Stephen Kozeniewski's Blog, page 65
March 20, 2015
Is How we Debate as Important as What we Debate?
If you've read my books or followed my blog for any length of time you've probably got an idea where on the political spectrum I lie. I try not to make a big thing of it, because I don't care to alienate any of my readers (although, of course, some authors make big bucks alienating about 50% of their readers.) I personally want my blog and my literature to have an inclusive atmosphere, where people from all walks of life will feel welcome - although, there I might be betraying my political leanings again.
I'd be lying if I said I never use my blog as a soapbox, but I tend not to, hewing to the principle that literary agent Janet Reid recently laid out on her own very popular blog: if you follow me, it's because of things other than political rants, so you'll probably forgive me the occasional political rant.
I don't especially want to rant about politics, but rather I'd like to rant about the way we debate things in this country. And, yes, I'm afraid we're going to veer into some lefty/righty stuff, so fairly warned. With all that as preamble, I want you to just take a look at this rather popular Facebook post which I've screencapped here:
I'd wager that how you react to this is going to be based on your political leanings. If you're a conservative, you're probably going, "Yeah!" and if you're a liberal you're probably shaking your head in dismay. You may not even know why you're doing either of those things. It's just kind of a given: if someone makes a point you agree with, you'll tend to take their facts at face value, and if you disagree, you'll probably find some reason, even a piddling one, to disagree with them.
Now, this is the point where I guess it's going to get kind of political, hence my lengthy preamble, but, okay, fairly warned. My problem with this post, as an exemplar of the political conversation in our country, is that it's utter horseshit. This is the sort of thing my 9th grade Speech and Debate teacher wouldn't have let fly, if not my 4th grade arithmetic teacher.
The problem, for those of you on both sides of the aisle attempting to grapple with it, is that Ms. Harris - if she indeed came up with any of this - is comparing apples and oranges. This is, like, basic math here. She's cherrypicking two particular numbers at the farthest possible extremes, and comparing them side-by-side like that's where they belong.
She's comparing a theoretical $15 fast food worker's salary of $31,200 (let's say this will actually occur in, I dunno, 2030) with a current private's salary of $18,378. If we represented this graphically it would look like this:
Job 2015 Salaries 2030 Salaries Fast Food Worker ? $31,200.00 Private $18,378.00 ?
I mean, it's total horseshit. Why did she pick those two numbers to compare? Because they look the worst side-by-side. She'd rather pretend those other two numbers don't exist, because they paint a more complete picture. Which, what the hell, let's look at it.
Job 2015 Salaries 2030 Salaries Fast Food Worker $15,080.00 $31,200.00 Private $18,378.00 $38,023.45
Wow, that's...wow. That paints a completely different picture doesn't it? It almost completely undermines her argument. First of all, in terms of stark contrast, the fact that a fast food worker making minimum wage and working full time only makes 15K a year is mortifying. That's our minimum wage, people. That's considered something you can live off of. If you're reading this on a computer screen you paid for yourself, odds are you're probably make twice that, if not four or five times that amount.
Then there's the other point she's ignoring, which is that if the minimum wage was raised, a private would necessarily have to make more, even if he was only making the minimum wage. But the truth is that military pay rates are decided based on an algorithm which makes them competitive, with certain considerations, with similar civilian jobs.
Now, just providing the full math paints a much fuller picture. Just comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges provides a solid basis from which both sides of the debate could proceed. Reasonable adults can disagree. That's the basis of a civil society. With these numbers, both sides could pick and prod and raise deeper issues. But Ms. Harris doesn't provide us with these numbers. She just shows the most stark comparisons, even if they are, essentially, nonsensical. Which leads to my first bullet point of disdain about debate in modern political discourse:
1. Facts are cherry-picked
Now, assuming I give both sides the benefit of the doubt, and believe that no one simply out-and-out lies - which is decidedly not the case - there are still issues where a politician trying to make his case simply doesn't lay out all the facts. It's as though they fear that providing us with all the facts may make us come to a different conclusion. Which is, come to think of it, not a terrible assumption to make.
But let's dig a little deeper. Ms. Harris used an insanely simple method for coming up with her numbers. She pulled the private and the sergeant's pay from a monthly payscale (presumably from 2014 since it's changed now) and multiplied by 12. Then she took a $15 per hour wage, multiplied it by 40 hours a week, and then by 52 weeks in a year. But she didn't say any of that, and part of the reason why she didn't may have been an honest oversight, but it may well have been because it would wildly undermine her case.
Because, looking at those calculations in context any reasonable person would go, "Holy shit! That means literally zero time off!" That means no holidays, no sick days, no planned leave of any sort. That means working non-stop, Monday through Friday, every goddamned week of the year. Also, not every year has exactly that many working hours, but that's a minor quibble; I probably would have used the same calculating method myself.
It also means no overtime, no holiday pay, no shift work, no nothing, which is all part and parcel of a wage job, as anyone knows. Harris is applying the thought processes of a salaried position to a wage position. So there's a deeper contextual issue here. For one thing, she's comparing a salaried position (military) with a wage position (restaurant worker.) And those are difficult things to compare. But we also have to wonder, why did she choose those two particular jobs to compare in the first place? Probably for emotional reasons to help her case, but no matter, the choices were made, so let's go with them.
Now what's truly problematical for me here is that I actually served in the military and I know how pay is calculated, and I know what all goes into it, and Ms. Harris either doesn't know, or is deliberately ignoring all of that. Any E-1, E-5, or for that matter O-7 knows that basic pay is not the end of the story. You also get housing allowance, subsistence allowance, and, oh yeah, benefits.
A military private pays $0 for total health care coverage. He also doesn't pay for his food, clothes, or house. His commuting expenses can be as minimal as free if he lives on post. Oh, and, he also gets an enlistment bonus and periodic re-enlistment bonuses, and periodic promotions if he's not a fucking idiot. Ms. Harris also deliberately brings up that these fellows are under fire, except...
Not if he's making 18K and change a year. Because there's also hostile fire pay when you're in a war zone, not to mention that wartime wages are not taxed.
My point is not that a Service Member makes too much. Christ knows they don't make nearly as much as they should. My point is that ganking the number $18,378 off a payscale tells a story bereft of all context. As does multiplying the minimum wage a couple of times and ignoring living expenses. In other words:
2. Facts are presented out of context
Now that I've more or less given you the rest of the facts and given them to you in context, you can probably think a little bit harder about the situation, and a little bit deeper. Maybe you still draw the same conclusion. As I said, reasonable adults can disagree, and there is a far greater context to the minimum wage debate than either Harris or I have presented thus far.
For one thing, will raising the minimum wage cause employers to rely more heavily on automation, and thus reduce overall jobs? What about real-world examples? Rather than drawing chalk figures on an imaginary board, what happens in places where wages are high vice low? For that matter, if you raise wages, aren't you giving disposable income to a ready customer base, i.e. your employees, who are already in your store and perfectly willing to buy your products?
There are so many things to examine, we have a plethora of conclusions to draw. But in the screed above we're presented with one:
Raising the minimum wage means that fast food workers will make more than Service Members.
This seems morally reprehensible. Of course, it's complete horseshit, as I've already laid out in excruciating detail. But once you've drawn this conclusion, it's hard to back down from, isn't it? It's hard to leave behind the moral highground and fight fact with actual fact? Which leads to:
3. Erroneous conclusions are defended rather than exploded
And one final point. It's so minor, I hesitate to even bring it up in light of the much greater logical issues I've already addressed. But, it's such an important part of Ms. Harris's argument, I can't ignore it altogether. Every time she makes a point, she belittles her strawman of an opponent. "Johnny Fry-Boy," "Sally McBurgerflipper," and so on.
