially review it anymore. Does that make sense?)



So like I said--I knew the dislikes would come. I just wasn't sure how I would respond to them. Would it be soul crushing, to have strangers say they hated my book? (Or worse--to have friends say it? I have yet to have a bad review from a friend, but I can't imagine there's not some of you out there--friends who read the book and thought it was just okay. Or thought it was pretty crummy. I understand. It's okay. And thanks for not sharing your views with everybody else. :-)   )



I haven't been crushed by the reviews. Haven't even really been phased by them. Art is subjective, and writing is art. It's a matter of taste. Go to any Amazon page you want, and you're almost bound to find some one star reviews. Yes, some are written by boneheads who are reviewing the price, not the product. Or who have an agenda and are trying to promote themselves by tearing other people down. But you'll also find plenty of people who just disagree about how good something is.



That's okay.



I think it helps me that I've had my fair share of arguments over what movies are good and what movies are bad. There's no right or wrong when it comes to taste. (Well, if you can't justify your opinion, or you're using a crummy system to evaluate it, then maybe--but there are going to be some people who think chocolate ice cream is awesome and vanilla is just too bland and boring, and others who hate the cloy sweetness of chocolate and love their smooth creamy dreamy vanilla.)



So I'm relieved that I was okay with the bad reviews. I hoped I would be. Maybe it would be different if most of my reviews were bad, with just a few positive ones here and there. But they haven't been. Overwhelmingly positive, is how I'd phrase it. I'm really happy for that. But at the same time, I'm two books removed from working on Vodnik now. My agent is sending Tarnhelm out to editors next week, and I'm coming up on 20,000 words into The Valentine Affair (title likely to change). So there's quite a bit of separation between me and Vodnik now. I would love love love to write a sequel (get all your friends to buy Vodnik! Buy Vodnik for all your friends!), but right now, I'm busy trying to figure out what in the world happens next in my current project. (Speaking of which, I really ought to go finish today's word count. I still have 690 words to go.



How about you--have any of you out there had works reviewed already? Poorly? How did you handle it? Thoughts in general? Please share! And if you haven't written a review of Vodnik yet, why not give it a try? (If it's going to be a good review, that is. If it's negative, I think you should think it over some more. Like for a year or two.)



:-)[image error]

Adventures at My First Magic Prerelease Event

Last Saturday was the prerelease for the latest Magic the Gathering set: Avacyn Restored. I've been playing Magic online against my good accordion playing bud down in Philly, and thoroughly enjoy it. But I haven't played competitively, or against strangers. For those of you who don't know, at a prerelease, you go and play in a tournament for prizes, essentially. I'm quite the introvert until I get to know someone, so the idea of going to play against strangers . . . didn't really fill me with glee. New environment? Nobody I know there? Not my comfort zone. But my friend really said I should give it a try, and so I went.



Thoughts?



First off, I have to say that I really enjoyed the experience. I'm a big game player, and there's something to be said for playing games with people sitting across from you in real life, as opposed to playing them remotely. The people at the store were nice and welcoming, and I didn't end up feeling too out of place, which was a relief. I got to play Magic for an afternoon, and I had a good enough time doing it that I'd really like to do it again sometime.



That said, it was a lot of Magic at once. I think the thing lasted something like 5 hours, which felt long. I wish it were in the evening, instead of in the afternoon--there are just so many other things I have to do that can be done at 1 on a Saturday. Then again, I regularly give up 4 hours of my life to BYU football each week when football's in season, so I suppose this isn't much different. Just not as socially acceptable on a wide scale. Prerelease events are only four times a year.



Building a deck with real cards and a hard time limit was stressful, but I got it done. Playing games where it mattered if I won or lost . . . also stressful, but in a fun way. In the end, I played five rounds. I lost my first 0-2, won my second 2-0, lost my third 1-2 (but really should have won--stupid mistakes on my part), lost my fourth 0-2, then won my fifth 2-0. Over all, 5-11. Could have been better, but not bad for my first time, I felt. For those of you who know/care, my deck was a green/blue with a lot of bounce. It worked more or less like I planned it, except I misinterpreted the rules on a few cards, which got me in trouble in the actual application of the deck.



