L.C. Barlow's Blog, page 3

Announcement!

Big news.

Big, BIG news.

I am absolutely thrilled to announce that I have been offered a three book deal by California Coldblood Books, an imprint of Rare Bird Books, for the Jack Harper Trilogy - a trilogy I have been working on for the past five years. To say that I am over the moon is an understatement.

Today, I signed the contract for that three book deal. I am SO happy to be part of the CCB family. So, so happy.

Probably pretty soon I will write an entire post about what all of this means to me, but for right now I am simply going to bask in the glow. And eat cake. And grab a drink.

Everyone should run through a field of flowers for me today. OR, toast from wherever you are.

To put it lightly, this is a dream come true.

Big News!

For all those still interested in how the Pivot trilogy is doing, I have big news!

Last week, a publisher let my agent know that he is interested in a three book deal with the novels.

To say that I am over the moon is an understatment. I am so, so, so excited.

Things have not been finalized yet, but it is nevertheless great news. :-D

Thank you to everyone who has been keeping up with the progress of this/these novels. To know that I have the support of you guys has been one of my sources of calm during this loooong process.

When I can say more, I will! Stay tuned!

And... It All Clicks Together!

You ever have one of those moments where the theory that you have read about for years and years suddenly clicks in a way that it never has before? I had that today.

And it of course has to do with psychoanalysis. (My thesis during my M.A. contained psychoanalytic theory applied to television).

I am hoping not to botch this as I write it.

Language, in and of itself, is limiting, and as we enter into it as children, it reduces our whole experience into identifiable parts. The law, potentially, can be seen as language and as limiting, since it, too, reduces our whole experience into parts that are allowed and parts that are not. In other words, “No, you can’t smoke on these premises. The whole you is not allowed to be here. Only the non-smoking you is allowed to be here.” When the whole self is not allowed, when only a piece of one is allowed to be present, in any moment, that is castration. In other words, “You don’t get to enjoy this here. Only the piece of you who does not enjoy this gets to be here.” The term “castration” actually makes sense because not all of you is allowed, and the part of you that is capable of enjoying is not allowed.

The fear of law should definitely result from this. If the “law” (whether in the form of a parent, a teacher, etc.) says only a piece of you is allowed at any one time and place, then it should be feared. In the presence of this individual, you are not whole.

Enter the mirror stage. This stage of a child’s development is when she realizes that the image of herself as seen by others, and as by herself, is far more whole than she ever truly gets to experience (because her experience has been divided up by both language and law). She wants to reach this wholeness, and she chases after it, identifies with it. But this is only to cover up the fact that language and law have divided her and do divide her at any one time.

When a child focuses on presenting herself as the whole version she wants to be (whole before the law came along), she is no longer keeping track of where the divided self actually is or what is dividing her. She is too focused on being/seeming the perfected version of herself to others and herself. Thus, when something goes wrong, she can’t figure out why. In reality, something came up to her and said, “This emotion, this piece of you is not allowed here.” To feel whole, to feel as though that didn’t completely hurt her, she gets used to and keeps on pretending as though it’s perfectly fine that a piece of her isn’t allowed, and she loses sight of what just happened. In other words, she is pretending castration doesn’t exist so she can feel whole again.

So, something hurts, but she doesn’t know why. She can’t locate it. Her thoughts are, “How can I hurt, if I am whole?” “If I am whole, why won’t it stop hurting/what is wrong?” The reality is, something has just divided her up in a way that said, “This piece of you isn’t allowed,” and which ended her enjoyment, and she is too focused on what she is supposed to be feeling to understand that a castration has occurred. She is too busy pretending that she is not castrated to note that someone has just come in and picked a piece of her out and flicked it away.

And that is why we have therapists.

It is to bring her attention back to the fact that she is not whole and locating just what law came along and divided her up, what she ignored, or tried to ignore. It is to remind her that the perfected version of herself she tries to be is an attempt to ignore the thing that has kept her from experiencing herself as whole. It is to bring her attention back to the fragile, divided self she actually is and to determine what particular “law” came along, what it did, and why it ended enjoyment.