Her point is she hates fast food workers. She hates the idea that she would have to take their feelings into account. She's probably on to something from a debate standpoint, actually. Each and every one of us has had a bad experience at a fast food restaurant, either a jacked up order or a cracked out cashier or a short changing or something. We ignore the hundred (thousands?) of times in our lives that everything goes swimmingly at the McDonald's, and remember the times it doesn't.
Part of that is just human nature overall. We attribute coincidence to good or bad fortune, and ignore countless instances of failed coincidence. We look for patterns where there are none, and see faces on Mars. The point is: the general public probably has a bad taste in their mouths about fast food workers. (Which, incidentally, is probably why Harris chose that particular minimum wage job rather than hospice worker or something more sympathetic...but I digress...)
By making her opponents look foolish, Harris is attempting to sway the sympathies of the undecided. "If only a stupid burger flipper is for this, then what are you?" she seems to be asking. In other words:
4. Ad hominem attacks
I'm sorry for picking on Jennifer Harris, by the way, who I don't know from Adam, nor do I feel particularly strongly about this issue. It's certainly not my most passionate cause or anything. I just felt that this one small excerpt seemed to encapsulate everything that's wrong with the way we discuss things with one another in just a few short paragraphs, and I hoped that a well thought-out exegesis could be illuminating. You might disagree with my conclusions, in fact abut 50% of you probably do...but let's try to look past our political thoughts and analyze our logical arguments.
So what do you think? Are these sorts of discussions always going to be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Do intelligent people know better? Do intelligent people know better and not care, as long as the argument supports what they already agree with? Should we look at better methods of fighting our political fights? Feel free to let me have it in the comments.
I'd be lying if I said I never use my blog as a soapbox, but I tend not to, hewing to the principle that literary agent Janet Reid recently laid out on her own very popular blog: if you follow me, it's because of things other than political rants, so you'll probably forgive me the occasional political rant.
I don't especially want to rant about politics, but rather I'd like to rant about the way we debate things in this country. And, yes, I'm afraid we're going to veer into some lefty/righty stuff, so fairly warned. With all that as preamble, I want you to just take a look at this rather popular Facebook post which I've screencapped here:
I'd wager that how you react to this is going to be based on your political leanings. If you're a conservative, you're probably going, "Yeah!" and if you're a liberal you're probably shaking your head in dismay. You may not even know why you're doing either of those things. It's just kind of a given: if someone makes a point you agree with, you'll tend to take their facts at face value, and if you disagree, you'll probably find some reason, even a piddling one, to disagree with them.
Now, this is the point where I guess it's going to get kind of political, hence my lengthy preamble, but, okay, fairly warned. My problem with this post, as an exemplar of the political conversation in our country, is that it's utter horseshit. This is the sort of thing my 9th grade Speech and Debate teacher wouldn't have let fly, if not my 4th grade arithmetic teacher.
The problem, for those of you on both sides of the aisle attempting to grapple with it, is that Ms. Harris - if she indeed came up with any of this - is comparing apples and oranges. This is, like, basic math here. She's cherrypicking two particular numbers at the farthest possible extremes, and comparing them side-by-side like that's where they belong.
She's comparing a theoretical $15 fast food worker's salary of $31,200 (let's say this will actually occur in, I dunno, 2030) with a current private's salary of $18,378. If we represented this graphically it would look like this:
Job 2015 Salaries 2030 Salaries Fast Food Worker ? $31,200.00 Private $18,378.00 ?
I mean, it's total horseshit. Why did she pick those two numbers to compare? Because they look the worst side-by-side. She'd rather pretend those other two numbers don't exist, because they paint a more complete picture. Which, what the hell, let's look at it.
Job 2015 Salaries 2030 Salaries Fast Food Worker $15,080.00 $31,200.00 Private $18,378.00 $38,023.45
Wow, that's...wow. That paints a completely different picture doesn't it? It almost completely undermines her argument. First of all, in terms of stark contrast, the fact that a fast food worker making minimum wage and working full time only makes 15K a year is mortifying. That's our minimum wage, people. That's considered something you can live off of. If you're reading this on a computer screen you paid for yourself, odds are you're probably make twice that, if not four or five times that amount.
Then there's the other point she's ignoring, which is that if the minimum wage was raised, a private would necessarily have to make more, even if he was only making the minimum wage. But the truth is that military pay rates are decided based on an algorithm which makes them competitive, with certain considerations, with similar civilian jobs.
Now, just providing the full math paints a much fuller picture. Just comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges provides a solid basis from which both sides of the debate could proceed. Reasonable adults can disagree. That's the basis of a civil society. With these numbers, both sides could pick and prod and raise deeper issues. But Ms. Harris doesn't provide us with these numbers. She just shows the most stark comparisons, even if they are, essentially, nonsensical. Which leads to my first bullet point of disdain about debate in modern political discourse:
1. Facts are cherry-picked
Now, assuming I give both sides the benefit of the doubt, and believe that no one simply out-and-out lies - which is decidedly not the case - there are still issues where a politician trying to make his case simply doesn't lay out all the facts. It's as though they fear that providing us with all the facts may make us come to a different conclusion. Which is, come to think of it, not a terrible assumption to make.
But let's dig a little deeper. Ms. Harris used an insanely simple method for coming up with her numbers. She pulled the private and the sergeant's pay from a monthly payscale (presumably from 2014 since it's changed now) and multiplied by 12. Then she took a $15 per hour wage, multiplied it by 40 hours a week, and then by 52 weeks in a year. But she didn't say any of that, and part of the reason why she didn't may have been an honest oversight, but it may well have been because it would wildly undermine her case.
Because, looking at those calculations in context any reasonable person would go, "Holy shit! That means literally zero time off!" That means no holidays, no sick days, no planned leave of any sort. That means working non-stop, Monday through Friday, every goddamned week of the year. Also, not every year has exactly that many working hours, but that's a minor quibble; I probably would have used the same calculating method myself.
It also means no overtime, no holiday pay, no shift work, no nothing, which is all part and parcel of a wage job, as anyone knows. Harris is applying the thought processes of a salaried position to a wage position. So there's a deeper contextual issue here. For one thing, she's comparing a salaried position (military) with a wage position (restaurant worker.) And those are difficult things to compare. But we also have to wonder, why did she choose those two particular jobs to compare in the first place? Probably for emotional reasons to help her case, but no matter, the choices were made, so let's go with them.
Now what's truly problematical for me here is that I actually served in the military and I know how pay is calculated, and I know what all goes into it, and Ms. Harris either doesn't know, or is deliberately ignoring all of that. Any E-1, E-5, or for that matter O-7 knows that basic pay is not the end of the story. You also get housing allowance, subsistence allowance, and, oh yeah, benefits.
A military private pays $0 for total health care coverage. He also doesn't pay for his food, clothes, or house. His commuting expenses can be as minimal as free if he lives on post. Oh, and, he also gets an enlistment bonus and periodic re-enlistment bonuses, and periodic promotions if he's not a fucking idiot. Ms. Harris also deliberately brings up that these fellows are under fire, except...
Not if he's making 18K and change a year. Because there's also hostile fire pay when you're in a war zone, not to mention that wartime wages are not taxed.
