Sean O'Brien
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
  • Podcasts
  • Contact

NaNoWriMo 2023 Begins!

11/2/2023

0 Comments

 
This is a day late because yesterday I was writing. I will today also, but I just have time now to write this.

So here we are again. NaNoWriMo 2023. For those who do not know, NaNoWriMo means “National Novel Writing Month” and is put on by a nonprofit organization that…well, let me just quote from their website: “...provides tools, structure, community, and encouragement to help people find their voices, achieve creative goals, and build new worlds — on and off the page.” They are a simply wonderful group of folks who encourage writing year-round, but November is their banner month.

The traditional challenge is as follows: for the month of November, write 50,000 words of a new novel. Now, they have all manner of ways for you to modify that basic challenge to suit your own desires, but at its foundation, that’s the challenge.

The group has a whole bunch of encouragement and tools to help you stay on track, and resources to help you year-round with your writing and the business side of writing as well. I’ve been a member since 2011, and have completed the challenge NINE times in total, the last SEVEN of those consecutive.

Beltrunner II: Aftermath was my 2020 project, so I have one example of a NaNoWriMo project turning into a published work. 

There are numerous articles and opinions on the whole thing, not all of them glowing. Some folks think that we maybe don’t need a bunch of pikers hammering away at typewriters to generate awful writing. Others say that since the challenge is for 50,000 words, the site ends up generating a lot of half-finished novels that people either abandon or worse yet, submit to publishers incomplete. Still others point out, as I did above, that what you end up doing in NaNoWriMo will almost certainly never get published, at least not conventionally.

Finally are the folks who claim that trying to write that much that quickly will inevitably mean that almost all of what’s produced will be terrible. Strangely enough, the NaNoWriMo people themselves don’t disagree. In fact, on one of the NaNoWriMo posters I keep in my classroom, the statement “Make No Mistake: You Will Be Writing a Lot of Crap” is in boldface print.

So then why do this?

I can only answer for myself. It’s a good, simple, external motivator to turbocharge my writing. I write year-round, but do not yet possess the iron discipline to hold myself to absolutely unerring daily writing which produces 1,667 words a day. I have a full-time job, plus many other responsibilities and obligations. Sometimes, they just get in the way. During NaNoWriMo, it’s as if I give myself permission to put my writing on a higher priority. I can honestly say that there is significant overlap between what I do in November and what I can do in other months because of it.

Also, it’s a great way to smash through a block. If I’m blocked on a project (as I have been for some time on my current one) the artificial goals of NaNoWriMo can help me break through those blocks in my Quixotic need to “win” the challenge. In other words, I find it easier to write the crap that will either turn into quality writing, spark another good idea, or even be completely discarded as, well, crap. The point was, however, I broke the block.
​

So, even though I’m a day late in this post (but not a day late on NaNoWriMo!) I encourage any of you reading this to dive right in and get to typing! 

Be seeing you!

0 Comments

Staring Long into the e-Abyss

10/25/2023

0 Comments

 
Social Media. 

So, did you just throw up in your mouth a little, or are you not an Official Old Person? 

I could use your help, Dear Readers. As my next novel, Beltrunner: Aftermath, nears its launch date, I just know I’m going to have to field questions from my publisher as to why I don’t have more of a profile on social media. I’m on Facebook, and I’ve been trying to be a little more visible there (for me, that means posting or replying to a post about once a week as opposed to once an epoch) but it’s the only site I’m really on. I technically have a Twitter / X account, but I don’t post to it. I think I have 18 followers or something. I don’t even have an Instagram account nor am I on TikTok or Snapchat or any other site. It’s Facebook a tiny bit and that’s it.

The other seasoned people who read this blog will no doubt say, “Good. That’s as it should be. Social media is a sewer/garbage dump/hellhole/morass of villainy. You’re better off well shut of it.”

But, see, fellow Old People, it’s where things are a-poppin’. It’s where the eyeballs are, for good or for ill. I can shout at the Kids Today and their Beanie Babies and their Tamagochis and their Miley Beiber and Justin Cyrus and Swiftie Talyor albums all day, but these sites are where. They. Are.