And it only took, like, five years for that to click.

On the Tragic Events in Las Vegas

I cannot believe what has happened in Las Vegas. At least 59 dead and 520 wounded. It is the largest mass shooting in U.S. history. It is horrible, tragic, and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

While it is not my first reaction, I do think a reaction along the lines of "We need gun control" is legitimate. I don't think it is all we need, and I don't think it will tap into the source of the problem, but I do think it is a legitimate reaction - to hate a weapon that allows an individual to kill and hurt over 570. It is a legitimate reaction to despise something that can do that. And I think that, to block this natural gut reaction is not a good thing.

Though it is too soon to say, I also wonder about it being a politically-motivated attack. I had no idea why someone might target a country music festival, until someone online pointed out that Republicans are assumed to attend those festivals... That's true.

In any case, there is a discussion right now about why the shooter does not fit the profile of most mass shooters, and reporters keep asking the question, "Why? Why do these mass shootings keep happening? Why here?"

Personally, I think there is something in the air in the U.S.. I didn't notice it until I traveled to Europe years ago. Overseas, I experienced a kind of sigh of release, a letting go, a just being. Each time I returned to the U.S. after my time in Europe, I always felt like I was being placed back into a frantic or frenzied atmosphere. I always hoped I wouldn't sink back into it, as though it is part of the norm, but I am sure I have. Other people who have traveled have said the same thing: Just being and being with friends and family is good enough in Europe. It is not so here. You have to do SOMETHING, and you have to do it better than anyone else.

In addition to this, we do not have anything in place that helps the collective. We do not guarantee maternity or paternity leave to new parents. We do not have required vacation time. We do not have universal healthcare, and we do not have universal higher education. We do not have anything in place that will assist the elderly (like public transportation specifically for the elderly). We do not have anything in place that helps family members when one of those members is sick and requires transport to various doctor appointments, sometimes 2-4 times a week (if I had not helped take my father to his appointments when he was sick, it would have cost $50 one way for each trip). All of these things, by the way, are available in most countries in Europe. The point is that if we continue to ignore a societal well-being, we won't have societal well-being. We should not be each other's competition. We should be each other's community.

In the U.S., instead of safety nets, it's all on you. You, you, you must do all of the above. The individual must fight for survival. There is no helping the collective. There is no collective. You're not supposed to think of them. You're supposed to think of you. Purify this into its most extreme form, and there's no knowing where it leads.

The Latest in the World of Pivot

So, the positive news is that my agent recently okayed all of the new revisions in Pivot and is sending it off to a selection of editors. What I am hoping this means is that I will know the fate of the book soon...ish?

For those who have lost track of where Pivot is at, the following happened:

1.) I worked on the book with the aid of a lawyer and entertainment manager.

2.) With the aid of the two people above, we were able to place Pivot with an agent.

3.) I did a revision with that agent, who recommended I split Pivot into two books, but I said that I would rather not do that. He respected this decision and went ahead and sent it out to editors.

4.) Editors suggested the same edits that he did - that is, to split Pivot into two books.

5.) Reading back over Pivot after taking a break, I could see why, and I agreed it needed to be split. I split it into two books and added about 90 pages to the first book, while also fixing some things that my agent pointed out.

6.) The agent read over everything, okayed the new version, and has sent it back off to editors.

7.) I am now appropriately terrified.

It would be impossible to convey the number and intensity of emotions I feel concerning all of this. I have worked very hard on the novel multiple times, and I am very satisfied where it is at. It is probably the most refined thing I have ever produced, and I feel for it because it is my baby. Am I terrified as to its fate? Yes. Am I excited? Yes. Am I exhausted? Yes. Am I ready for more? Yes. Do I still think my wildest dreams have come true? Yes. Am I still going to work hard for more? Yes.

I feel all of these things, and it has been very difficult to sit still during this process. It just means so much to me, and I often feel I am on a roller coaster ride of epic proportions.

In any case, that is where we are at. Keep me in your thoughts!