My point is not that a Service Member makes too much. Christ knows they don't make nearly as much as they should. My point is that ganking the number $18,378 off a payscale tells a story bereft of all context. As does multiplying the minimum wage a couple of times and ignoring living expenses. In other words:
2. Facts are presented out of context
Now that I've more or less given you the rest of the facts and given them to you in context, you can probably think a little bit harder about the situation, and a little bit deeper. Maybe you still draw the same conclusion. As I said, reasonable adults can disagree, and there is a far greater context to the minimum wage debate than either Harris or I have presented thus far.
For one thing, will raising the minimum wage cause employers to rely more heavily on automation, and thus reduce overall jobs? What about real-world examples? Rather than drawing chalk figures on an imaginary board, what happens in places where wages are high vice low? For that matter, if you raise wages, aren't you giving disposable income to a ready customer base, i.e. your employees, who are already in your store and perfectly willing to buy your products?
There are so many things to examine, we have a plethora of conclusions to draw. But in the screed above we're presented with one:
Raising the minimum wage means that fast food workers will make more than Service Members.
This seems morally reprehensible. Of course, it's complete horseshit, as I've already laid out in excruciating detail. But once you've drawn this conclusion, it's hard to back down from, isn't it? It's hard to leave behind the moral highground and fight fact with actual fact? Which leads to:
3. Erroneous conclusions are defended rather than exploded
And one final point. It's so minor, I hesitate to even bring it up in light of the much greater logical issues I've already addressed. But, it's such an important part of Ms. Harris's argument, I can't ignore it altogether. Every time she makes a point, she belittles her strawman of an opponent. "Johnny Fry-Boy," "Sally McBurgerflipper," and so on.
Her point is she hates fast food workers. She hates the idea that she would have to take their feelings into account. She's probably on to something from a debate standpoint, actually. Each and every one of us has had a bad experience at a fast food restaurant, either a jacked up order or a cracked out cashier or a short changing or something. We ignore the hundred (thousands?) of times in our lives that everything goes swimmingly at the McDonald's, and remember the times it doesn't.
Part of that is just human nature overall. We attribute coincidence to good or bad fortune, and ignore countless instances of failed coincidence. We look for patterns where there are none, and see faces on Mars. The point is: the general public probably has a bad taste in their mouths about fast food workers. (Which, incidentally, is probably why Harris chose that particular minimum wage job rather than hospice worker or something more sympathetic...but I digress...)
By making her opponents look foolish, Harris is attempting to sway the sympathies of the undecided. "If only a stupid burger flipper is for this, then what are you?" she seems to be asking. In other words:
4. Ad hominem attacks
I'm sorry for picking on Jennifer Harris, by the way, who I don't know from Adam, nor do I feel particularly strongly about this issue. It's certainly not my most passionate cause or anything. I just felt that this one small excerpt seemed to encapsulate everything that's wrong with the way we discuss things with one another in just a few short paragraphs, and I hoped that a well thought-out exegesis could be illuminating. You might disagree with my conclusions, in fact abut 50% of you probably do...but let's try to look past our political thoughts and analyze our logical arguments.
So what do you think? Are these sorts of discussions always going to be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Do intelligent people know better? Do intelligent people know better and not care, as long as the argument supports what they already agree with? Should we look at better methods of fighting our political fights? Feel free to let me have it in the comments.
March 18, 2015
"G" is for "Ghoul"
Welcome back, blogketeers! Today we’re going to be discussing (hopefully briefly) my magnum opus:
THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO
The development of THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO actually predates any of my other extant novels by a wide margin. I began working on this piece around 2003 or 2004. My initial plan was to develop a zombie television series which was, of course, a unique idea for the time. I had trouble with the fact that a zombie show would necessarily be gory and a television series would be limited by FCC guidelines, which at the time seemed a much more insurmountable issue.
What was more important, though, was that I was limited by my own ignorance. I didn’t know, per se, how to get a television series made, but I also didn’t know how to get a book published, so neither seemed like a particularly futile effort. I know now, of course, that television shows are quite simply not made on spec (that is, on speculation, or, rather, by some asshole off the street pitching an idea) whereas novels are. So I was essentially wasting my time.
My original idea was a sort of “Battlestar Galactica” with zombies. This does predate the “Battlestar Galactica” reboot by a bit, but in later iterations in 2005 and 2006 I knew that was what I was doing, a wagon train story, essentially, set after the zombie apocalypse, with an ever-diminishing band of mingled civilians and Soldiers travelling from the east to the west across the United States with some mad hope in mind.
I developed a rather lengthy story arc for the series. Season 1, as I described, was the wagon train story. Season 2 would then switch focus to the South Pacific. What I knew about season 2 was that there would be a band of zombie-worshipping pirates on the high seas, and an essentially marooned crew who would be heartened by the appearance of the mainland survivors. Season 3 was to have been a throwback season, set entirely in the Middle Ages and chronicling an earlier zombie outbreak and explaining the mechanics of the later apocalypse. Season 4 would have wrapped up all the loose ends.
In 2008 I left the army, and in 2009 I resolved to get published in earnest. I quickly realized none of my extant work was good enough to get published. Basically, I had been working under false assumptions for some years, believing people were interested in sweeping, multi-POV stories a la Harry Turtledove. The most common complain I got about my queries was that there was no single main character to focus on. It chafed me to have to go back to square one, but I did, and in 2009 wrote BRAINEATER JONES as a lark, with the intention of having a saleable novel. It sold.
In 2013.
And in the meantime, as I focused on selling BRAINEATER, I returned to work on THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, which as you’ve probably guessed evolved out of the Season 2 proposed storyline for my TV show, which I realize now I had forgotten to mention I was going to call “Flesh.” TGA evolved and developed so much as a story in those years, and remained so close to my heart that I doubt I’ll ever be able to recreate the greatness of that work. I consider it my best. So check it out, I hope you enjoy!
THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO
The development of THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO actually predates any of my other extant novels by a wide margin. I began working on this piece around 2003 or 2004. My initial plan was to develop a zombie television series which was, of course, a unique idea for the time. I had trouble with the fact that a zombie show would necessarily be gory and a television series would be limited by FCC guidelines, which at the time seemed a much more insurmountable issue.
What was more important, though, was that I was limited by my own ignorance. I didn’t know, per se, how to get a television series made, but I also didn’t know how to get a book published, so neither seemed like a particularly futile effort. I know now, of course, that television shows are quite simply not made on spec (that is, on speculation, or, rather, by some asshole off the street pitching an idea) whereas novels are. So I was essentially wasting my time.
My original idea was a sort of “Battlestar Galactica” with zombies. This does predate the “Battlestar Galactica” reboot by a bit, but in later iterations in 2005 and 2006 I knew that was what I was doing, a wagon train story, essentially, set after the zombie apocalypse, with an ever-diminishing band of mingled civilians and Soldiers travelling from the east to the west across the United States with some mad hope in mind.
I developed a rather lengthy story arc for the series. Season 1, as I described, was the wagon train story. Season 2 would then switch focus to the South Pacific. What I knew about season 2 was that there would be a band of zombie-worshipping pirates on the high seas, and an essentially marooned crew who would be heartened by the appearance of the mainland survivors. Season 3 was to have been a throwback season, set entirely in the Middle Ages and chronicling an earlier zombie outbreak and explaining the mechanics of the later apocalypse. Season 4 would have wrapped up all the loose ends.
In 2008 I left the army, and in 2009 I resolved to get published in earnest. I quickly realized none of my extant work was good enough to get published. Basically, I had been working under false assumptions for some years, believing people were interested in sweeping, multi-POV stories a la Harry Turtledove. The most common complain I got about my queries was that there was no single main character to focus on. It chafed me to have to go back to square one, but I did, and in 2009 wrote BRAINEATER JONES as a lark, with the intention of having a saleable novel. It sold.