What did I like most about it? Playing a strategy game. I love games that make me think, and when you're handed a jumble of semi-related cards and told "Make a deck out of these that can beat someone else's deck," it involves a heck of a lot of strategizing and thinking.



So all told, the experiment was a success. Maybe next time, I can have an actual winning record.

Sunday Talk: Personal Accountability and Stewardship

This past Sunday, I spoke in church. As I am wont to do, I like to get more mileage out of these talks--this one took a long time for me to finish, so why not have it as a blog post? So for all of you who have always wondered what my views on personal accountability, stewardship, and salvation are--wonder no more. Here ya go:






For the past several months, my mind keeps coming back to the
relationship between personal accountability and stewardship. We’re told we’re
responsible for our own salvation, but we’re also told we need to do everything
we can to help other people be saved, too. There have been times I feel like
I’m failing at my calling and duty as an Elders Quorum President when members
under my stewardship are becoming less active in the Gospel.




Just this past week at Stake Conference, Elder Ellis referred
to the Parable of the Talents, found in Matthew 25. The basics of this one are
simple. A man entrusts three different stewards with varying amounts of money.
The steward entrusted with five talents makes an additional five talents. The
one entrusted with three makes another three. But the one entrusted with one
does nothing with it, for fear of losing it. When it comes time for a reckoning,
the one who was fearful is chastened, while the ones who invested their talents
and increased them are rewarded.




We are taught by our leaders that we are supposed to magnify
our callings. That we are to do them well. To follow the promptings of the Spirit
and do what God would have us do. What we forget—what I forget, at least—is
that doing what the Spirit tells us to do will not always result in a perfect
ward, quorum, or family. Free agency prevents that happening. If we do our best
to contact our home or visiting teaching families, and yet the meetings
constantly fall through, or they decline our visits, does that make us worse
stewards?




On the surface, it would seem to. After all, in the parable,
the stewards who were given their talents and invested them both doubled their
money. They were successful. So if we don’t have something tangible at the end
of the day to show how hard we worked, doesn’t that mean we have been poor
stewards? After all, the one man who hadn’t increased the initial investment
was told by his lord, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that
I reap where I sowed not, and gather
where I have not strawed:

 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to
the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own
with usury.

 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and
give it unto him which hath ten talents.

 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall
be taken away even that which he hath.

 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer
darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.




Isn’t that a bit harsh? I read that, and I worry. If I’m not
successful at my calling, it seems like I’m going to be in a lot of trouble
when it comes time to report on my efforts.




But I think when I read this parable, I focus too much on the
what and not enough on the why. Was the one steward cast out because he hadn’t
made enough money, or because he hadn’t even tried? I tend to think it was his
lack of effort that the Savior was highlighting in the parable, and that one of
the main messages we’re supposed to take away from this story isn’t a “be
successful or be damned” moral, but rather a “try and you can’t fail” maxim.




Think of it for a moment. If Christ had wanted to, he could
have presented three different scenarios. We all know, after all, that every
time you invest money, you’re not always going to double it in a year. But He
didn’t put that in the parable. There are essentially two groups of investors.
Those who tried, and those who did nothing. The ones who tried, succeeded.
Unsurprisingly, the ones who didn’t, didn’t.




Fantastic, right! All I need to do is put forth a little bit
of effort, and I’m off the hook. Of course, every time I think that,
something—the Spirit—tells me that I’m off in my interpretation. We need to try
our hardest, not just put forth a token effort. And God, being God, knows when
I’m trying my hardest and when I’m not.




“So why is it,” I’ve wondered from time to time, “that I have
to be responsible for both my salvation and the salvation of others, whether
those others are in my family, the ward, or the community?” Because at times I
feel that what I really need to find is a good scriptural basis for letting
other people take care of themselves. I want a doctrinal excuse for not having
to worry about my fellow man, because sometimes, it seems like my fellow man
really doesn’t want any help.