On Aaron Sorkin's Masterclass

Recently, I was semi-interested in scriptwriting because I was curious how it was conducted, what went into it, what its format was, etc.. In addition, I had seen many times Aaron Sorkin's Masterclass advertised on Facebook, and I had been somewhat curious to try it. Ultimately, this semester I decided to give it a shot, and out of the 35 lessons in Sorkin's Masterclass, I have viewed/completed 32 of them. I just have three left. I have completely enjoyed the class, and I found Sorkin's lessons so incredibly helpful, to such an extent, in fact, that I wanted to create a blog post on his Masterclass.

Basically, I just want to say that, if you are looking for reliable advice on crafting your writing, this is one of the better tools out there. And, if you were on the edge about taking his Masterclass, I completely recommend that you do. I was astounded at the quality of the lessons, especially since the class is only $95.00 (the price for a community college course). You will get something out of it. You will. You will.

I want to share just several of the bits of wisdom I have encountered while taking the course (quotes from Sorkin and otherwise) that have helped me either view my work completely differently or have confirmed the things that I have already found to be true when writing:

1.) The Intention and Obstacle must be set up before you can "grip it and rip it." Repeat to yourself those words over and over again. The Intention and Obstacle are the basis for any drama. The intention cannot be leisurely, and neither can the obstacle. The stakes must be the highest they can possibly be. Once they are set, then creating the rest of the book is "like hanging clothes on a clothesline."

2.) Look for a conflict of ideas in every scene, in every dialogue, in every situation. Don't leave untapped potential.

3.) Characters are born from how they react to conflict. They are born from the intention+obstacle.

4.) Write characters, not people. "Characters and people have little do with each other... Being as much like a human as possible isn't the point. It would be like a singer trying to sound like a musical instrument. It would be a cool thing to do, but other than being impressed that a singer sounds like a flute, wouldn't you rather just listen to a flute?" - Aaron Sorkin

"We are painters, not photographers."

5.) Identify with your anti-heroes. You have to write your anti-heroes as though they're making their case to God about why they should get into heaven.

6.) When an actor doesn't believe he's as much of a man as the part he's playing, he starts putting on Christmas ornaments, like changing his voice, changing the way he stands, and everything. You have to believe the arguments you are writing. If you don't, you really have the equivalent of an anti-hero twirling their mustache.

7.) The audience wants to participate. Write like Seurat painted. Seurat was a pointillist. He painted with two paintbrushes in his hand, each with a different color. He felt that the viewer will mix the points much more vibrantly in their mind than any colors he could possibly mix. Likewise, you want as much as you can for the audience to be a part of what's going on. Treat them like they're smart. They don't want to just observe. They want to put things together themselves. If you can get them to do that AND not let them see the reversal coming, you've done well.

8.) Things that ring false lose the audience. They're like little pebbles in your shoe.

9.) If you do something that wouldn't or couldn't happen, it's hard to get the audience back.

10.) Avoid confusion. Even a smidgen of confusion can be terrible. Over correcting it can be worse. Because...

11.) The worst crime you can commit is telling the audience something they already know.

12.) There's a tendency to think that art has no rules. No. That's finger painting. Rules are what make art beautiful.

13.) You are going to hear rules that are bullshit. Don't trust all the rules.

14.) The only rules are the rules of drama - Aristotle's /Poetics/. If there's something wrong with your script, it's probably because you broke one of those rules, and so understanding those rules is terribly important.

15.) A fact is that the queen died.

A story is that the queen died, leaving the king alone.

A drama is that the queen died, leaving the king alone, and it turns out the queen was the brains behind the whole thing, and now the king has to go it alone in the face of everyone trying to get him off the throne.

16.) Dialogue is music.

17.) Chip away anything that isn't the main conflict (with VERY FEW exceptions).

18.) When people give you critiques, listen for the problem, not the solution. Just like doctors listen for symptoms, not patients' ideas of what doctors need to do to treat them, you should do the same thing.