In 2013.
And in the meantime, as I focused on selling BRAINEATER, I returned to work on THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, which as you’ve probably guessed evolved out of the Season 2 proposed storyline for my TV show, which I realize now I had forgotten to mention I was going to call “Flesh.” TGA evolved and developed so much as a story in those years, and remained so close to my heart that I doubt I’ll ever be able to recreate the greatness of that work. I consider it my best. So check it out, I hope you enjoy!
March 16, 2015
March 13, 2015
Am I Ready for CPaCC?
I've got a fat stack of BJs...
...I'm stacking GHOULs like they're 3x5 cards...
...I've got mad BILLY...
...collateral courtesy of everybody's favorite sci-fi author...
...I'm flush with paper in case you need change...
...and if you don't have money, that's no issue - I take credit...
Should be one Hell of a con...Why not stop on by?
March 11, 2015
"F" is for "Fat"
Let’s talk a little bit about FAT ZOMBIE. Contradicting the name, the anthology is not actually about fat zombies, per se, it’s about fat people. Fat people, old people, handicapped people, and just plain weird people. The point, as I understood anthology curator Paul Mannering’s submission call, was to focus on schlubs and losers, the unusual survivors of a zombie or otherwise apocalypse, rather than the thin, athletic, sexy people we normally see on TV.
(Of course, one supposes that no matter how overweight you are at the beginning of a zombie outbreak, by the end you ought to be pretty svelte. Or dead. But I digress…)
This is a “fresh” collection, or maybe that’s not the word, but all of the stories are unpublished. Which is probably for the best, but when I heard the submission call I immediately thought of one of my all-time favorite horror shorts, “Jerry’s Kids Meets Wormboy” by David J. Schow. If you’ve never read this brief masterpiece…well, I won’t belabor the point, just go find it and read it. It strikes me as the quintessential FAT ZOMBIE story, and for all I know may have been the inspiration for it.
Bearing that in mind, I considered it a sort of an obligation to write something transgressive. The result was “The New Dark Ages,” easily by darkest, most extreme piece both in style and content. To date, my most transgressive work, by almost all measures, is THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO. I have to say, though, that what few taboos I had left untrampled in TGA I finally got around to in “The New Dark Ages.” I didn’t even really do that intentionally, it just so happened that there were a couple of double-plus-creepy things that fell into place with “The New Dark Ages.”
“The New Dark Ages” actually features some characters I’m pretty familiar with. They show up again in my on-again, off-again labor of love KINGDOM as well as the forthcoming sequel to TGA (though, once you read the short, it’ll be fairly obvious that the ones in the ghoulverse are alternate iterations.) But, yeah, long story short, Lucky, Mercedes, Nick, Harvey, and Jenny are characters with a lot of baggage, a lot of background, and I know them pretty well. It was kind of disturbing to me, even, to take them in such a dark direction, even though I knew it was just for a one-off and “didn’t really happen.”
(Of course, nothing anyone writes “really happened” – it’s just squabbling over what’s canon or not, you know. And “The New Dark Ages,” as I said, is not canon, at least, not in the ghoulverse.)
I don’t really have any special reason to pimp FAT ZOMBIE. I got paid a lump sum outright for it, so its sales don’t really affect me one way or another. But I am very proud of the story of mine that it includes, not to mention that it also includes work from such luminaries as Rachel Aukes and Jay Wilburn. So do yourself a favor and grab you up a copy of FAT ZOMBIE. I guarantee you won’t regret it…or, maybe you will. Who the fuck am I, Svengali?
March 9, 2015
2015 Appearances
CPACC's right around the corner and that can mean only one thing: convention season is kicking off! I thought this year, for my benefit and yours, I'd start listing all of my public appearances. Make sure to check back to this page often (I'll be adding it as a tab to the main page) for updates.
If you'd like me to make an appearance at a convention or other event you're organizing or attending, feel free to contact me and we'll discuss it. Most events in Baltimore or Philadelphia are a slam dunk for me to attend, but I'll consider travelling if invited.
Central Pennsylvania Comic Con
Dates: Saturday and Sunday, March 14-15
Location: Wyndham Garden Hotel (Formerly Holiday Inn)
2000 Loucks Rd, York, PA 17408
Panels:
Sunday 10:30 am - "How to Navigate Publishing in 2015" - Susquehanna Room
CHS Sci-Fi Saturday
Date: Saturday, May 30 11:00 am - 5:00 pm
Location: Swartz Building, Carlisle High School
623 West Penn Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
Shore Leave 37
Dates: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, August 7-9
Location: The Hunt Valley Inn
245 Shawan Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Contagious Reads HorrorCon 2015
Dates: Thursday and Friday, Aug 13-14
Location: Virtual
Panels:
Thursday 11:00 am - "Zombie Appeal: What Makes People Love or Hate the Genre?"
Thursday 3:00 pm - "Zombies Everywhere!: How to Make Your (Zombie or Non-Zombie) Work Stand out in a Zombie-Crazy World!"
Thursday 7:00 pm - "Killing Characters: Why is Everyone Dying? How are They Dying?"
Friday 11:00 am - "Covering your work: What Makes a Good Horror Cover?"
Friday 3:00 pm - "Are Zombies a Dying Fad, or Here to Stay?"
Friday 8:00 pm - "Blogging Horror: How to Reach an Audience"
Brooklyn Book Festival
Date: Sunday, September 20
Location: Brooklyn Borough Hall and Plaza
209 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
ChessieCon
Dates: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday November 27-29
Location: The Radisson North Baltimore (formerly North Baltimore Plaza)
2004 Greenspring Dr., Lutherville-Timonium, MD, 21093
If you'd like me to make an appearance at a convention or other event you're organizing or attending, feel free to contact me and we'll discuss it. Most events in Baltimore or Philadelphia are a slam dunk for me to attend, but I'll consider travelling if invited.
Central Pennsylvania Comic Con
Dates: Saturday and Sunday, March 14-15
Location: Wyndham Garden Hotel (Formerly Holiday Inn)
2000 Loucks Rd, York, PA 17408
Panels:
Sunday 10:30 am - "How to Navigate Publishing in 2015" - Susquehanna Room
CHS Sci-Fi Saturday
Date: Saturday, May 30 11:00 am - 5:00 pm
Location: Swartz Building, Carlisle High School
623 West Penn Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
Shore Leave 37
Dates: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, August 7-9
Location: The Hunt Valley Inn
245 Shawan Rd., Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Contagious Reads HorrorCon 2015
Dates: Thursday and Friday, Aug 13-14
Location: Virtual
Panels:
Thursday 11:00 am - "Zombie Appeal: What Makes People Love or Hate the Genre?"
Thursday 3:00 pm - "Zombies Everywhere!: How to Make Your (Zombie or Non-Zombie) Work Stand out in a Zombie-Crazy World!"
Thursday 7:00 pm - "Killing Characters: Why is Everyone Dying? How are They Dying?"
Friday 11:00 am - "Covering your work: What Makes a Good Horror Cover?"
Friday 3:00 pm - "Are Zombies a Dying Fad, or Here to Stay?"
Friday 8:00 pm - "Blogging Horror: How to Reach an Audience"
Brooklyn Book Festival
Date: Sunday, September 20
Location: Brooklyn Borough Hall and Plaza
209 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
ChessieCon
Dates: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday November 27-29
Location: The Radisson North Baltimore (formerly North Baltimore Plaza)
2004 Greenspring Dr., Lutherville-Timonium, MD, 21093
March 6, 2015
The Trifecta of Trifecta Trifectas
Finding a good reviewer (or, hell, even a bad reviewer who actually follows through) is hard to do. And reviewers as I've outlined elsewhere are the lifeblood of a budding author's career. (Was that a mixed metaphor? No wonder I can't find any damn reviewers...)
