Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Religious Freedom, Discrimination, and Gen-Con

“As a Christian, a Hoosier, and a nerd, I am offended by this.”

That’s what I wrote on my Facebook page when I shared an article that said Gen-Con—among others—was threatening to relocate because Indiana Governor Mike Pence was going to sign the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It ignited a flame war on my page and most especially in a Gen-Con Facebook group. It was a rare instance where my politics and nerdiness (and to a lesser extent, my writing) clashed. To make matters worse, I seemed to be in the minority in my support of this bill, even among my fellow Christians. It was one of those times when, as I posted on my page, “I feel like I’m the only one who gets it.”

After much thought, I’ve decided to write this blog as my succinct, focused view on this legislation. It will be the last time I talk about it, at least publicly.

I will not explain my views on homosexuality. I hate that the bill’s protesters have tried to make it about something it isn’t.

Here’s the official summary of the bill:

“Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.”

In other words, it allows judges to look at a case and determine if someone violates someone else’s civil rights with the exercising of his religious rights, or vice versa. These have come up in the last few years because of cases like Hobby Lobby’s refusal to fund certain forms of birth control and the Iowa baker who didn’t want to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. Both resulted in high-profile lawsuits. This bill would protect business owners from such things.

However, protesters argue that this bill will legalize discrimination. The most common example I heard was a Christian restaurant owner could see two men walk in, assume they are homosexual, and refuse to serve them. In other words, this bill will turn Indiana into the pre-Civil Rights Movement south.

Ironically, some—including George Takei—seem or forget (or ignore) that a federal version of this law has been on the books for over 20 years. It was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives and with a 97-3 vote in the Senate and then signed by President Bill Clinton (you know, a right wing nutcase :P). But the Supreme Court said the law didn’t apply to the states, so since then 19 other states besides Indiana have passed laws that reinforced this federal law and added it to their respective state constitutions. In other words, this law isn’t new.

It does not invalidate the civil rights homosexuals—or any other minority—already has in this country. Those are guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Why? Because they’re human beings and American citizens. A business owner can’t use this law to justify his prejudicial refusal to serve someone.

But it doesn’t just apply to Christians in conflict with homosexuals. It applies to Jews who want to run a kosher deli and not be sued because they refused to serve pork. It applies to Catholic organizations that object to certain forms of birth control. It applies to doctors who refuse to perform abortions because of their religious convictions. In other words, people shouldn’t be forced to do anything that violates their consciences. Businesses have the right to refuse service so long as it doesn’t violate someone’s civil rights.

I explained it like this. If a homosexual came to me and asked to buy a copy of one of my books (which has happened)—or better yet, offer me a book deal—I’d have no objections to it. We’re relating to each other as peers. But if he wanted to commission me to write the vows for his gay wedding, I’d say, “No.” Why? Because at that point I’d be endorsing a lifestyle I have religious objections to. I used examples like this on my Facebook page, and several commenters figured that debunking my so-called “extreme” examples and analogies would debunk my arguments. I’m sorry, but the principle still stands even if the illustration is faulty. Read C.S. Lewis. Even he says, “No doubt there is one point in which my analogy…breaks down” (The Weight of Glory).

There have been no instances where this law has been used to justify discrimination in those other 19 states. None. Zero. Nada. If somehow it does lead to such things here in Indiana, I will be one of the first people to support efforts to curtail it. I may have religious objections to homosexuality (not homosexuals—there’s a difference), but I don’t think anyone should be mistreated or discriminated against. If I have to be part of a minority of voices that supports this, so be it. I’m sick of hearing people berate me as a bigot because I support this bill. Eventually, all their voices collect into a cacophony that blares, “Conform!” I refuse.

Don’t think for a second that I don’t know what it’s like to be discriminated against. In fact, it happened to me at Gen-Con last year. A fella walked by my table and grimaced when he saw that I had business cards for Fans For Christ next to my books. I asked if he saw anything he liked, and he replied, “Let me put it politely: I don’t believe what you believe.” Then he walked away without looking at my books. He discriminated against me because I was a Christian. I didn’t berate him or threaten to sue him. I simply moved on to the next potential reader. If someone is refused service by a business because it would violate the owners’ religious beliefs, that person can go to a similar business that will cater to him. That’s what a free market does.