So. If I’m going to do this, is there a way to go on these sites but retain yourself in the process? Can I, to appropriate a Citizen Kane quote, do social media on my own terms? Must I inevitably become a creature of the social media swamp, lurching from one post to the next like some demented electronic Norma Desmond, mugging for the Instagram camera unaware that I am filming my own demise?

Good God, Sean. Calm down. It’s a social media site, not the monolith from 2001. 

What do you all think? I’d love to have your opinions on this. Social media–something that can be used effectively, or a place that corrupts everyone it touches?

Be seeing you!

​
0 Comments

Fatherly Pride

10/23/2023

0 Comments

 
Look, I generally don’t blog about my family, but I have to say a few things here.

First, my son. Bravest man I know, and that includes my brother, the police officer. My brother Jeff demonstrates bravery every day he puts on the uniform and goes on patrol. That’s a given. I don’t diminish that in any way. What I mean about my son, though, is that he gets up every day and battles against invisible forces. Forces in his own mind, telling him he’s not good enough. Forces in his heart–his huge, soft, generous heart–that give him the impulse to help everyone he meets but also denying him the confidence to take the steps he wants to take. So he fights off feelings of inadequacy and fear of failing every damn day and lives hour to hour having to battle. He lives with three people who seem to have achieved things he wants to, and those achievements appear to come so easily to us, and to everyone else he sees. He could rage at the universe for making his inner life so difficult, but he doesn’t. He just takes a deep breath and gets on with it. I’ve never met someone who has to be brave every second of every day and who refuses to give up.

Second, my wife. I’ve written about her more times than I can count, and she forms the core of most of my strong characters in my fiction. We talk about strength and too often we equate it with unfeeling toughness, or being impervious to harm. That’s not strength–as my son demonstrates, strength is often nothing more, and nothing less, than getting up off the mat and fighting another round. My wife has had things happen to her that shouldn’t happen to anyone, and has come out on the other side a strong, generous, and loving person. Plus she’s the most genuine person I know. Heart on her sleeve, emotions raw and obvious, completely open and honest in all she does.

Last, my daughter. I don’t even know how to describe this person. She’s multifaceted to the point of defying any kind of category or definition. Hard worker, brilliant, generous, joyful, socially unafraid (for God’s sake, she will wear a full body shark costume to work for no reason) creative, imaginative, and loving.

The reason I’m thinking of her is that today, just before I went off for my daily writing, she said she wanted to do NaNoWriMo with me. I’ve done it for many years consecutively, and I know she’s been writing too, but now she wants to do it with me–working on separate projects, of course, but still.

Writing is a rather solitary thing–as close as I am to my wife, we generally don’t talk about my writing, either as I’m doing it, or once I’m done. She will read (or, more accurately, listen) to my stuff sometimes, but again, being honest, she tells me she’s really not into it. So I find myself writing and, well, talking to you, Dear Reader, instead.
Now my daughter wants to see for herself how this works. I’m very excited and honored that she wants to do this with me. About a week to go–I’ll fill you in!
​

Be seeing you!

0 Comments

I Remember Book Fairs

10/18/2023

0 Comments

 

I remember being a little kid in primary school and hearing about the upcoming Book Fair. “There will be all kinds of books there,” my teacher (Mrs. Ford if it was first grade, then Mrs. McBride, Mrs. Winters, Mrs. Kraatz, and so on) said. She added, “You can buy them if you bring your money.”


Oh boy. Oh boy oh boy oh boy!


I can still remember the feeling. Hell, I’m actually FEELING that feeling now–the squirmy, electric feeling running up and down my spine. I could actually BUY books! Yeah, sure, the library was cool, and all–I’d check out books all the time and bring ‘em back and check out new ones–but this time, the book would be MINE. I could read it whenever I wanted and put it on my shelf and read it AGAIN sometime later! I’d have it RIGHT THERE on my shelf next to my bed!