Anyway, the point is, I like to highlight my favorite reviewers when I can, because their success is my success, obviously. Twice before I've highlighted three reviewers who have completed what I jokingly call the Kozeniewski Trifecta (reviewing BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.) That makes this the third time (or trifecta) of highlighting a trifecta of reviewers who have completed the trifecta...get it?
I actually (and obviously) have a soft spot for anyone who's actually read all three of my books. (Notice I don't say praised...some trifecta winners have been constructive in their criticism, and I appreciate that just as much.) But today's not about a lengthy introduction from me. Today's about celebrating the three newest entrants into this lofty and much-vaunted club. Let's meet them all now!
Christina Torretta
Bohemian with a dark side. Lover of horror and serenity! Currently studying psychology and plan to get my PhD to become a Neuropsychologist. Clinical and Cognitive studies are my goal. Until then I am reading horror of all kinds (ZOMBIES!!) and the odd romance, cause why not?!
You can find Christina on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, LinkedIn, and, of course, her website Creating Serenity.
And here are the links to Christina's completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
Erin M. MacCallum
Living in the backwoods somewhere in Alberta Canada, E.M. MacCallum spends most of her time reading, stabbing at her keyboard and transferring the stories in her head onto paper.
Currently she is hard at work on her next story and also running The Reader's Hollow blog which is about books, stories and those who love them.
You can find Erin on Twitter, her author Facebook, her blog The Reader's Hollow, The Reader's Hollow Facebook, and her website.
And here are the links to Erin's completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
Trista Borgwardt
Trista Borgwardt is a writer, focusing on horror/supernatural novels. As a young writer she started out writing short stories and later on delved into poetry and fiction. Reading interests her just as much as writing does. Having her own personal library would not hold enough books for her. Proudly holding a Bachelor's Degree in the Science of Nursing, she currently works as a nurse, helping to care for others. Animals hold a soft spot in her heart and she has a few pets of her own. In her spare time, she likes to spend time with her family and friends or go for a drive through the beautiful Black Hills.
You can find her on Twitter, Facebook, or her website.
And here are the links to her completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
Anyway, the point is, I like to highlight my favorite reviewers when I can, because their success is my success, obviously. Twice before I've highlighted three reviewers who have completed what I jokingly call the Kozeniewski Trifecta (reviewing BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.) That makes this the third time (or trifecta) of highlighting a trifecta of reviewers who have completed the trifecta...get it?
I actually (and obviously) have a soft spot for anyone who's actually read all three of my books. (Notice I don't say praised...some trifecta winners have been constructive in their criticism, and I appreciate that just as much.) But today's not about a lengthy introduction from me. Today's about celebrating the three newest entrants into this lofty and much-vaunted club. Let's meet them all now!
Christina Torretta
Bohemian with a dark side. Lover of horror and serenity! Currently studying psychology and plan to get my PhD to become a Neuropsychologist. Clinical and Cognitive studies are my goal. Until then I am reading horror of all kinds (ZOMBIES!!) and the odd romance, cause why not?!
You can find Christina on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, LinkedIn, and, of course, her website Creating Serenity.
And here are the links to Christina's completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
Erin M. MacCallum
Living in the backwoods somewhere in Alberta Canada, E.M. MacCallum spends most of her time reading, stabbing at her keyboard and transferring the stories in her head onto paper.
Currently she is hard at work on her next story and also running The Reader's Hollow blog which is about books, stories and those who love them.
You can find Erin on Twitter, her author Facebook, her blog The Reader's Hollow, The Reader's Hollow Facebook, and her website.
And here are the links to Erin's completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
Trista Borgwardt
Trista Borgwardt is a writer, focusing on horror/supernatural novels. As a young writer she started out writing short stories and later on delved into poetry and fiction. Reading interests her just as much as writing does. Having her own personal library would not hold enough books for her. Proudly holding a Bachelor's Degree in the Science of Nursing, she currently works as a nurse, helping to care for others. Animals hold a soft spot in her heart and she has a few pets of her own. In her spare time, she likes to spend time with her family and friends or go for a drive through the beautiful Black Hills.
You can find her on Twitter, Facebook, or her website.
And here are the links to her completed trifecta: BRAINEATER JONES, THE GHOUL ARCHIPELAGO, and BILLY AND THE CLONEASAURUS.
March 4, 2015
"E" is for "Equality"
It would be a stretch for me to call myself a minority in any meaningful sense. I’m a straight, white, adult, cis-gender male living in the contemporary United States. I speak English as a first language, I’m a citizen, I have no notable handicaps either mental or physical. I’m past the age of majority but not past the point where my age becomes a liability. (Honestly, I put it that way because I have no idea what “young” or “middle-aged” mean anymore.)
Sometimes when I think about this issue I try desperately to think of ways that I’m a minority. I was raised Roman Catholic, which is technicality a minority sect of the overall Christian religion in the U.S. But that strikes me as more than a little like splitting hairs. It’s not like it’s 1848 and the Know-Nothings are beating me up for being a Papist.
Today I’m an agnostic-verging-on-atheist, which, again, is technically a minority in the U.S., and according to all studies, the most actually discriminated against one. But to be frank this last sentence I just wrote write here on my blog may be the first time I’ve ever admitted that publicly, and it’s not like I’m avoiding family Christmases and Easter celebrations because I’m such a raging anti-deist. I’m vaguely Christian in the way that 78% of Americans are vaguely Christian. If I don’t make a big fuss about it, for the most part my job and my reputation are safe.
The point of all this preamble is that I am playing the game of life on what John Scalzi so aptly calls in his metaphor “the lowest difficulty mode.” That being said, you may also notice something interesting in the last few paragraphs. I mentioned that sometimes I try desperately to come up with a reason why I may be in the minority – in other words, why I may be put upon.
Now think about that. In THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV Fyodor Karamazov said, “There are times when it is rather pleasant to feel wronged.” I’ve always found that to be a universal human impulse. And not only the desire to feel wronged, but to feel that when people have wronged you, it is not because of who you are as a person, but rather what you are.
Gay. Straight. Black. White. Tall. Short. Something. We each like to believe that as individuals we are unassailable, and therefore if anyone finds fault with our behavior it must be because of some other aspect of our identities, preferable one we can’t control.
I think this impulse explains things like belief in anti-Christian discrimination or misandry. Now, are there people who genuinely hate men and will discriminate against them in certain situations, given half a chance? Sure. That takes nothing away from the fact that our society is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of males. The same goes for a Christian. If you dig deep enough, are you going to be able to find an anti-Christian imam or rabbi or something in the U.S.? Sure. If you dig deep enough you’ll find people who genuinely believe in Slender Man and the Illuminati. It takes all kinds to make up a free society.
Which is where we get to the real root of what I want to talk about: situational majority-minority shifts. That’s a terrible term, and I’m sure there’s a correct one in sociology or anthropology, but for my purposes as a layman it’ll have to do. And what I mean is, there have been times where I’ve been thrust into (or, hell, volunteered for) a situation where I was the minority.
I’d venture to say that most of my jobs have been skewed at least 6:4 or 7:3 in a female: male ratio. Every boss I’ve had, except for a few in the army, has been a woman. Now, being a rational human being I’ve taken that information with exactly the grain of salt it requires. I worked at a phone bank, a profession traditionally dominated by women. I worked at a medical clinic, a profession traditionally dominated by women. The same goes for the library I worked at. Hell, the same could probably be said of the publishing industry I’m now trying to make a go of.