Why are people loudly objecting to it? I believe they’re either misguided or seizing an opportunity to make a political statement. I’ve heard Christians argue that this violates Jesus’ teachings about loving all people. Their hearts are in the right place, but they’re misunderstanding the situation. Most protesters—particularly the extremists in the LGBT community (FYI: I don’t think all members of that community are like this)—see what’s happening and are using it rile people up so they can advance their political agenda. They have no interest in helping anyone but themselves. I’ve seen it happen multiple times in multiple minority groups. They spout nothing but propaganda. It’s sickening, honestly. It doesn’t help anyone and only perpetuates the cycle of hatred. It must be broken.

I believe Adrian Swartout, the CEO of Gen-Con, is motivated by the former. He doesn’t want his event to be associated with a state that he believes is discriminatory toward certain groups. I can understand that. If he wants to move his event elsewhere, that’s his prerogative and he has every right to do so. However, I have every right to disagree with his reasons and be upset that Gen-Con could leave. I love that convention. It means more to me because I’m not just a con-goer. I made new friends there. I enlarged my writers network there. I expanded my audience there. I love their Writers Symposium. I cut my teeth as a self-promoter there. Now that might be taken from me. Heck, I wonder if Christians like me who attend this year will be persecuted because we’ll be labeled “the bigots who made Gen-Con leave.” I’d like to believe that convention will continue to be a place of acceptance.

There you go. I hope I’ve made myself clear. I believe in religious rights and civil rights. I think both should be protected. I support this bill because I think it does that. Feel free to discuss this with me in the comments, but be civil.

Finally, this video succinctly summarizes what this bill is about and what’s in it.

Blog

Well-Rounded or One-Dimensional?

As a teen and young adult, I used to regularly read Focus on the Family’s Plugged In magazine. Recently I checked out their review on the film Fury, which I’d recently seen. It can be summarized with these paragraphs:

Some will see that unflinching glimpse at perpetual bloodshed and gray-smoking destruction as something of an antiwar declaration. They’ll see a cautionary tale of men hollowed out and broken by the unspeakable horrors they’ve witnessed.

Others will see this pic as a one-dimensional splatter-fest dressed up in khaki Army fatigues, with limbs innumerable being severed by large-caliber machine gun fire and mortar rounds in a story of brutal, hard-fisted soldiers battling a Nazi evil even more wicked than themselves.

“Did you watch the same movie I did?” I asked.

In case you don’t know, Fury is a WWII film released last fall that stars Brad Pitt and Shia LeBeouf. It’s about a greenhorn Army clerk who ends up on the frontlines with a battle-hardened tank crew and sees firsthand the horrors of war, which makes him more willing to kill the enemy. I read Plugged In’s review because I wanted to see what they thought of Shia LeBeouf’s character, who is a Christian. (LeBeouf reportedly became a Christian during filming). Unsurprisingly, they complained about him, saying, “We see him praying over a wounded soldier and quoting Scripture several times before battle. That said, his faith doesn’t keep Bible from being every bit as foulmouthed, boozy and death-dealing as the rest of his crew.”

“What would you have preferred?” I asked. “That he fit the equally one-dimensional perfect or nigh-perfect stereotypes that populate ‘Christian’ films?” Besides, he swears much less than his compatriots and I only saw him drink alcohol once (and he didn’t get drunk, which is what the Bible condemns, not the consumption of alcohol). When his buddies make crude comments about German women, he rebuffs them. When they harass a German woman, he doesn’t participate. He’s not perfect. No Christian is. But he’s also not the typical religious loon usually seen in Hollywood films.

They also presented Pitt’s character “Wardaddy” as a one-dimensional, jingoistic jarhead you typically see in bad action movies. That more than anything baffled me. I saw a character who in many writers’ hand would’ve been exactly that, but both the script and Pitt’s performance add layers of nuance to him. He’s a man who will shoot an unarmed POW in the back and a few scenes later protect two young German women from his horny subordinates. When he walked into the women’s apartment, I fully expected him to do something terrible to them. But he didn’t. He does encourage the new recruit to sleep with the younger woman (which isn’t shown, so it’s debatable if they did anything). When they walk out he tells the young guy “nothing needs to be said.” But his defining characteristic is his desire to keep his men alive. Yes, he’s a borderline psychopath and possibly mad, but he’ll do whatever it takes to save his men. They respect him for that. He’s a complicated character. I was enthralled by this.