19.) The audience should be crying, not the characters. Make the audience feel what the characters should be feeling.

20.) The most common problem in a drama that Sorkin encounters is that he either doesn't buy the obstacle, or he doesn't buy the intention.

21.) As for meandering thoughts or conversations when trying to come up with a plot in a writer's room: "These conversations that don't go anywhere, believe it or not, are very important. We circle it for a long, long time, and just like cotton candy twirling in there, bit by bit, meat starts to go on the bones." - Aaron Sorkin

On the Naperville Police Department and Naperville North High School

I know that I just posted on disappointing acts in Hickory Ridge High in Harrisburg, NC (and how one particular principal might have cost an honors student her scholarships), and I had no intention of posting on yet another high school's actions that I am EXCEEDINGLY disappointed in, but another piece of news popped up that sent my mind reeling. You can read about it here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/health/...

Essentially, a 16 year old honors student at Naperville North High School named Corey Walgren was having lunch in the cafeteria with his friends, when he was brought to the principal's office, where he met several officers who demanded to see his cell phone, as they were under the impression there was potentially child pornography on it. I don't know if it was during their pressuring him to hand over his phone, or simply because they wanted to impress upon him that they were unhappy with what he might POTENTIALLY have on him, but apparently they said that he could go to prison and be placed on a sex offenders list, if they indeed found that evidence (and I highly suspect that their emphasis was more on "would" than "could"). He did hand over his phone, and they found no images. I will add that Corey's parents were not notified at that moment that police were speaking with him. It was only when police wanted to search further, either through his phone, or perhaps through his e-mail (I'm not sure), that they contacted his parents because they needed parental consent. I believe that, by the point the parents were called, Corey had been speaking with police for at least several hours.

The parents, of course, as soon as they were called, immediately went on their way to the school. While police and school officials waited for them, they put Corey in a room (I believe alone), to wait. After they left him, he exited the room, walked out of the school, went to the closest parking garage, jumped from it, and killed himself.

From the perspective of the parents, they dropped their child off at school in the morning, and by the end of the day, he had killed himself. The question is, of course, what occurred between the beginning of the day and his death that might have prompted such, and the answer is the school and the police.

CNN states that Corey had had no symptoms of depression before this particular day, nor anxiety, and that he had never had any behavioral problems.

The parents of Corey are currently suing both the Navperville Police Department and the Naperville North High School, and I fully support that. I also hope they get every cent they ask for, and I hope that the people who spoke with Corey before he killed himself are, at the very least, fired. Do I think the family will win the lawsuit? I hope so, but I am not sure. They are taking on two monoliths.

The lawyer of the family, Terry Ekl, brings up some very good points about what he thinks happened to Corey. First, his accusation is that police used interrogation tactics during what they called "a routine Q&A that was by no means illegal." (Of course, using interrogation tactics without parents present is, indeed, illegal). Ekl said that police KNEW Corey could not have been listed as a sex offender, and yet they continually told him he would be. Thus, they lied to him.

Ekl claims that the police officers literally scared Corey to death. I think I would have to agree with that.

Things I want to say about this horrible and unfortunate incident:

1.) I don't think police want parents present when they question children because it inhibits efficiency. I think that Corey's parents weren't called because, at the very least, his parents would have been able to comfort him and/or limit what the police officers would have been willing to say. In addition, Corey's parents would probably have contacted a lawyer. In my opinion, the only reason that Corey handed his phone over to the police is because a lawyer wasn't present. And I think they knew, if legal counsel had been there, he wouldn't have done so. They didn't want the parents in the equation, or they would have immediately called them, and they didn't want a lawyer present. Again, I don't think they wanted the parents there because they wouldn't have had as much of an effect on Corey.

It's safe to say they got the greatest effect out of him they possibly could have. So, they accomplished what they were looking for.

2.) If they were only following protocol, that's one thing. It's another if they used interrogation tactics without a parent present. It sounds like they said things to him that only should have been said with a parent there. And they undoubtedly lied to him.

3.) If you're 16, and a cop tells you your life is over, you tend to believe him. Why would an authority figure lie to you?