For that matter, I grew up in an unusually densely Jewish area. I didn’t realize, until I moved out of the town I grew up in, how overwhelmingly Christian most of this country is. I just remembered feeling left out because I didn’t get to have a bar mitzvah and shit like that.
So, basically, I’m face with two options when presented with tales of inequality in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. The first option is when someone says, “I felt discriminated against because I was a woman” I can chime in and say, “Nuh uh, I worked in a place once where my boss was a woman and all my co-workers were women and I felt discriminated against there, so being a woman doesn’t make you discriminated against because it happens to men, too!”
The other option is I can think back to times when I was the minority because of an odd situation. I can reach down way deep inside and try to find that emotion I think the muggles call “empathy.” And then I can pull up my big boy pants and recall the logic and reality of society writ large. And with both of those things – my capacity to understand how someone else feels because I also felt put upon once and my intellectual ability to be aware of how my society discriminates against actual social minorities – I can say, “I can really empathize with that. Is there anything I can do to help?”
I think if you’re doing the former and not the latter, you’re a douchebag. Because if you know how bad something feels and you’re okay with it happening to somebody else because it also happened to you, you’re a douchebag. So there you go. In the words of a woman far wiser than me, “Be not a douchebag.”
Sometimes when I think about this issue I try desperately to think of ways that I’m a minority. I was raised Roman Catholic, which is technicality a minority sect of the overall Christian religion in the U.S. But that strikes me as more than a little like splitting hairs. It’s not like it’s 1848 and the Know-Nothings are beating me up for being a Papist.
Today I’m an agnostic-verging-on-atheist, which, again, is technically a minority in the U.S., and according to all studies, the most actually discriminated against one. But to be frank this last sentence I just wrote write here on my blog may be the first time I’ve ever admitted that publicly, and it’s not like I’m avoiding family Christmases and Easter celebrations because I’m such a raging anti-deist. I’m vaguely Christian in the way that 78% of Americans are vaguely Christian. If I don’t make a big fuss about it, for the most part my job and my reputation are safe.
The point of all this preamble is that I am playing the game of life on what John Scalzi so aptly calls in his metaphor “the lowest difficulty mode.” That being said, you may also notice something interesting in the last few paragraphs. I mentioned that sometimes I try desperately to come up with a reason why I may be in the minority – in other words, why I may be put upon.
Now think about that. In THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV Fyodor Karamazov said, “There are times when it is rather pleasant to feel wronged.” I’ve always found that to be a universal human impulse. And not only the desire to feel wronged, but to feel that when people have wronged you, it is not because of who you are as a person, but rather what you are.
Gay. Straight. Black. White. Tall. Short. Something. We each like to believe that as individuals we are unassailable, and therefore if anyone finds fault with our behavior it must be because of some other aspect of our identities, preferable one we can’t control.
I think this impulse explains things like belief in anti-Christian discrimination or misandry. Now, are there people who genuinely hate men and will discriminate against them in certain situations, given half a chance? Sure. That takes nothing away from the fact that our society is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of males. The same goes for a Christian. If you dig deep enough, are you going to be able to find an anti-Christian imam or rabbi or something in the U.S.? Sure. If you dig deep enough you’ll find people who genuinely believe in Slender Man and the Illuminati. It takes all kinds to make up a free society.
Which is where we get to the real root of what I want to talk about: situational majority-minority shifts. That’s a terrible term, and I’m sure there’s a correct one in sociology or anthropology, but for my purposes as a layman it’ll have to do. And what I mean is, there have been times where I’ve been thrust into (or, hell, volunteered for) a situation where I was the minority.
I’d venture to say that most of my jobs have been skewed at least 6:4 or 7:3 in a female: male ratio. Every boss I’ve had, except for a few in the army, has been a woman. Now, being a rational human being I’ve taken that information with exactly the grain of salt it requires. I worked at a phone bank, a profession traditionally dominated by women. I worked at a medical clinic, a profession traditionally dominated by women. The same goes for the library I worked at. Hell, the same could probably be said of the publishing industry I’m now trying to make a go of.
For that matter, I grew up in an unusually densely Jewish area. I didn’t realize, until I moved out of the town I grew up in, how overwhelmingly Christian most of this country is. I just remembered feeling left out because I didn’t get to have a bar mitzvah and shit like that.
So, basically, I’m face with two options when presented with tales of inequality in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. The first option is when someone says, “I felt discriminated against because I was a woman” I can chime in and say, “Nuh uh, I worked in a place once where my boss was a woman and all my co-workers were women and I felt discriminated against there, so being a woman doesn’t make you discriminated against because it happens to men, too!”
The other option is I can think back to times when I was the minority because of an odd situation. I can reach down way deep inside and try to find that emotion I think the muggles call “empathy.” And then I can pull up my big boy pants and recall the logic and reality of society writ large. And with both of those things – my capacity to understand how someone else feels because I also felt put upon once and my intellectual ability to be aware of how my society discriminates against actual social minorities – I can say, “I can really empathize with that. Is there anything I can do to help?”
I think if you’re doing the former and not the latter, you’re a douchebag. Because if you know how bad something feels and you’re okay with it happening to somebody else because it also happened to you, you’re a douchebag. So there you go. In the words of a woman far wiser than me, “Be not a douchebag.”
March 2, 2015
Some Thoughts on Leonard Nimoy's Passing
It's pretty cool lately to shit on the idea of mourning a celebrity's death. "You didn't know him," the general argument goes, or, "It's not like they were really a part of your life." I could probably write a whole blogpost on that subject, but the short point is that's kind of a jaded outlook. If there's ever an appropriate time to celebrate someone - especially someone we perhaps take for granted - it's probably in the wake of their death. At a minimum it makes sense because you can judge their entire body of work.
Leonard Nimoy, perhaps more than any other recent celebrity who passed away, has been a ubiquitous presence in my life since...well, since I was born. Honestly, that's fair to say of almost anyone who's been born since 1966, with varying degrees of accuracy. I've watched Star Trek since I was old enough to turn on the TV. I've seen probably every episode of every series, as well as the movies. Spock's presence, and by extension Leonard Nimoy's performance, looms heavily over all of it, and as a result, over my childhood, and as a result, over my life.
Leonard Nimoy isn't just Spock. He was a writer, director, host, actor, and, by all reports, a genuinely decent human being. Honestly, I haven't seen an outpouring of such unironically detached love and affection since Mr. Rogers's death. No, Leonard Nimoy wasn't just Spock, but Spock was his gift to posterity. If he hadn't been a genuinely good person, we might be more conflicted about his legacy, but since he was, we have this: a universal sadness at a great man's passing and a universal joy at his positive impact.
This all sounds rather lame, doesn't it? It's 2015. We're all very...jaded. We all survived the Bush years, the Great Recession, two Kafkaesque wars. We all kind of hate one another. We don't trust anyone. We don't believe anyone will shoot straight with us. We certainly don't trust the entertainment industry, who have long been purveyors of pap and never thought anything of manipulating our emotions to sell candy and soap.
If I was a different person, I could try to take you back to 1966, or 1982, and try to tell you how things were different. But I'm me, and I can only take you back to the '90s, and what it meant to be someone like me back then. I was a nerd. A geek. Whatever you want to call it. Today, nerd culture is so ubiquitous (not to mention profitable) that there's no real social stigma attached to being a nerd. You hear supermodels talk about what nerds they were in high school. Yeah, sure, Kate Upton. I'm sure you were all about the Mercedes Lackey novels and shit.