Not only was I bothered by this magazine’s overly biased review, it reminded me of the challenge writers have creating characters. What’s the difference between a well-rounded character and an inconsistent character? The line between them seems fuzzy. A common trait of bad writing is having a character act, well, out of character. For example, it’d be out of character for a patriotic superhero like Captain America to suddenly become a communist. On the other hand, people are full of contradictions. Hardened criminals in prison will abuse child rapists because despite their depravity, they have enough moral fiber to know not to do unspeakable things to children.

Dinobot from Beast Wars.

This is why my favorite character from Beast Wars (a childhood favorite cartoon) is Dinobot. He’s easily the best-written character in the show because of how complicated he is. He’s too honorable to be a bad guy but too rough to be a good guy. He’ll pull an opponent from cliff edge if said opponent slipped, but he has no qualms with throwing him off the cliff during combat. He defected from the bad guys but considered betraying the good guys later. Yet all of this fit his character.

Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet.

A more literary (and nebulous) example is Hamlet. Talk about complicated! I haven’t the time or space to adequately examine him. All I will say is he is a man who has a strong sense of justice and strong moral convictions. He believes his uncle is a murderer who should die, but he hesitates to kill him because of that same moral compunction against murder. (I don’t subscribe to the theory that Hamlet was insane). That’s one of many reasons why Shakespeare’s Hamlet is considered to be one of the greatest pieces of literature in the history of the world: the titular character is nuanced, complex, and seemingly contradictory.

Writing characters like this is hard. This is why many writers prefer static, two-dimensional characters. That isn’t to say such characters are inherently bad. There are plenty of great examples out there. But even they must act in ways consistent with their character.

What do you think is/are the difference(s) between well-rounded and inconsistent characters?

Blog

I’d Rather be a Trendsetter (or “Do I Have a Fanbase?”)

I wish I had numbers this good.

Sometimes looking at the numbers is discouraging.

Since my last few YouTube videos have been somewhat controversial troll magnets, I decided to check their statistics. While one has close to 3,000 views (it’s since slowed down because it’s designated as “unlisted”), the average amount of time the 12-minute video was viewed was two minutes. (In fact, that was the average for almost all of my videos). In other words, it’s been viewed many times but not often finished (and yet garnered such hate—I guess that’s an accomplishment). 😛 On the other hand, most of my other videos have only a few hundred views, at best.

I could look at this two ways: 1) I’m not as good as making videos as I thought, or 2) people on YouTube have super-short attention spans and get bored more easily than most. The former puts the blame on me and the latter puts the blame on the audience. Honestly, I’m not sure which is true.

Writers aren’t much without readers. They need a fanbase in order to make a living. The problem is building one. Fans are notoriously fickle, particularly in the speculative fiction realm. Striking a balance between giving them what they think they want and what they (or the stories) need is a tightrope act that’d scare most acrobats. I’ve been told by a few publishers and agents that the stories I submitted to them were “well-written” and that I had talent, but what I wrote wasn’t “trendy.” This annoys me. I’ve rarely, if ever, been one to follow trends. I’d rather be a trendsetter. I have far more respect for authors who dream up fresh ideas as opposed to trying to become the next J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, or Stephanie Meyer (God help us if any writers try to become the next E.L. James…). My English professor, Dr. Dennis E. Hensley, always told his students to be themselves as writers instead of watered down versions of other writers.

People sometimes ask me how many copies of my books have sold. I honestly don’t know. I once asked my publisher a few years ago how many copies of Pandora’s Box had sold, but I was disappointed with the numbers so I haven’t asked since. I’m not expecting it to be a New York Times bestseller, but I do hope some people are buying it and enjoying it. While I know number of copies sold and video view counts aren’t necessarily indications of quality, they can be indications of how well the creator is reaching his audience.

Regardless, when I hear people describe themselves as a “fan” of me, I’m surprised. Hopefully someday that won’t be such a shock anymore.

Fellow creators, what do you do to build your fanbase?

Blog

Representation in Stories is Overrated

Marvel Comics recently announced it was launching a new title with an all-female Avengers team called A-Force. It seems like it will feature many of the House of Ideas’ most famous superheroines—like She-Hulk, Black Widow, and Phoenix—many of whom have been members of the main Avengers team.

I’m not opposed to this idea in concept. If Marvel thinks they can generate good stories with a team like this, I’m all for it. The problem, I think, is that doesn’t seem to be their motivation. This reeks of political correctness. It’s an attempt at “diversifying” their titles because they think it’ll appeal to a wider audience. (Ironic considering this team technically isn’t diverse because it has no men on it).