This can't be outside of the purview of a cop's imagination. That is the point of interrogation tactics - to make suspects believe whoever is questioning them. 16-year-olds are going to be a lot more easy than 25 or 30-year-olds. So, if you convince a 16-year-old over the course of several hours that he is going to prison and is going to be listed as a sex offender, that his life is over, and he believes you, would it not be out of the purview of imagination to think he might panic? I don't think so.

4.) I don't know why anyone left Corey alone in a room after he is told that his life is basically over. When cops and school officials make a 16 year old feel about as tall as a grain of sand and then place them alone in a room... that makes no sense to me.

5.) There was no one there on Corey's side. No one was there to comfort him.

6.) The police's response is to simply say that they followed protocol (Sound familiar? The principal at Hickory Ridge High's response was the same). Obviously, though, something went wrong. If a child kills himself after talking to police and the school, something went wrong. The police department would have to admit that at the very least, one would think.

Also, if protocol causes 16-year-olds with no history of depression or anxiety to kill themselves, I want to see this protocol.

7.) One time, I had a phishing scam caller contact me on my cell phone, telling me that I owed money on my loans that I hadn't paid and that, since I hadn't paid, they were going to send people to my workplace to arrest me. After I asked just a few questions, I realized very quickly that this guy was bullshitting me, and I said, "I don't trust you," and I hung up. Nevertheless, my heart was pounding like crazy for hours afterwards. When this happened, I was 25 I think. I cannot imagine being cornered by police and school officials in a witch hunt at the age of 16, during which I am told that I will be going to prison, that I will be labeled as a sex offender, and that everyone will know that I am a terrible human being. I would REACT, and it wouldn't be pretty.

8.) One of the things I emphasize in the rhetoric classes I teach is the danger of uniforms. Usually I speak of doctors' white coats and how it puts patients in the precarious place of never questioning their prognoses (when lots of doctors have turned out to lie about patient health for their own gain - and veterinarians, too). It's the degrees, the white coats, the "proof" of power and authority that is terribly dangerous, that makes people feel unequal and makes them prone to listen to people that don't care about them in the least.

I am beginning to think that children need to be taught the dangerousness of the rhetoric of uniforms and authority very very early. That, just because someone has a uniform on, doesn't mean they SEE you or care about you. In addition, just because someone has a uniform on doesn't mean you can trust them. That's the only solution I can see. Because people are going to abuse power. That's unstoppable. Children need to be able to SEE that it is an abuse of power, though, and not that they are deserving of it. I fear that Corey reacted to the police as though God was speaking to him, rather than fallible, power hungry humans.

Ultimately, there is no going back and undoing what has happened. The only appropriate thing I can think of that could happen is that whatever police officers and school officials last had contact with Corey before he took his life should feel the weight of their own guilt. What I fear is that they don't feel guilt and never will. After all, just as the police department said, they were just "following protocol."

On Hickory Ridge High, Michelle Cline, and the Dress Code

A very interesting bit of news popped up today that you can read about here: http://mashable.com/2017/05/23/shirt-...

And here: http://heavy.com/news/2017/05/michell...

To sum up, an honor roll student named Summer who goes to Hickory Ridge High School and has multiple scholarships went to school with a boat neck top that exposed her clavicles, and she was suspended for the rest of the school year and told she could not walk at graduation. This puts her scholarships in jeopardy, according to the article, though I would think that any university that looks at the situation would roll their eyes at Michelle Cline and welcome Summer aboard.

There have been many well-founded reactions to the situation, but I want to cover something that I don't think has yet been covered by any tweet or article I have read - and it's the problem of the law versus the spirit.