I remember getting that catalog, printed on the colorful pulp paper that really reminded you you were READING–that raspy feeling on your finger pads as you turned the pages, images and rows of books about all manner of things! Skip past the picture books, boyo–I know how to READ–and get me to the good stuff. Yeah, there’s some stuff here about girls on the prairie churning butter, which, I dunno, I suppose some people like (far be it from me to impugn anyone else’s literary tastes) but where are the knights on horseback tilting at each other for honor and chivalry and…whatever reasons they had. Where are the robots and spaceships? Where are the sports stories about the kid who saved up his lawnmowing money to buy a mitt? (Oh, God…I still remember the titles!
The Secret Little Leaguer, Fullback Fury) or the ones in hardcover with the checkerboard design about car racing? 


They’d be there, of course–they always were. I would count the money my parents had gifted me for just such an event (an “allowance,” they called it, whatever that was) and shrewdly calculate how much I could buy. This book was longer, so it was more valuable in terms of pages-per-pennies, but this other one looked damn interesting. Could I afford both?


I’d calculate furiously, then make my decisions and carefully tick off the boxes on the order sheet. I’d hand the resulting page to Mrs. Kraatz (or whichever wonderful woman I had that year–they were all wonderful) and try to convey with my eyes and overall demeanor that she held my life in her hands.


She never lost the order form, never failed to come through. None of ‘em did. I wonder if they knew how much it would shape me, being encouraged passively like that? 


The books would arrive, and I had a passing pang of regret for those poor souls who hadn’t purchased any. In my naive mind, I figured they must not have had an “allowance” so didn’t have money for books. This feeling only lasted a moment, though, and I never considered chipping in to help them. That would have cut into my budget, which was unthinkable.


Oh! Oh! Mrs. Kraatz! Right here! You said my name! I’d hurry forward and reverently take the stack of books I’d ordered from her. Oh, my…even better than I’d hoped. They had that smell–you know, that smell of packing dust and wood pulp and ink and most of all PROMISE. They promised adventure and action and ideas that’d make you go “oooh” when you read it and comforted you by letting you know the bad guys would always get theirs and challenged you by letting you know they don’t always and made you uneasy because sometimes dogs died and there was nothing you could do about it and puzzled you because how come boys and girls acted that way towards each other if they weren’t Mom and Dad but most of all they were your friends. 


Books…especially the ones I’d bought myself…were my best friends. Oh, don’t go thinking I was one of those loners who didn’t have real actual friends. I did–kids on my baseball team or neighborhood kids who rode bikes with me or later kids who played Dungeons and Dragons or who made funny jokes no one else seemed to laugh at but me, guys (and sometimes girls) like that.


But books–we had a bond. We stayed up late together (and thank you, Mother and Father, for pretending not to notice I was still awake and would start reading again as soon as you left my bedroom to check I was asleep) we cried and laughed and thought together. 


Now, I can afford any book I want, and I can order one instantly for the Kindle and get it in a matter of seconds. I have an extensive library, both of physical books and electronic ones, and I want for nothing.


Still, I miss that feeling of the Book Fair when, for a dollar eighty-five, anything was possible.


​Be seeing you!
0 Comments

"Those Who Can..."

9/28/2023

0 Comments

 
Boy do I hate that saying. I hate it so much I don’t even want to finish it. I suppose I should, if for no other reason than to let you know what I’m talking about. It’s the one that goes, “those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.” The quote is attributed to George Bernard Shaw in a 1905 play called Man and Superman.  I won’t say much more, except to add that Shaw was an admirer of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler. So to all of you quoting Shaw to stick it to teachers everywhere, maybe pause a moment before you quote a Hitler apologist.
    To be fair, let’s tackle the quote on its merits. Consider the high school or university professor (I am purposefully ignoring the elementary school teacher for reasons that should become obvious soon). How many of them actually do the things they teach? A biology teacher, for example…does she engage in scientific research, conduct studies, publish findings, and the like? Does a science teacher actually do science? In the upper levels of the academic world (universities and the like) the answer is yes, though with an asterisk. Many universities boast scientific research programs that discover cures for diseases or advance our knowledge of the human body or develop genetically engineered crops for higher food yields and so on and so forth. Many of the researchers working on those projects are also teachers at their universities. Yes, it’s true that often professors who know how to do something fall short of being able to teach that thing (think back to some of your own teachers who obviously knew their stuff but somehow couldn’t or wouldn’t communicate it clearly to you) but we’ll accept for now that at the university level, teachers are both doers and teachers at the same time.