The comic book industry has been dominated by men since its inception. Generally speaking, male authors write male protagonists because they’re drawing upon their own experiences as a male. Now, that doesn’t mean they haven’t written any female characters well. I’d argue there are plenty out there. Unfortunately, comics have a reputation for presenting those characters as sexual objects. Some of it is deserved, but I’d say some of it isn’t. It depends on the individual creators, companies, and/or eras. Regardless, my point remains that it’s understandable that superheroines are a minority in comics because most creators are male (and that’s not a bad thing).

This comic, whether it’s good or not, seems like it’s based on the notion that particular demographics won’t enjoy a story unless the protagonists share their gender, ethnicity, religion, and/or whatnot. In this case, they could be assuming that women won’t read the regular Avengers titles because there are only a few women on the team at any given time (in the first movie, there was only one). This extends to other demographics (i.e. only black people will enjoy stories featuring black characters).

I reject this idea. I’m sure it’s true for some people, but I don’t think most audiences care. What I look for is a good story with characters I like and/or identify with. This goes way beyond skin color or reproductive organs. A truly great story is one that focuses on human experiences, which transcend those outward superficial differences. I read/watch The Hunger Games because it has a good story; the protagonist’s gender had little or no effect on my enjoyment. Everyone has dealt with stuff like trauma, pain, joy, love, and rejection. Those things aren’t a respecter of persons, whether they be fictional or real.

One of my favorite characters in the Star Trek franchise is Benjamin Sisko from Deep Space Nine. Obviously, he’s a black man. But guess what? I never notice. What do I notice? His soft-spoken demeanor, his furious temper, his love for his son, and the pain of losing his wife in battle. All universally human experiences. Read this excerpt from the show’s bible that describes the character. Nowhere does it mention his ethnicity. It was only brought up in the show when it was necessary. That’s how it should always be handled. A character’s ethnicity, gender, and/or religious beliefs can be used to create drama (or comedy), but it shouldn’t define them. It’s only a small part of who they are. Trying to base the character around those traits will, in fact, alienate audiences.

Adding arbitrary diversity also hampers stories. Case in point: Tauriel in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit films. She’s not from the book or any of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings canon. She was created by Jackson and his wife, Fran, because they wanted to add a woman to the almost all-male cast in the hopes of attracting a female audience. She’s completely extraneous to the story. What little purpose she has is to serve as one point in an unnecessary love triangle between her, Kili, and Legolas (who also wasn’t in the book, but I’m willing to accept him here because it’s arguable he was one of the Elves in the story). In other words, Jackson seems to think women want to see cliché “love stories” that go nowhere. Tauriel might be an okay character in concept, but ultimately she’s just part of what amounts a big-budget fanfiction. Instead, Jackson should’ve focused on Bilbo’s growth, which anyone can identify with. Stories don’t need to have romance to be appealing to women.

Pandora-155w-100dpi-C8In the very early stages of writing my first novel, Pandora’s Box, I thought the protagonist would be male. But as the story progressed, I realized it’d be better if the “hero” was actually a heroine. By doing that, I believe I made the story much stronger and more interesting. I didn’t do it to broaden (or narrow) it’s appeal or make some sort of statement—I did it because it was what the story needed. That’s why one of my author mantras is, “Story is king.” Whatever my tale needs, I give it. If it’s a female protagonist, then a female protagonist. If it’s a German scientist, then a German scientist. If it’s a trope-tastic ninja, then a trope-tastic ninja. 😛

So, if you’re concerned with having diversity in your story, don’t bother unless it’ll serve it well. Focus instead on telling as good of a story as you can. That will get you an audience from all races, colors, and creeds.

Blog

Attacking the Idol

I’ve seen many internet trolls in my time. Often I’ve defended someone from internet trolls. Admittedly on rare occasions I’ve been a troll. However, this week I’ve become a troll magnet, especially on YouTube.

Since my YouTube show is titled, “But I Digress…,” any video I post that is either unrelated or only tangentially-related to the usual things I cover on the show (writing, creativity, reviews), I call them “Digressions” (admittedly, the titles were inspired by the podcast “Derailed Trains of Thought” hosted by my friends Nick Hayden and Timothy Deal who have tangential episodes called “Side Tracks.”) Since it was Valentine’s Day, I decided to post two videos: one where I go on an exaggerated angry rant about why I hate Fifty Shades of Grey and the other my annual (bad) karaoke of a love song.