If you serve in any callings in this church, it won’t be long
before you’re confronted with the responsibility of helping someone who doesn’t
want any help. I remember on my mission in East Germany, I had this opportunity
many times. Most people we talked to resented us being there, and yet I never
felt like a failure. It didn’t matter to me that people weren’t lining up to be
baptized. Sure, it was disheartening at times. I remember one young man named
Eric. He was in his late teens, and he was unemployed. He’d spend his days
playing video games and eating Bratwurst, living the German dream. We’d found
him when we were street contacting, and he was interested enough to have us
come over and teach him the lessons.




Things went fine. More than fine, actually. Eric was
committed to being baptized, he was reading the Book of Mormon. Everything was
going smoothly, until suddenly it wasn’t anymore. He stopped reading. Stopped
even showing up for appointments. And from there it dwindled away to nothing.




But again, I didn’t feel like a failure. I’d done what I was
supposed to do—I’d presented the Gospel to Eric, and he’d declined to explore
it further. That experience was repeated many times on my mission. Leipzig had
about 120 missionaries, and about 60 baptisms per year. East Germany wasn’t
very interested in the Gospel, period.




So with all that experience with rejection and helping people
who didn’t want help, I had to wonder what was different now. Maybe some of it
has to do with the fact that I don’t get whisked away every four or six months,
like some sort of roving Mary Poppins. On a mission, wards have a beginning and
an end. You show up, work hard, and at the end of your time there, you can see
a real effect from your efforts. If someone’s baptized, then that’s it. Mission
successful. As a member of a ward, you see things from a different perspective.
One of us might be active today and not coming to church a year from now. Other
members haven’t come for decades, and suddenly pop back up at church one week.
As a missionary, I taught about enduring to the end, as a member, I get to see
how that works in real life.




Not that church attendance is the only marker of how well a
person is doing spiritually—or even the best marker. Showing up to a building
for one, two, or three hours a week doesn’t mean you’re headed for the Celestial
Kingdom. I certainly struggle with my own issues, as I’m certain everyone in
this room does, too. And that’s the thing. At times, I feel like my struggles
are more than I can deal with. How should I be expected to help others deal
with their problems when I have trouble handling my own? Why can’t we all just
look out for ourselves and forget about everyone else?




In many ways, we seem to be hit from both sides as active
church members. We’re told that we are responsible for our actions. We must
repent, improve ourselves, and do our best to become more perfect. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. That’s telling us to be perfect. It
doesn’t say “be ye perfect, as long as somebody else helps you.” And I don’t
think we’re going to be able to get away blaming our imperfections on others
when it comes time to be judged at the last day. Can you say, “I would have
been nicer to other people, if they had just been nicer to me”?




But at the same time that we’re commanded to be perfect, we
also know we’re responsible to help our fellow man. Go after the lost sheep.
Bring them back to the fold. Time and time again, President Monson has
encouraged us to reach out to those who have fallen away from the Gospel. To
lose ourselves in service.

         

And here’s where it breaks down for me sometimes. If I’m
responsible for my salvation, how can I also be responsible for someone else’s?
Isn’t he responsible for himself, too?




For a while, I’d thought I’d found scriptural backing for
this sentiment in the Parable of the 10 Virgins.Matthew
25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be
likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the
bridegroom.

2 And five of them were wise, and
five were foolish.

3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and
took no oil with them:

4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their
lamps.

5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold,
the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your
oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest
there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy
for yourselves.

10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and
they that were ready went in with him to the
marriage: and the door was shut.

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord,
Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you,
I know you not.

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither
the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.




Bam! Here it is. Just what I was looking for. You keep track
of yourself, and let other people worry about themselves. Just keep your eye on
your own oil, and forget everyone else. Right?




Wrong. Because you have the Parable of the Unmerciful
Servant. Matthew 18:23 ¶Therefore is the kingdom of
heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto
him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord
commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all
that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him,
saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with
compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his
fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and
took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and
besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison,
till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they
were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord
all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said
unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not
thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I
had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the
tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto
you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their
trespasses.