One problem that arises as an English professor, when you are taking graduate courses and learning to teach, is that you are warned against grading via correcting grammar. What you learn is that teaching writing by grading grammar doesn't help the student become a better writer (and that making grammatical errors might actually be a sign that learning while writing is taking place, rather than errors taking place - thus they might signify that a fantastic thing is happening), but most teachers grade via grammar because it's the EASY thing to do. It is easier to say "you missed a comma," rather than say, "I think the point you are trying to get at is that _____ is happening, but your lack of concluding sentences that reference back to the thesis or surrounding paragraphs doesn't help you fully develop your point, and it stunts your argument." So, teachers, in order to justify the grades they give out, search for commas and periods and semi-colons, items that are easy to spot, and this becomes a substitution for truly helping a student do better. That's because it's easy.

I argue that this is what the dress code does. It becomes a substitution for addressing something of value. "How do we know that certain colors aren't being used in schools to divide students into gangs? I know. Let's create a dress code." "How do we know that we aren't allowing girls to wear revealing clothing that distracts boys? I know. Let's create a dress code."

Once the dress code gets created (much like grammatical rules), then all one has to do to be "correct" or "a good teacher or principal" is follow that code. Then, BOOM, your job is done. Easy, easy. All you have to do is grade according to the new law with no shades of grey, and you're done. This is, perhaps, why the only response from Hickory Ridge High School is to send a copy of the Dress Code to news outlets. In other words, they are saying, "We are following the law."

Yes, they are. But it's a law they themselves set up. So, it's kind of like saying, "Look. We are following our own laws, unlike Summer." One could argue that this is a circular, or inbred, argument. We ask, "Why are you enforcing the law to the point that a student might lose scholarships?" and the school is saying, "The law is the law. We follow the law." It is circular and robotic. It also implies a kind of helplessness, where they are unable to rise up against a code that they themselves set into motion. If that's the case, then I am very worried about that school.

It's easy, though, isn't it? It's easier than looking at the situation for what it is. The original reason for creating a Dress Code is to ensure that girls aren't distracting boys in the first place (which is a problematic goal in itself, but I'm going to ignore that for the moment). The question, though, of course is whether a boat neck t-shirt can ever be worn without being distracting? If that's the case, then the "law" needs to account for that. The law needs to come as close to reality as possible. Otherwise, it kills the spirit. If there is no way for the law to fully account for reality, then the particular rule should not exist. That is, I would argue, what everyone is angry about.

Once the "law" is made, it is interesting how it can be bent in various different ways. I can guarantee that, just as there are English professors who might overlook comma splices because they don't ultimately take away from an English paper that is incredibly fantastic otherwise, there are teachers and/or principals out there who have made exceptions to the rules of the Dress Code because they know the student never intended to wear gang colors or make other students lust after them. In short, they just wore clothes because clothes are clothes. So, another way of looking at this is, "Can Michelle Cline guarantee that an exception has never ever been made in her school to these rules?" If she cannot, then it is obvious the law becomes bendable to what one might call "human emotion or spirit." If that's the case, then the question becomes, why not bend the law for Summer? Or, rather, why enforce this law on Summer if, once again, we know that the law can't possibly always be enforced at all times? It's because this is what Michelle Cline /desires/.

Again, I think what becomes enforced is ultimately what one desires to enforce. It's not as though Michelle Cline is saying, "I would love to help this 4.4 GPA student out, but I simply can't because of the laws I have put in place." Rather, she is saying, basically, that though it would be possible to allow Summer to walk across the stage and finish the semester, she won't allow it. And it can't be because the Dress Code is a watertight container through which nothing escapes (as I have pointed out above), and it can't be because Summer was trying to wear gang colors or distract students. It is rather because Michelle Cline doesn't DESIRE to help Summer out.

I think Summer stated it best when she said, "We have drug dealers walking across that stage, we have sex offenders walking across that stage and then the 4.4 student who showed her shoulders can’t." That's right. The law has cracks in it, as all laws do. It just so happens that this law can also be bent to do what Michelle Cline wants.

I think that, similar to not allowing an English professor to grade for grammar in order to improve writing, that a principal or teacher should not be allowed to address the intentions of a student simply by whether they follow an arbitrary dress code.

I'll also add that I don't think people ever really grow up. That's why we have a forty-something year old principal having a battle of wills with an eighteen year old.