What about below that? The high school level? 
    How many high school science teachers are actually doing science when they’re not teaching it? Probably very few. Now, much of that has to do with the idea that science often requires extensive equipment that is simply outside the reach of ordinary citizens. Still, how many teachers of, say, astronomy are also amateur astronomers in their own right? And how many of them have actually made a contribution to astronomy, even if it is a slight one?

Move away from science and go to history. How many high school history teachers are historians when they’re not teaching? Publishing articles, developing historical theory, and the like? Math teachers–how many are statisticians or analysts outside of school?

I’ll end with English Language Arts teachers. How many of us are writers (essays, stories, poems, books)? Or public speakers? Or even critics and reviewers?

I know what my teacher brothers and sisters are saying right now, and I agree with you. “Sean,” they say, “how in God’s name do you expect us to do what you say? We spend at least forty hours a week on just teaching (often more). Are you saying we should go home at the end of a day and then analyze recombinant DNA in our homemade lab? Or track down a source document about the Aztecs so I can write my article on Women in Aztec Culture? When precisely do you want me to do all of this? Six o’clock at night?”
A very fair point, hypothetical teacher. 
I wonder sometimes. I know in the higher levels of academia, the mantra of “publish or perish” commands respect and fear. Professors are tasked with advancing the frontiers of their field as well as teaching the subject to their students. But the university world is often just the inverse of the high school world: at university, many professors are elite experts in their academic fields but deficient novices in the teaching field (and, all too often, see “teaching” as beneath them and a meddlesome requirement to their real work in their discipline). High school teachers are often outstanding educators but only moderately proficient in their discipline. To be harsh, how many high school chemistry teachers could be hired as industrial chemists? How many high school history teachers could be hired by a think tank or worked for the U.N.?
And how many English teachers have written something–an essay, poem, story, or novel–of professional quality?
Again, I’m not necessarily saying my brothers and sisters can not do this work. But I am saying that it would be a good idea to encourage them to do so. Education has to interface with the world outside itself or it’s meaningless. We can’t teach kids just to be good at school so that they can succeed at more school. In a way, I suppose, I am advocating for what is now called CTE (Career-Technical Education) but not in the way it’s usually presented. Usually, vocational education and academic education are seen as antagonistic to one another. A kid is seen as either a welder or a future college student, for example. Why can’t a student be both?
This goes back to one of my core beliefs about the Renaissance Person (go back a few entries). Teachers who don’t do (not can’t) their discipline are probably missing out. I’d like to find ways to adjust the current system to encourage teachers to actually practice their disciplines on their own. That means time, sabbaticals, resources…I am not advocating teachers feel bad because they don’t scan the night sky with their telescope nor write the next Great American Novel. I’m advocating that public school–especially at the high school level–find ways to encourage and celebrate teachers practicing their disciplines. It can only make them better teachers, right?
And it would shut up those idiots who quote Shaw.
Be seeing you!

0 Comments

Just Lay Off For a Moment, Please

9/13/2023

0 Comments

 
Be seeing youFair warning. I’m in a pessimistic mood. You want to know why I’m in a pessimistic mood? I’ll tell you why I’m in a pessimistic mood.

Because the basic joy of teaching–of transforming some kid who walks into my room not knowing how to find and use evidence in support of a theory to one who does know how (or at least is better at it) is increasingly being eclipsed by the fecal matter produced by adult male bovine. 

Things are getting in the way. Stuff is piling up between me and my students. The idea that I can just teach someone how to do something and that’s the end of it is so laughably far away that I sometimes can’t even see it.