The former was intended to be satirical. I meant everything I said in the video—that I objected to Fifty Shades as a writer and (Christian) moralist—but the rage was exaggerated; it was acting. I was channeling internet personalities like Angry Joe and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say I was trying to be Mark Levin. Now, I’m willing to admit that I may have not executed the video well and/or that the joke was lost on people. It was the first time I’ve tried something like this. Most people on YouTube don’t know who I am, so as far as they might know I’m always crazy like that. But the majority of the comments I got were from trolls. If I had to summarize everything they said, it’d be thus (except with lots of spelling errors and some profanity): “You’re an angry Aspie faggot virgin idiot with an imaginary girlfriend who won’t put out.” I’ve rarely run into such a potent concentration of human cruelty. As of the date of this blog, I’ve de-listed the video. I may re-list it later, but even then the comments will be disabled so the trolls can’t have any more “fun.”

I made a response video, and while I thought it was clever, most articles I’ve since read on dealing with trolls have said doing such things is usually a bad idea. It will be the one and only time I “feed” trolls.

“Don’t feed the trolls,” however, isn’t the biggest lesson I learned this past week.

First, satire, like sarcasm, has difficulty surviving on the internet. It’s not the most ideal environment for it since much of the nuance and context that make it work is lost. Although, satire by definition is “a genre in…which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement” (Wikipedia). It’s the one form of humor that simultaneously dulls its barbs and sharpens them. It both entertains and holds a mirror up to the audience so they can examine their ideas and perceptions. Some will get the joke; some won’t. Some will get it and lash out (as happened in the tragic Charlie Hebdo shooting last month).

Which brings me to the second, more important lesson: when one takes an unpopular moral stand, backlash should be expected. To paraphrase my pastor when I talked with him about this, “You attacked their idol, and they will defend it at all costs.” Fifty Shades of Grey has sold over 100 million copies (typing that almost makes me want to vomit), and the movie grossed a record-breaking $85 million domestically (though it has since plummeted). 😉 This means I’m challenging a huge fanbase who, for whatever reason, love this crap. I find most erotica like this to be literary pornography, which is addictive. Criticizing it is like taking cocaine from a junkie: expect a fight. I’m sure many of the trolls were fans of this trash (or simply porn addicts). Like religious zealots, they attack anyone who seeks to destroy their idols—in this case pornography—with an incredible fervor. They had to strike back because I said something that was threatening to them. But many of them cared nothing for E.L. James’ books. These trolls simply smelled blood in the water and swarmed me in a feeding frenzy. They’re opportunists who scour the internet looking for someone to take pot shots at because they find sadistic enjoyment in it. They’re the most dangerous kind of trolls. There’s no defeating them.

But I’d argue that these consequences are worth it. As a Christian, I expect persecution (heck, sometimes it comes from fellow Christians). It stems from being different and/or having a dissenting opinion. I would rather be the target of trolls because I took a moral stand than because I—gasp!—enjoy Michael Bay’s Transformers movies (though I do have my issues with them). That, I think, is key. While bullying is wrong regardless of its motivation, there is honor in suffering for a good reason.

Blog

Proxy Characters and Wish Fulfillment

(My apologies for the risque art).
Robert E. Howard.

I once read that Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Barbarian, considered his most famous creation to be the idealized version of himself. In other words, Conan was who Howard wished he was, which could mean a lot of things, both good and bad. Conan is strong, determined, and powerful, but he’s also a violent, womanizing brute at times.

Regardless, Howard isn’t the first or last author to live vicariously through his stories. Whether unintentionally or not, many authors have created proxy characters for themselves or written about activities they’ve wanted to do or places they wanted to visit.

In the case of proxy characters, some are like Mr. Howard and write a character they see as the ideal they want to be or wish they were. This makes me a bit sad. There’s a tinge of hopelessness in this. Instead of realizing that dream, they settle for a fantasy. Now, it’s a fantasy that makes them money, but it’s a fantasy nonetheless. I have long said that story and art are powerful things that can teach writers and readers alike things about themselves, and while a little escapism is good for the soul, it shouldn’t become a surrogate reality. That’s why many people get addicted to television, video games, and the like. On the other hand, some authors write characters that are (often) thinly veiled copies of themselves. Now, this could be a case of unhealthy wish fulfillment, or it could be a literary device they use to make a point. As Gene Roddenberry showed with the original Star Trek, one can make controversial statements so long as it’s couched in story. I’ve seen authors—including one I know—either put their own words in their characters’ mouths or model the character after themselves. Heck, the best example I can think of is Natasha Hayden’s story in The Day After, which is pretty much her life except she’s not a spy (so far as I know).