So how do these parables gel? Should the virgins have been
willing to share their oil, if you’re following the rules of the Unmerciful
Servant parable? I thought about that for a while, and I think I came up with
an answer. In the parable of the 10 virgins, each only had enough to get them
through the night. If one of the virgins had brought a supersize mega value
container of oil, I’m confident the Lord would have expected her to share some
of that oil with the others. Yes, it wouldn’t have been exactly fair. Yes—she
would have been the one with the foresight to bring all the oil, and the others
would have been lax in their duty to prepare themselves. But we need to have
faith that He whose place it is to judge will judge wisely and well. I
certainly hope when the time comes to judge me, the Law of Mercy will be
liberally applied. But how can I expect that if I don’t do my best to be
merciful to others?




When it comes to other people, it’s far too easy to be a big
Law of Justice kind of a guy, mainly because it’s such a great excuse. The
temptation is there, of course. Just sit back and help anyone willing to make
it easy to help them. But that’s not how God operates, and I for one am very
grateful that it isn’t. There are so many times when I don’t make it easy on
Him to help me. So many times when I seem like I don’t want any help myself.
Does He turn away from me then? He doesn’t. Sometimes I just wish that didn’t
mean I had to do the same.




I’ll be honest. I want to be able to judge other people. I
feel like I should be able to dismiss someone else’s problems, marking them up
to poor judgment, just desserts, and people getting their comeuppance. When it
comes time to look at my mistakes, of course, it’s a different story. There are
extenuating circumstances for all of the things I do wrong each day.




If there’s anything I’ve learned as a parent of two children,
it’s that all of us seem to be born with an inherent desire for life to be
fair. If I’m dishing out dessert, sometimes I feel like I really ought to weigh
the portions, just to be able to prove that they’re exactly equal in every way.
It’s one thing when it’s primary kids, but at times I catch myself doing the
same thing. Maybe someone else gets a promotion or a raise. Or else I work hard
to do something, then have to turn around and do it for someone else, and they
don’t even seem to think it was that big of a deal. It’s hard not to feel
disappointed or even cheated at times. Like your hard work and effort ought to
result in automatic blessings.




And let’s face it: hard work and effort do bring blessings.
Just not always the ones we’re expecting to see or wish we might see. Still, there’s
definitely something to be said for our own personal accountability for our
salvation.




The fact is that when we will be judged, we’ll be judged
according to our own personalized grading rubric, and not our neighbors. God
knows what we are capable of. He knows the trials we went through. Who helped
us. Who didn’t. Whose offers we accepted. Whose offers we spurned. At times
this world seems like a competition, but it’s only a test. A test where the
passing grade for one person is a failing grade for another. You can’t tell how
you’re doing by looking at your neighbor’s answers. You don’t smoke?
Congratulations. Maybe smoking was never really a test for you. I’ve never
smoked a cigarette in my life, but something tells me I won’t be able to use
that as grounds for admittance to the Celestial Kingdom. I’ve never wanted to
smoke a cigarette.




The only person who can decide if you’re not doing enough is
you. The only person who can decide if you’re doing too much is also you. That
stinks, doesn’t it? It means there are people out there who are doing far too
much. Spreading themselves far too thin. They need to circle the wagons and
cool down a bit. There are others out there who are doing far too little.
They’re capable of much more. They need to push themselves further.




The trick is, we can’t tell who is who. Well, maybe if we’ve
been given stewardship over a certain group, then we might be able to, mainly
through revelation from God. But if one person’s driving a Corvette and the
other one’s driving a Camry, comparing how fast they can go from 0 to 60 isn’t
quite fair, is it? In Mere Christianity,
CS Lewis compares two different people, one a mean tempered Christian, the
other a very pleasant atheist. “Christian Miss Bates may have an unkinder
tongue than unbelieving Dick Firkin. 
That, by itself, does not tell us whether Christianity works.  The question is what Miss Bates's tongue
would  be like if she were not a
Christian and what Dick's  would be like
if he became one . . . To judge the management of a factory, you must consider
not only the output but the plant. Considering the plant at Factory A it may be
a wonder that it turns out anything 
at  all; considering the  first-class outfit  at Factory 
B its output, though high, may be a great deal lower than  it ought to be.  No doubt the good manager at Factory A is
going to put in new machinery as soon as he can, but that takes time. In the
meantime low output does not prove that he is a failure”




Lewis goes on to say, “If you are a nice person-if virtue
comes easily to you beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given.
If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through
nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel:
and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption
more complicated, your bad example more disastrous.  The Devil 
was  an archangel once;  his natural 
gifts  were  as 
far  above  yours as 
yours are  above  those of a chimpanzee.