The hell ot it is, a lot of the stuff that’s in the way is just the natural by-product of any large organization that has taken on far more than it was originally intended for. Ask any layperson (that is, someone who is not an education professional) “what happens at a school?” and you’d get a shrug and a noncommittal answer, “teachers teach stuff and kids learn, I guess.” 

Would that it were so simple. 

In order for me to “teach stuff,” I need to account for student presence AND promptness (not enough to record who is here and who is not–we also have to record several times a DAY who was here, who was not, and who was not on time), create AND display my plan for the day (which includes agenda, objective, standards, and homework, posted BOTH electronically AND visually in the classroom) make sure students don’t have their cell phones on their person, and note which of my students have to leave early from class to participate in the rally today (different groups had different times for departure). 

All of that was BEFORE I started teaching today. 

Right now as I write this, I am preparing to go to an after school meeting (my second this week) regarding how the English Learner program is working (this will include but not be limited to arranging for OTHER after school meetings with parents, arranging for testing times for various Newcomers (that’s what we call those who have only recently arrived in the United States–I know it’s the same term used in Rockne O’Bannon’s Alien Nation) and dealing with the Federal Program Monitoring stuff that is coming our way. I expect to hear yet again how there’s more I need to be doing [FUTURE NARRATOR: He was indeed told that] on top of actually teaching kids English.

I interrupted this blog post to go to my various meetings, and I’m now writing this one after attending day 1 of a 2-day seminar on literacy. I will admit that I did learn some techniques I can use (never too old to learn) and had some validation of techniques I’m already using. The presenter (a perfectly pleasant woman who seems passionate and knowledgeable) is from the same mold of all presenters of these things: someone who claims to have been a teacher but who became a presenter and writer of teacher books which she sells coast to coast and goes district to district as a consultant. Yeah, yeah, I’m slightly jaded about this, since it’s just…well, a bit galling to be told how to teach by a person who ISN’T ACTUALLY DOING IT ANYMORE, but there it is.

The honest, unvarnished truth is that there IS some value in these seminars and workshops (perhaps not two days’ worth, but let that go) but it is an ENDLESS stream of telling us what we’re not doing and why we ought to be doing this other thing (or, worse, how we ought to ADD this new thing to what we’re doing). 

I don’t know if anyone realizes the cumulative effect of seminars, workshops, symposia, and the like on teachers. The implicit message–sometimes hidden, sometimes not–is that whatever you’re doing, you’re not doing it right, or at least, you’re not doing it as well as you could. From an outsider’s perspective, one might say, “why wouldn’t you want to improve your practice?” I agree. You should want to. But the cumulative effect is significant. Over and over we’re told, in one way or another, “You know how hard or how much you’re working? There’s always just a little bit more you could do.” Coupled with the laughable notes on “Teacher wellness” (which are, paradoxically, simply adding to the problem by telling us “You know how hard you’re working? Don’t forget to work on yourself in addition to that.”) and the natural response from teachers is a folding of the psychic arms and a refusal to learn or do anything more.

I read recently something that happens in workplaces called “toxic positivity.” (side note: can we PLEASE find another word to ease the burden on the word “toxic?” How about “corrosive?”) Anyway, it’s not quite what I’m getting at here, but it is a close cousin. What I’m getting at is that it seems to me that there is a trend among professional educators to be almost pathologically attracted to improvement and reform on a constant, inescapable level. Maybe I should restate that. There is a disturbing mindset prevalent among education professionals that what we do in school needs to be fundamentally reinvented and improved on an almost quantum level; that virtually nothing we’re doing is “best practice;” that the research by this gaggle of experts and the books written by this other assemblage of professors and the seminars put on by this other conclave of consultants and the directives issued by this other canavanseri of legislators is vital, vital I tell you to improving the lives of the younglings who depend on us…and so it goes. So many people–including the public–telling us every goddam day that we’re doing school all wrong and our schools a broken and teachers are at best lazy good-for-nothings who couldn’t do and therefore teach and at worst are groomers and pedophiles…is it any wonder that teachers are leaving the profession in droves?