A Long Overdue Update

It has been approximately a year since my last update, which is far too long, and I hope to keep up with my blog quite a bit more now.

I'm thinking to myself where I last left off on my journey as far as everything is concerned, and it was right before summer in 2016. MANY notable things have happened since then, and I will start with my going to NYC for two months.

Earlier in 2016, when I went to the Stoker Con, one of the recommendations by Daniel Knauf was that, in order to create good dialogue, one should take an acting course. Acting was always something I had wanted to try out, but never had, and what he gave me was a perfectly legitimate excuse to try it out. So, for a month, I took acting classes at the REACT studio in Dallas, TX. What I learned while there was the Meisner method of acting, and what I ended up discovering was that I absolutely love the Meisner method of creation. I read the book The Actor's Art and Craft by William Esper and fell in love with it. I then began wondering if it would be possible to find a school that was focused on the Meisner method and dealt with it more in-depth. Enter The William Esper Studio in NYC, which had a six week intensive summer course. (Notice that the name of the studio is also the name of the author who wrote The Actor's Art and Craft).

I thought to myself that there was no way they were going to let me into their six week intensive summer course because I had little to no acting experience. Nevertheless, I applied, was interviewed by Laith Nakli via Skype, and the day that I was supposed to hear back, I ultimately called to find out Laith's decision. He basically said, "I'm willing to give you a shot, if you can be here tomorrow." So, I immediately purchased an airline ticket, and the next day I flew from Dallas to NYC to start what can only be described as one of the most amazing and terrifying experiences of my entire life.

I ended up taking four different courses - Acting (with David Newer), Alexander, Movement, and Acting on Camera. Several people in my classes were on Broadway, and so I was not in some little acting class in Dallas, TX. This was a whole other level, and it was quite obvious I was leagues behind other people. That is not to say, though, that I did not improve. I did, and I impressed myself, and I also, I think, possibly impressed others with my improvement.

So, for six weeks, I worked approximately 17 hours in class (and maybe ten or more hours outside of class) per week, and I was challenged and challenged and challenged again. I ended up making several friends, including one person who is in the current Broadway musical Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812 with Josh Groban, which, I just found out yesterday, was just nominated for 12 Tony Awards (more than any other show this season). This particular person, who I won't name, was super supportive of me during my time there, especially of my writing, and she recently said I was her inspiration for writing. So, that feels damn good.

I stayed in Queens, and I have plenty of stories from my time in New York, including the time on the subway when a guy dropped acid right beside me before his next stop. In any case, though I don't think acting is ultimately for me (I mean, not as a means of financial support), I cannot describe to you the amazing experience it was to take classes in NYC, right next to Times Square with lovely, lovely creative people.

The thing that I took away the most was that, after sitting in class for three hours, three times a week, in sessions that are supposed to frustrate you to a hysterical moment in which you either scream or cry, that when you walk back into Times Square, it becomes obvious to you how tightly wrapped people are/all of society is. You look around, and no one is screaming or crying AT ALL. And you think to yourself, "Why not? It's such a release, and hell. We do it in class for three hours, three times a week, and we survive. It's perfectly fine. It's perfectly normal." It is kind of... surreal, the realization that we are not our human selves, and that to return to the human self requires hours upon hours of practice. You also begin to realize just how often we do not allow ourselves to simply react to the stimuli around us - that we have, through the process of civilization, tampered with our ability to react to a situation. I remember reading an article during my time in NYC about a man who was in jail for being drunk and disorderly, and in the process of manhandling him, those in the jail had actually broken his spine. He lay on the floor, telling everyone he couldn't move his legs, and nobody reacted to it. They didn't believe him. Even doctors who came in didn't believe him. FOR DAYS. They came in, made notes, and left. He ended up dying due to an infection caused by the break in his spine after four or more days of not being able to eat. As I read this article, I could hear David yelling in my head, "There's a man LYING on the floor, PARALYZED! REACT!!!!!!" We are so civilized that we are not even human anymore. It becomes obvious very quickly why people don't react to a traumatic event happening. It isn't just a bystander effect. We have been trained out of reacting to many, many things.