     But if you are a
poor  creature-poisoned  by  a
wretched upbringing  in some house full
of vulgar jealousies . . .-nagged day  in
and day  out  by 
an  inferiority  complex 
that  makes you  snap 
at  your best friends-do not
despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He
knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive.  Keep on. 
Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far
sooner than that) he will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one.
And then you may astonish us all-not least yourself: for you have learned your
driving in a hard school.”




So what’s the solution? I’ve driven all around the block in
this talk now. It’s time to actual come to a destination. We’re supposed to
help others, we’re supposed to help ourselves. To use Lewis’s terminology, each
factory has a limited output, and we need to decide—with God’s help—how that
output should be allotted.




As I think about it, it seems to me that we each have been
blessed with a certain measure of all manner of things. Take my wife and me,
for example. I think she’d be the first to agree that I’m better at computer
repair and typing speed, whereas she has me beaten hands down at bread baking and
gardening. If the computer needs repairing, I’m the one who steps in to handle
it. When bread needs baking, Denisa takes over. Then again, there are going to
be times when the computer can’t get repaired right away, or the bread just has
to wait. I can see this so easily in my daily life—I just have trouble
reminding myself of it when it comes to my church responsibilities. The
missionaries are calling to find someone to go with them to an appointment, I
have my home teaching to do, a quorum activity to plan, presidency meeting to
prepare, the lesson to read for Sunday, and then someone calls me to ask me to
give a talk. Oh yeah, and stake conference and a trip to Bangor are in the mix,
too.




We’re instructed not to run faster than we have strength, and
I think that applies to the church sphere as much as it does to our personal
lives.




Maybe one of the best comparisons I thought of while I was
working on this talk was likening it to fast offerings. Once a month, we’re to
go without food for two meals. We then donate the money that would have been
spent on that food, and we’re encouraged to give more, if possible. By
sacrificing something, we have something to give. The same goes for church
callings. We’re asked to sacrifice something finite—something concrete. Often
our time or our talents. It’s up to us to find a way to fit our lives into the
time remaining to us.




As we pray and ask God for help, we’ll be shown ways to get
the things done which must be done, and we’ll also be able to know what needs
doing now and what can wait until later—or not be done at all. There are going
to be times someone asks me to do something, and I need to say no. The more I
live the Gospel, the more I begin to think knowing when to say no is just as
important as knowing when to say yes. Know your capabilities. Share the excess
you have with others when you can. And remember—what you can give will be
different from what someone else can give. Ours is not to judge the output of
everyone else. Just keep doing your best.


And that’s a solution I can live with.

Vodnik Chapter Commentaries: Chapter Three

It's another Monday, and that means another chapter commentary for Vodnik. For those of you just joining us, this is the continuing saga of what changes went into the book during the drafting process. We're up to chapter three. Exciting, isn't it? :-)



The biggest change of this chapter was forcing Tomas to walk through the castle blindfolded until he got to the joust. In the original, Tomas sees the castle three times. First from the car the night he comes in. Second as he walks through it on his way to the joust. Third as Lubos takes him on the tour. It didn't take a genius to figure out that three times weren't as powerful as one single time would be.



The blindfold trick?



Maybe a bit cheap, but I couldn't come up with a way to have it happen differently. Actually, if the book took place today, it would have been easier. The jousting troupe has moved locations. They do a lot of tours in France now (better money)--so they only do a few shows in Slovakia. When they do, the shows are often in the middle of the town. They bring in a ton of dirt, set up stadium seats. It's a big affair, and it happens right by the plague pillar.