I’m just a poor classroom teacher. I’m not an assistant principal, or a principal, or a superintendent, or even an educational consultant. I’m not a cognitive behavioral researcher or a brain specialist. 

I’m just the guy who’s actually in the room with the students every day. I’d love nothing more than to teach them to the best of my ability, and I hope I’ve got enough integrity to strive to make “the best of my ability” better and better.

If you could just lay off telling me I’m doing it all wrong and that I’m not worth that much money and I’m only doing this job because I couldn’t actually do anything else and that I want to sexually abuse children, maybe, just maybe, I’d be able to teach all of your children better.

​Be seeing you!
0 Comments

Beltrunner Aftermath Publishing Journey Part XII

9/5/2023

0 Comments

 
A few days ago, I sent back the (now-heavily) revised manuscript for Aftermath. The edits and revisions were fairly minor at this point, though a few significant issues remained. I was speaking to one of my teaching colleagues (a woman for whom I have tremendous respect but who I will not name here to guard her privacy) about how curious it was that people like us can be so passionate about the minutiae of writing: the Oxford comma, the semicolon versus the colon, proper uses of the passive voice, and so on. We had as jolly laugh about it, but it got me to thinking.

Later in the day, I spoke with another set of colleagues about the finer points of football (I switched hats from my teacher mortar board to my coach’s cap). We were debating whether or not to teach wrong-arm technique to the defensive ends. I held that since the linebackers coach and defensive coordinator wanted the outside linebacker to handle the B gap, it would be a mistake for the end to wrong-arm a puller since it would give up contain. 

Today, one of my oldest friends and bona-fide genius will be running a Dungeons and Dragons game in which I participate (as a player, finally–I thought for years I would be relegated to Forever DM status). When we run the session, I am sure we will have to look up whether or not the spell Sanctuary requires an action or a bonus action (it turns out it is a bonus action, which makes it a slightly better spell).

What am I getting at here? I’m getting at the joy of being consumed by detail. More than that–being consumed by arcane detail that a layperson would not only not understand but would almost certainly mock as insignificant.

Is this what privilege is? Being so secure, so safe, so flush with resources (of whatever stripe) to be able to dive into detail? I am privileged in that I received a top-notch education at the hands of my parents first, then from an excellent public school system and then a private college. I am privileged in that I was able to pursue my dream of becoming a teacher and, if I may say so, meet with some degree of success in the field. I am privileged in that I can also pursue another dream, that of being a writer. And I can dive into a sport that, by itself, is not just meaningless but downright dangerous and deal with the tiniest of adjustments as if the world hung in the balance therefrom. 

I could go on, but the point I am making is that perhaps one measure of privilege is being so secure and full of resources that one can indeed examine the finer points of an art or skill. Were I less privileged, I might be so consumed with mere survival that the fine points of life would be as a luxury forever out of reach.

“Stop and smell the roses” only applies if two things are true: first, that one has the security to be able to “stop,” and second, that there are roses available.

“Follow your dreams” is far easier to obey if one is not being chased by the wolves of want.
​

Food for thought, my gentle readers.

Be seeing you!

0 Comments

The Expert, the Renaissance Man, and Thoreau

8/6/2023

0 Comments

 
The title sounds like a set up for a joke, doesn’t it? As in, “the Expert, the Renaissance Man, and Henry David Thoreau walk into a bar…” I’m open for a punchline to that joke, by the way.

What I’m getting at is the seeming contradiction in advice we’re given about how to focus in our lives. In the 1991 movie “City Slickers,” a bunch of white, nebbishy urban yuppies seek the frontier life (and, presumably their lost masculinity) and so enroll in a program wherein they can play at being ranch hands under the supervision of the trail boss, and impossibly grizzled Jack Palance. At one point, Jack Palance tells Billy Crystal the secret of life is “one thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and everything else don’t mean shit.” Crystal asks what that one thing is, and Palance tells him he must figure that out for himself.