After my time in NYC, I ended up going to Austin and stayed there, working at a bank, actually (I thought it might give me more time to write), for about two months. I very quickly realized that I like teaching at a community college far more, and I left that bank and returned to the Dallas area.

I should say that, in between going to NYC, and going to Austin, I applied to an MFA program. What going to the William Esper Studio taught me was not to be afraid to go after what I want, and I have wanted an MFA for a long time. So, I applied to a multitude of them, and USM Stonecoast accepted me before even all of my Letters of Recommendation were in. They wanted me, and so I accepted their acceptance. The first residency was in January, and so, after I left my job in Austin, I went to Maine for two weeks for that first residency. I have to say that I enjoyed the workshops and found them tremendously helpful as far as breaking down walls in my writing to build them up again with something new, though I certainly wouldn't want to workshop every week. Thus, the low residency option was right for me, and I'm glad I chose a low res school.

It was a lovely time, and I won't ever say that it wasn't, but my memory of the residency is tinged by the fact that, one day after I returned from Maine, my father passed away unexpectedly. He was in the hospital, being treated for a DVT that had developed in his arm due to a PIC line they had put in in order to give him antibiotics to kill/fight the MRSA in one of his wounds (on his foot). That ended up causing a blood clot to form, and they were in the process of breaking it down with drugs. The blood clot ultimately traveled to either his brain or lungs, and it was completely unexpected. The day he died, he was actually supposed to go home. I had seen him in the hospital the night before and spoke to him briefly. I wish I had stayed the whole night. I did not, however, and at eight in the morning the next day, my mom (after trying and trying to reach me, as my phone was on silent) finally got ahold of me and told me he had passed away about two hours previously.

I am still shocked by this. I don't think I will ever not be shocked by this. My father was sick for the majority of my life, from his heart attack to his stroke to his amputation to his pneumonia to his ulcers, and a lot of my time and my mom's time was devoted to taking care of him. I took him to approximately 300 appointments over the course of six years, and I spent a lot of time with him. When you fight against disease that long with someone, and you help them for so long, it is an utter shock for them to die. There are moments where I just stop and think to myself, "I don't know what reality I am in, anymore."

Though he was not perfect (none of us are), I love him and miss him so much. That's where I will leave that.

As far as Pivot goes, I am continuing to work on the book. It is now being split into two novels, and I just finished a draft on what is now the first novel (adding 91 pages). I have sent it to the lawyer and entertainment manager I am working with, as well as my agent. The lawyer has read it and said that, though he didn't think my book could get better, it is better. Everything felt right to him. I am still waiting on my agent's response.

Though the wait is long, and the work is hard, it is amazing to me to see the different ways the book evolves. It is also amazing to me that my agent can pinpoint things so well that I cannot see. His recommendations are sometimes general, but when I revise according to them, then I end up creating a book that is even better than I could have realized it could be. He is amazing, and I am so glad to have his advice.

Right now, I am finishing up teaching two classes for the semester, taking a PhD course over Classical Rhetoric, and still doing my MFA. And, of course, I just went to Stoker Con. I am feeling a little exhausted. I am not so sure that I will continue taking a PhD course each semester, (not while doing the MFA), and so the Stonecoast program may be it for a little while. We shall see.

I hope you guys are doing well. Thanks for keeping up with me.

Stoker Con 2017

I haven't posted in a while (though I have had many things post worthy that I'm sure I will get to), but I had to post this.

I'm currently at Stoker Con 2017, and I was able to meet George R. R. Martin! I talked with him last night very shortly after Nancy Holder's kick off. He shook my hand and asked me my name. He said, if he remembered correctly that Lovecraft might have had a good friend named Robert Barlow. Then we talked about Lovecraft momentarily.

Today, he took a great picture with me. It made my day!



Also, sure enough. Martin was right. Lovecraft had a good friend/correspondent named Robert Barlow. I will have to see if I'm related to him!

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-t...