Nerdy is chic now. Thor is a sex symbol. People know who Ant-Man is, for Christ's sake. But in the '90s - and I'd be willing to bet for quite a few decades before that - being a nerd meant being ostracized. It meant if you were lucky you would find a few other nerds to hang out with. But most of your time in public was spent feeling out of your own skin. I didn't go to the kind of school where kids got beat up for being different. It was kind of a wealthy school, and like I said, it was the '90s so it wasn't like I was a Jew in Catholic school in the '30s or something. But you could still feel miserable non-stop for being different.
And we didn't have the internet back then. Or we did, but it was nascent. It wasn't like today where I could find out about every zombie movie ever made if zombies were my thing. Discover little subcultures of nerddom was often a very solitary pursuit. If I was reading WORLDWAR or playing Warhammer, I was probably the only one in my group doing that.
There were a few universals, though. Every nerd had to know inside and out about a few things: "Star Wars," LORD OF THE RINGS, "Dungeons and Dragons," and..."Star Trek." Sometimes, even today, nerds are portrayed as having these rival fandoms. Fantasy fans will go to war with sci-fi fans, or "Star Trek" fans will go to war with "Star Wars" fans. That was never my experience, and I'd be willing to bet it was never anybody's experience. You might fight until your face turned blue about minutia, but it wasn't like "Dungeons and Dragons" players laughed at Trekkies or something. I dunno.
I feel like I'm veering off course, but here's where we come back to it. Leonard Nimoy - Spock - was just like me. And by "me" I mean all of us. He was out of his skin. He was half-Vulcan, half-human, and welcome in neither world. He had problems with his father, he had problems with his co-workers. Hell, when the Enterprise met Romulans for the first time, his crew practically turned on him.
He didn't wear glasses - the eternal sign of the nerd - but he was physically different. His pointed ears were the mark that he could never get rid of, the outward trait that proved he was different on the inside. Nimoy's portrayal of Spock was a lot like how nerds felt about themselves. We stuck out. We couldn't hide our physical differences. We often felt like we were thinking on a whole other plane than the people around us. We were unappreciated, despite being clever or wise or whatever.
Spock was naturally endearing for all those reasons. And a funny thing happened as time went on. As the movies progressed, Spock began to become...chill. He was still funny, peculiar, awkward, and smarter than everybody else. But he had learned to accept it. He rockets up the mountain in Star Trek V to save his friends. When McCoy tries to trade barbs, we understand they're toothless at a certain point because they value one another.
Spock goes on to become a captain in his own right, and an ambassador, and to try to do the impossible: to reunite Vulcan and Romulus in "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Spock never changed, but the world around him did. Marching to the beat of a different drummer for however many decades had been painful - he had been the object of ridicule, when not outright having his loyalties questioned - but ultimately it had paid off. Later Spock was proof that being a nerd didn't have to end horribly. You could be a nerd forever and ultimately just end up appreciated.
Leonard Nimoy brought all of this to people like me - millions and millions, judging by the outpouring of support - over the years. As I said, Nimoy was not just Spock, but Spock was his enduring gift to the world.
Last year, I went to the Shore Leave Star Trek convention in Baltimore, MD. Leonard Nimoy was supposed to be there, but he was already suffering from lung cancer. Well, no doubt he had been suffering from lung cancer for many years, but this was the first time I had heard about it. He couldn't make it, and had to attend via video teleconference. I could have gone - depending on the ticket price and the time. But I ended up working my table all day, trying to sell copies of my books. "Another time," I thought, "And when he's here in person."
Well, I guess that day will never come now. It's very sad to lose someone who feels like a friend, even if you never met them, not even once. And some friends and even family come in and out of your life. Leonard Nimoy is someone who was never really absent from my life. How far was I ever really from an episode of Star Trek? A week or two?
So it might be nerdy, or even worse, it might be lame, but, yes, I will miss Leonard Nimoy, even though I never met him personally.
February 27, 2015
Stupid Dinosaurs (Interview with Tara Pratt, Actor on "Fringe," "Supernatural," and "Standard Action")
HAWM, blog followers! We've got a special treat for you today. Some of you may recall a few weeks ago I did an interview with Joanna Gaskell, writer and creator of the stupendous web series "Standard Action." What you may not have realized at that time (although I hinted at it enough, Jesus Christ) was that that some of the other "SA" cast and crew agreed to come and swing by as well!
Today I'll be speaking with Tara Pratt, a very talented actress who in addition to starring as Wendy the Sorcerer in "Standard Action" has also had roles in "Fringe," "Supernatural," and
Well, that's enough of an introduction from me. I know 50% of you already started scrolling down as soon as I said "Supernatural" anyway. So let's meet Tara and then jump right in!
About Tara:
Tara was born in Edmonton, Alberta, raised in Calgary, and graduated from the University of Alberta Drama program with a Bachelor of Arts with Honours, thereafter performing in several productions as part of the Edmonton International Fringe Festival.
After her inaugural theatrical production upon relocating to Vancouver in 2006 ("Hamlet", Ophelia), Tara has appeared in several stage productions with Twenty-Something Theatre including Brad Fraser's "Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love", and the world premier of "Prodigals" in 2011.
Tara is represented by Emilio Salituro with Lucas Talent Management.
Interview:
SK: Hello, Tara, welcome and thanks for being with us! So, you’re from Edmonton. That city’s famous for dinosaurs, right?
TP: Thank you for having me!
I think you’re right. People further south in, like, Calgary and Drumheller will say they have more dinosaurs, but we all know they lived in Edmonton and just started making their way down because it was too effin’ cold in the winter. Little did they know that winters all over Alberta are equally brutal. Stupid dinosaurs.
SK: So how did you get involved in “Standard Action?”
TP: I just saw the audition notice online, submitted my materials and auditioned for Rob, Joanna and Edwin. So you could say I found them the good old-fashioned way. Minus the casting couch.
Tara Pratt as Gwenevere (aka "Wendy") the Sorcerer and leader of the party
SK: In a recent episode (I guess we’re just going to have to dispense with the spoilers here) you got to play opposite yourself. In sort of a “Sliders”-style arc you got to play a sci-fi version of yourself meeting a fantasy version of yourself. What’s that like?
TP: Oh man. I don’t know if I thanked Joanna enough for writing that episode. She knows I LOVE sci-fi (but apparently not enough to win me any trivia rounds in the category...what good am I!?), and as much as I love Gwenevere in the "Standard Action" world, Joanna knows that my dream role involves some sort of Ripley-esque character fighting aliens or cyborgs or...alien cyborgs. It’s my absolute favourite genre to watch so I’ve always wanted to participate in it. Captain Wendy has no ties to the Gwenevere we already know, so I didn’t have the responsibility of being consistent with her character, which meant I could start from scratch and make an entirely new person. Having said that, it was also neat to find similarities between the two characters, too: the captain obviously overcompensates for her feelings of inadequacy, which is where Gwenevere started and kind of (hopefully!) grew out of as the series went on. The captain was also just kind of adorably ridiculous, whereas I think Gwenevere is almost too self-conscious to attempt the same grandiosity. I also loved that Gwenevere had an almost blase attitude about meeting her “other” version, because at that point she’d met many, but Captain Wendy didn’t know what the hell was happening. That was a fun juxtaposition to play.