It seems to me that this advice or mindset is not uncommon–that we should determine the “one thing” our life is meant to be about and to discard all other aspirations. If one wants to be a good father, for example, nothing else should matter (or at least, matter as much). If one wishes to be the best lawyer in the world, one should pursue that and nothing else. I don’t think I’m misreading this advice–the Palance character is a trail boss and nothing more, and he even takes pride in his single-mindedness.
 

Henry David Thoreau, some many years earlier, said this: "Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify, simplify! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb-nail." While not quite as extreme as Palance’s advice, it’s in the same vein. Extraneous pursuits or entanglements are to be avoided–focus and “simplify.”

So far, so good, right? But then I run into the example of the Renaissance Man (apologies to half the population for using the masculine term, but that’s what it’s called). It’s sometimes called the Universal Man. This notion goes all the way back to the 15th century, Leonardo Da Vinci, though he did not coin the idea, is perhaps one of the best examples of the notion. A skilled painter, inventor, scientist, musician, and writer (among other things) Da Vinci was decidedly NOT an adherent to Palance’s “one thing” theory, and I suspect would have disagreed with Thoreau had they not been separated by an ocean and four hundred years.

So which is it? Should we indeed look to excel in “one thing” or to at least “simplify” our lives? Or should we embrace all disciplines, all endeavors, and seek growth in everything? Should the sculptor also work on her tennis game? Should the scientist take a cooking class?


I, myself, find the Renaissance Person (if I may update the term) to be most attractive. I enjoy being a football coach and a writer and a D&D nerd and a stained glass artist and a teacher and a baseball umpire and a Union officer and a father and husband and so on and so forth. I can’t imagine deciding I am going to no longer pursue something I find important or interesting merely in the service of a “one thing” mentality, or even in service of “simplifying” my life. Perhaps that means I will never truly attain excellence in any one thing, because I have not dedicated my life fully to that one thing. If that is so, then I will–reluctantly–accept that as the price of being a man for all seasons.


Be seeing you!

0 Comments

Beltrunner: Aftermath Publishing Journey Part XI

7/30/2023

0 Comments

 
     I’m finalizing edits with the editor at EDGE Publishing (I won’t identify her in full here to preserve her privacy, but we’ll call her K for convenience) and the process has been whittled down to little changes or suggestions (in some cases, we’re literally talking about comma/conjunction or semicolon). K has been diligent and professional in her edits, and I hope I have responded in kind.
     Many of the edits seem to be stylistic or syntactic: rearranging a sentence here, moving a prepositional phrase, etc.  But I just ran into one that was more substantive and hadn’t been included in her earlier edits.
     It would be nigh impossible to explain fully the nature of the suggestion K gave me without several pages of explanation (and, for that matter, some spoilers), so I will speak more generally about the editing process.
     I found myself reacting very forcefully to her edit, because I thought it undermined one of the main character’s growth and strength. The change, as I say, was quite small–imagine a story about a person being blackmailed who initially agrees to the blackmailer’s demands but then reverses course and successfully double-crosses the blackmailers. In my original draft, our blackmailing victim only PRETENDED to go along with the blackmailers but ALWAYS had a plan to turn the tables on them. This isn’t what happens, but it is loosely analogous to my story. It may seem small and inconsequential–after all, the result was the same and was arrived at in a virtually identical manner–but in the original draft the so-called “victim” was unwavering in their position. There was never a doubt as to their state of mind, their strength, their resolve. Yes, the readers themselves were tricked, but the reveal that the victim always held the upper hand as opposed to found a way to get the upper hand is an important difference.
     At least, it is to me. 
    The character has been developing more and more into a fully independent person who shows loyalty because they want to as opposed to being obligated to. In his relationship with the other main character, there is nothing transactional: they both love one another without regard to what they are owed in return. It seems to me that relationships built on mutual love and respect are the strongest–and when that love and respect comes from a sincere place, a very real desire to see one’s partner thrive…well. At the risk of being judgmental, I’d call that real love.
     That’s why I find the scene from Citizen Kane to be so powerful. In case you don’t know to what I am referring, here you go:
LELAND: You talk about the people as though you own them. As though they belong to you…You just want to persuade people you love ‘em so much that they ought to love you back. Only you want love on your own terms. Something to be played your way according to your rules.
KANE: A toast, Jedediah, to love on my terms. Those are the only terms anybody ever knows - his own.
     And that’s the real tragedy of Charles Foster Kane’s life, it seems to me. He cannot live–cannot even conceive–of a pure relationship that isn’t transactional, that isn’t a quid pro quo. In my story, I’m trying to set up that my two main characters love one another not because they are obligated to, or because they feel they “owe” the other. They love one another because they genuinely care. And, small as it may seem, the little edit K suggested chips away ever so slightly at that, and I can’t have it.
     I hope this made sense–it sure seems like counting angels on the head of the pin (look it up), but it matters to me.