Can I just give a shout out to these guys, by the way? I saw them on my first trip to Trencin, and I haven't missed a time yet. There are basically two groups. The first is Wagus. Warning--that page is all in Slovak. Check out the photos (the link's name is Galeria). They do a lot of historical reenactments at the castle these days--evening performances are the ones I've been to lately, and they're a ton of fun. They throw in a lot of humor and action. The only problem, of course, is that they're all in Slovak. Even if you don't speak the language, I think you'd enjoy seeing them in action. Nothing like some well choreographed live fight scenes. My brother in law actually posted some pictures of members of the group reading Vodnik at the castle a few weeks ago--I really enjoyed seeing them.



And then there's the Normani. (Link is also in Slovak. There's an English version, but that links to a lot of other Slovak pages, too.) They're the main jousters, and the ones I saw when I first went to the castle. The performances usually run for a few weeks in the summer these days. And just like Tomas notes in the book, these reenactments are much different than the ones I've been to in the States. The groups really throw themselves into it. They obsess over small details and getting everything right. And they're not burdened by some of the safety laws we have in America. (I remember the first time I was there, I was talking to some members of the group, and they were looking at pictures of American jousting groups--making fun of their dull swords and the big safety tips on them. I wonder if there's ever a worldwide joust off? That would be awesome. The international jousting Olympics, where different groups come together and find out who's the best. Slovakia would rule.)



One of the things I really enjoyed about this book was the ability to throw in a lot of reality into a fantasy. I'm sure I'll talk about this in a later commentary, but so often you read a fantasy book, and it's all fantasy. There's no way you can go visit Hogwarts, for example. Not so with Vodnik. Many readers have said they really enjoyed seeing Trencin and finding out about Slovakia--and I love the fact that you could go visit today and see the places that are in the book, just like they're described. No theme park needed!



Anyway--it was interesting to me to look back on the original version of this chapter and see how--with the exception of combining castle introduction scenes together--little had actually changed. Sometimes I actually get things right the first time. :-)

In Which We Announce a New Member Joining Our Family

If that picture that's right there to the left isn't enough, hint: it's not a new baby. I know. There were a lot of you out there really gunning for that, but to you, I'd say--in the nicest possible way--mind your own business, and back off, buddy! (Seriously--how many kids and when people have kids and if they can have kids and [insert anything else you can think about kids here] is a personal decision, one which I'm surprised many people seem to think they should butt their noses into. Don't. Soapbox, done.)



Nope--we're getting a pet. Not just one pet--TWO PETS.



TRC and DC have been clamoring for pets for quite some time. TRC had a pet meal worm, which turned into a beetle--and he really loved that thing. (I'm not making this up.) He's been asking for anything--fish, gerbils, hermit crabs. You name it. So after much deliberation and research, Denisa and I are getting two degus.



Why degus?



Their social critters. They're cute. They can be trained. They live longer (sometimes as long as 12 years!), and the local Mt. Blue Agway sells them. :-) I didn't want to get something that had a high probability of dying too quickly. (Not to say our degus are going to last forever, but I'd at least like a good shot at some quality years with the things.)



TRC and DC are ecstatic. I'm going to go pick the first one up today after work. The second should be arriving soon.



In the meantime, I've been researching all about them (because, you know, I'm a librarian). What to feed them. What they need for housing. What they do for exercise. I'm fast becoming a degu expert. I bought TRC a book about them (the book pictured at the beginning of this post, actually), and he's been reading up, too. Over the past two afternoons, I built a little house and play area for them out of some scrap wood I had lying around. Three levels, a staircase, a ramp, and two houses. Maybe a bit more elaborate than  I'd planned, but for some reason, I'm quite excited to have these rodents come live with us. (As opposed to the rodents who come live in our walls each autumn. And the chipmunks who use our garage as a shortcut. And the rat they like to play with. I've got rodents all over the place--you'd figure I wouldn't want anything to do with any more. But then, I never claimed to be sane.)



We'll see how the experiment goes. I will say I've been very surprised already by how much stuff little critters need to live. They ain't cheap. I can't imagine how expensive a dog would be. (The plan with the critters is to have someone critter sit them when we're gone on vacations. Or to take them with us. We'll cross those bridges when we come to them.)