SK: Okay, so I see in your credits that you were on “Supernatural,” which I knew would excite my followers, so rather than make up a question I crowdsourced this one. People want to know: “Ask her if Jensen Ackles is even hotter in person” and “Ooh ask if she got supernatural goo splashed into her at any point.” (These, sadly, were the best two questions.)
TP: Aw, I’m sorry to disappoint on both fronts! I didn’t get to meet either of the brothers (I believe they were still doing the con circuit in San Diego at the time), and my character didn’t get too enmeshed in the “Supernatural” side of things to get any goo on her. My scenes involved the angels (whom I didn’t actually know were angels, being a small town mechanic and not up on the latest battle for humanity), and I encountered them briefly and sent them on their way. For what it’s worth, Misha Collins IS even hotter in person.
SK: Okay, sorry about that. As I said, I crowdsourced it. So I see you were also on “Fringe.” That must’ve also been quite an experience. What was that like?
TP: Ha! That’s okay, I like those kinds of questions. I feel like a star for a brief, shining moment.
"Fringe" WAS a cool experience. That was one of my first gigs on the set of an established series (I don’t like differentiating by using the term “professional” because I think that’s a better term to describe, say, conduct, and I’ve been on indie sets that were incredibly professional!). I had two lines, and I think as any day player will tell ya, it sometimes feels like you put more pressure on yourself the less screen time you have; you have a minute, and your sole function is to further the story or dole out a new plot point, so it’s not “about” you. So if more time has to be spent on your scene because you’re fucking up, that’s time taken away from the scenes and characters that ARE the most important to the story. You want to get in, do your job and then get out of the way. So I got to set, got into costume (fatigues, nice), got my makeup and hair done (beret, also nice), and when all was said and done I spent more time in my trailer than on set, it was all over SO fast. I had hours to go over and over my two little lines before we shot my scene, and before I knew it I was getting a ride back into town. But I got to keep my “Fringe Division” ID badge, the people were SUPER friendly, and I can honestly say I did my job and then got out of the way. :)
Tara's Fringe Division badge...or is it?
SK: Well, thanks for being with us today, Tara. Do you have any last thoughts or parting wishes for your fans?
TP: Thank you so much for having me, Stephen! I just want to say hi and thanks to everyone who’s checked out or supported "Standard Action;" we got to make three seasons of something we really love because of you! I hope you enjoy season 3 as much as we enjoyed making it. :)
Today I'll be speaking with Tara Pratt, a very talented actress who in addition to starring as Wendy the Sorcerer in "Standard Action" has also had roles in "Fringe," "Supernatural," and
Well, that's enough of an introduction from me. I know 50% of you already started scrolling down as soon as I said "Supernatural" anyway. So let's meet Tara and then jump right in!
About Tara:
Tara was born in Edmonton, Alberta, raised in Calgary, and graduated from the University of Alberta Drama program with a Bachelor of Arts with Honours, thereafter performing in several productions as part of the Edmonton International Fringe Festival.
After her inaugural theatrical production upon relocating to Vancouver in 2006 ("Hamlet", Ophelia), Tara has appeared in several stage productions with Twenty-Something Theatre including Brad Fraser's "Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love", and the world premier of "Prodigals" in 2011.
Tara is represented by Emilio Salituro with Lucas Talent Management.
Interview:
SK: Hello, Tara, welcome and thanks for being with us! So, you’re from Edmonton. That city’s famous for dinosaurs, right?
TP: Thank you for having me!
I think you’re right. People further south in, like, Calgary and Drumheller will say they have more dinosaurs, but we all know they lived in Edmonton and just started making their way down because it was too effin’ cold in the winter. Little did they know that winters all over Alberta are equally brutal. Stupid dinosaurs.
SK: So how did you get involved in “Standard Action?”
TP: I just saw the audition notice online, submitted my materials and auditioned for Rob, Joanna and Edwin. So you could say I found them the good old-fashioned way. Minus the casting couch.
Tara Pratt as Gwenevere (aka "Wendy") the Sorcerer and leader of the partySK: In a recent episode (I guess we’re just going to have to dispense with the spoilers here) you got to play opposite yourself. In sort of a “Sliders”-style arc you got to play a sci-fi version of yourself meeting a fantasy version of yourself. What’s that like?
TP: Oh man. I don’t know if I thanked Joanna enough for writing that episode. She knows I LOVE sci-fi (but apparently not enough to win me any trivia rounds in the category...what good am I!?), and as much as I love Gwenevere in the "Standard Action" world, Joanna knows that my dream role involves some sort of Ripley-esque character fighting aliens or cyborgs or...alien cyborgs. It’s my absolute favourite genre to watch so I’ve always wanted to participate in it. Captain Wendy has no ties to the Gwenevere we already know, so I didn’t have the responsibility of being consistent with her character, which meant I could start from scratch and make an entirely new person. Having said that, it was also neat to find similarities between the two characters, too: the captain obviously overcompensates for her feelings of inadequacy, which is where Gwenevere started and kind of (hopefully!) grew out of as the series went on. The captain was also just kind of adorably ridiculous, whereas I think Gwenevere is almost too self-conscious to attempt the same grandiosity. I also loved that Gwenevere had an almost blase attitude about meeting her “other” version, because at that point she’d met many, but Captain Wendy didn’t know what the hell was happening. That was a fun juxtaposition to play.
SK: Okay, so I see in your credits that you were on “Supernatural,” which I knew would excite my followers, so rather than make up a question I crowdsourced this one. People want to know: “Ask her if Jensen Ackles is even hotter in person” and “Ooh ask if she got supernatural goo splashed into her at any point.” (These, sadly, were the best two questions.)
TP: Aw, I’m sorry to disappoint on both fronts! I didn’t get to meet either of the brothers (I believe they were still doing the con circuit in San Diego at the time), and my character didn’t get too enmeshed in the “Supernatural” side of things to get any goo on her. My scenes involved the angels (whom I didn’t actually know were angels, being a small town mechanic and not up on the latest battle for humanity), and I encountered them briefly and sent them on their way. For what it’s worth, Misha Collins IS even hotter in person.
SK: Okay, sorry about that. As I said, I crowdsourced it. So I see you were also on “Fringe.” That must’ve also been quite an experience. What was that like?
TP: Ha! That’s okay, I like those kinds of questions. I feel like a star for a brief, shining moment.
"Fringe" WAS a cool experience. That was one of my first gigs on the set of an established series (I don’t like differentiating by using the term “professional” because I think that’s a better term to describe, say, conduct, and I’ve been on indie sets that were incredibly professional!). I had two lines, and I think as any day player will tell ya, it sometimes feels like you put more pressure on yourself the less screen time you have; you have a minute, and your sole function is to further the story or dole out a new plot point, so it’s not “about” you. So if more time has to be spent on your scene because you’re fucking up, that’s time taken away from the scenes and characters that ARE the most important to the story. You want to get in, do your job and then get out of the way. So I got to set, got into costume (fatigues, nice), got my makeup and hair done (beret, also nice), and when all was said and done I spent more time in my trailer than on set, it was all over SO fast. I had hours to go over and over my two little lines before we shot my scene, and before I knew it I was getting a ride back into town. But I got to keep my “Fringe Division” ID badge, the people were SUPER friendly, and I can honestly say I did my job and then got out of the way. :)
Tara's Fringe Division badge...or is it?SK: Well, thanks for being with us today, Tara. Do you have any last thoughts or parting wishes for your fans?
TP: Thank you so much for having me, Stephen! I just want to say hi and thanks to everyone who’s checked out or supported "Standard Action;" we got to make three seasons of something we really love because of you! I hope you enjoy season 3 as much as we enjoyed making it. :)