Be seeing you!

0 Comments

Characters and Ideas

7/23/2023

0 Comments

 
When you think of some of the best books (or TV shows or movies, if you prefer) you realize that in many of them nothing actually happens. 
Well, that’s not quite true, but you get my drift. The idea of plot, or incident, takes a back seat to characterization and character development. 
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay called “The Little Tin God of Characterization,” in which he posited that, in a science fiction story, ideas are of prime importance. Orson Scott Card formed the MICE quotient in science fiction stories (milieu, idea, character, event) where “idea” and “character” stories were different things. 
So what’s going on here? Do I watch Star Wars for all the deep characterization? The complex interplay of shifting motives? Is Star Wars so popular because it is the Faulknerian ideal of the human heart in conflict with itself?
Or, on the other hand, is it so popular because of the cool s.f. (and in this case, read “science fantasy”) ideas? Hyperspace, intelligent and sentient robots? The Force? 
I’m being unfair, of course–I’m presenting this as a binary choice, when the question is nothing of the sort. A blending, an interface of character and idea is obviously at play in the best of works. The incidents that happen, or the ideas behind those incidents, take on a special meaning when the happen to this character or that one. What happens in Casablanca means very little if it’s not Rick Blaine to whom they’re happening. 
Still, I think Asimov had something. The idea is what sets science fiction apart from other genres. “What if you could go back in time?” “What if aliens contacted us?” “What if a robot could be built who could feel?” All of those are IDEAS that are the special province of science fiction. If you take those away, you may indeed have an excellent story–but you wouldn’t have a science fiction one.
The problem with the Good Doctor’s approach (which his successors pointed out) is that it relies on labels, as if our job was to stock the shelves of some imaginary library and place each story squarely in its appointed genre. Increasingly (and, to my way of thinking, this is a good thing) stories are including science fiction elements while not really being science fiction–stories where the science fiction “idea” is merely a gimmick or a plot device to heighten tension or bring a conflict into sharp relief. The story may not delve into the ramifications of a scientific development but simply present the idea in a sort of “plot vacuum.” The aforementioned Star Wars is frequently guilty of this. So are countless love stories involving time travel, or many of the post-apocalyptic stories where the science of how we got here is secondary or even insignificant to the story.
A purist might claim “these are not science fiction!” and I might even agree. 
But so what? I mean, ultimately, who cares? Was Christopher Reeve’s Superman science fiction? We can debate this back and forth, but at the end of the day, does it matter?
One of the best things to come out of the so-called New Wave of science fiction was the inclusion of what had been (and still are) marginalized voices in literature. It seems like this necessitated a widening of what science fiction was: no longer was it shackled to white cisgendered heterosexual able-bodied Protestant men speaking in clipped military accents as they bravely conquered space: everyone’s got a story to tell, not just those sitting atop the social pyramid. Inclusion, welcoming, and the Big Tent gave us some of the best science fiction we’ve ever seen, and if that meant widening the definition and placing characters–especially ones we’ve not heard from before–at the forefront, then I sing their bodies electric.

Be seeing you!



0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author

    Hello to you. Glad to have you here. I'm going to write what I feel in this blog, and while I'm not going to go out of my way to offend you, neither am I going to hold back.

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    August 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Site powered by Weebly. Managed by iPage
Photo from Kevin M. Gill