So there you have it. My big announcement. Wish me luck--something tells me I might need it. :-)

How I Celebrated My Eleventh Anniversary

I imagine most people would celebrate their anniversary with a nice dinner out. Maybe a wrapped present. Romantic movie, perhaps.



What did I do?



Mowed the lawn, build a house for the as-yet-unnamed pet, researched propane furnaces, and worked on a talk I have to give in church on Sunday. Denisa weeded the garden and baked 11 loaves of bread.



Living the high life, my friends.



(Actually, we're going to try to go out Friday for a date. That rests on us actually finding babysitting for the evening, which might or might not materialize. Things certainly have changed in the last eleven years. Only for the better, of course.)[image error]

Thoughts on the Diablo 3 Beta

Blizzard opened up the Diablo 3 beta to everybody for the weekend. I found out when I got home from the circus on Friday. Basically played from then until about 1 o'clock in the morning. I played Diablo 1 and 2 a lot, back in the day. Far more than I should have, no doubt. There's just something about clicking things and making them explode into a fountain of gold and treasure that is immensely satisfying. When I heard that a third installment was coming at last, I had high hopes.



Of course, I was also realistic. There have been quite a few "heir to Diablo" games out since the second one came out back in 2000. None of them have really managed to recapture the simplistic yet complex awesomesauce of Diablo 2. I'd bought Hellgate London based on hype alone, and I was let down by it a great deal.



So what if the third one stunk?



It didn't stink. It was different, but in a good way. The biggest change was how much more streamlined the leveling process is at first. I gained a level, and it unlocked skills. I didn't get to choose which skills were unlocked. I didn't get to choose how to allocate my stats. It all happened automatically. And I was confused. And kind of upset. One of the things I've always liked about games is building a character the way I want to build him. Who was Blizzard to force me to build a certain way? How was my character going to be any different than anybody else's? This seemed like an awful decision.



But I kept playing.



Because the loot was there, and the clicking, and the exploding. And once I gained a few levels, suddenly it all became clear. Multiple skills were unlocked at once, and I got a glimpse of how it could be. The game lets you use six skills at once. You get to choose which skills. Each skill has a slew of different flavors. There are something like 30 skills. Changing what skills you use can be done at any time, for free. This is huge.



Before in a game, if you wanted to change your character, you had to essentially relevel a character. With this change, you basically just need to level one of each flavor character, and then you can experiment and tweak to your heart's content. Before, I was always kind of stressed when leveling. What if I made a bad choice? What if that messed up my character forever? Yes, that made each decision really important, but it also meant I kept going online to study up how I should level to be the best I could be. I would have loved to do some trial and error, but I just didn't want to risk it.



With Diablo 3, I don't need the internet to tell me what to choose. I can make choices on my own. If they work, I'll know it, because I won't be dying all the time. If they don't work, I can change it. That's fantastic, as far as I'm concerned. And no need to keep releveling the same characters? Super.



So while the new leveling system really caught me off guard at first, consider me a believer now.



What else did I think about the game? The graphics could be cool, but my computer isn't up to them. The characters seemed distinct and fun to play. I was a bit disappointed that you're forced to be the archetype of the character you choose, however. What I mean by that is that you can't be a sword-wielding witch doctor. You can have a sword. but you basically just carry that sword around with you. You can't use it. You use spells to attack always. That's a bit of a bummer, but we'll see how big of an effect it has on endgame. I loved how many different types of characters you could make in Diablo 2. I'd like to see more of that in the sequel.



The loot was a lot of fun, but I didn't run across any uniques or set items--two things I really enjoyed in Diablo 2. However, it appears those items do exist in the game--I just didn't come across any in the bit of time I played. Good.



I didn't get to test out the social aspects or the auction house or anything. I only had time to take the game mechanics for a bit of a spin. But based on my experience playing for the little time I had, I'm definitely buying the game, and I think it'll be awesome.



Beware the Ides . . . of May? Works for me.[image error]