If I’m honest with myself, I’ve done the same thing. While I wouldn’t say I modeled him after myself (at least not consciously), I must admit that sometimes I envy Jaysynn, a character I created for the Children of the Wells serial. I sometimes wish I was an athletic parkour martial artist. Well, I wish I at least matched part of that description. I’m sure with the proper effort, time, and money, I can learn martial arts. I’ve wanted to for a long time. But as for parkour…I don’t think I have enough athletic ability to do that well. I could be wrong. Perhaps with the proper training….

See what I mean by wish fulfillment? My priorities dictate that I spend more time writing than I do to be a star athlete, though I may sometimes want to be said athlete. So, as it stands, these quasi-secret aspirations are kept in the “writer’s well” in my crazy brain, from which I draw to craft my stories.

It is fun to pretend.

Speaking of Children of the Wells…time for shameless self-promotion!

Blog

Ever Feel Like You’re in a Bad Story?

02751e0b08d9923e1f820452adf9990e60b06b7bf5f1d7e68f122fdc55a0305c
(Just because cat pictures and videos are the only thing more popular than porn on the internet). 😛

A concept that’s being lost in this postmodern (or is it post-postmodern?) world is the idea of the metanarrative: the idea that meaning is conveyed through the anticipated completion of a currently unrealized master plan. This is ironic because many modern stories still make heavy use of destiny. I think that shows there’s a longing for a metanarrative.

But I digress (I like I do on my YouTube show)…

People, especially writers, use book and/or story metaphors to describe their lives. “I’m starting the next chapter of my life,” they might say. Bob Seger’s famous song “Turn the Page” arguably implies life is a book. The best stories are ones with structure and purpose, so that means our lives also have structure and purpose. If our lives are stories, there must be a storyteller. Some call him God while others call him fate or destiny, among other names. There is comfort in that, assuming you believe the storyteller is a good one.

But thanks to cynicism, many people see life as either a pointless meandering or something to which they must add their meaning (if I wasn’t a Christian, the latter would be my philosophy). In other words, proponents of the latter write their stories. They grab life by the horns and wrestle it into submission. I’d argue that even then they still believe in some sort of metanarrative; just one they’re writing one themselves, supposedly.

I sometimes wonder how my characters would react to me, the author, since I ultimately control their fates. Yes, I like to say they “talk” to me (all authors are slightly insane), but in the end, I’m the one who decides what happens to them. I made s joke on my Facebook page that I stopped writing Hope’s War once this week with the villain being held at gunpoint, so must be annoyed with me. The thing is, if he knew what my (current) plans are for him, he might murder me, assuming he was real (he isn’t, is he?) 😛

All this to ask, Do you ever feel like you’re in a bad story?

We’ve seen/read/played plenty of terrible tales, from B-movies to dime store novels. We criticize them for their atrocious plots, disappointing endings, and obnoxious characters. But often I think we feel the same about our own lives. If the last decade has shown us anything, it’s that life doesn’t always go how we planned. We work hard but aren’t rewarded for it. The hero doesn’t always get the girl. If you’re like me, you’ve either feel like you’re in a bad story, a tragedy, or you’re an unimportant bit character. You can’t expect a happy ending because life isn’t a fairy tale.

But I’m here to say have faith in the Storyteller: He’s not done writing yet.

Someone giving up on life because they hate the script they’ve been handed would be like Luke Skywalker telling Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Screw you! I’m not cut out to be a Jedi!” Or Frodo succumbing to the One-Ring (okay, I know that kinda happened, but you get my drift). Their stories weren’t over yet. Whether they knew it or not, they were being guided by a storyteller to beautiful destiny.

There’s a joke among writers that says…well, I posted a meme of it. It might seem trite, but there’s truth in it. Did you lose your job? See it as a challenge to overcome. You have “readers” (Hebrews 12:1) who are pulling for you. Have you ever wanted to quit reading a book or watching a movie only for it to surprise you with how good the ending was? That could be any of our lives.

Your life’s a story. Go make it a great one!

ee70c2d7f2d48c991535077d6f41e1e7

Blog

New Year’s Resolution: Downsize

It’s that time of the year when people regret all the food they ate between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Eve and decide they need to go to gym to lose the extra pounds—only to quit by Valentine’s Day (another reason V-Day is the worst holiday ever!)

All that to say everyone makes resolutions for the coming year (including the Children of the Wells writers and their characters), and I’m no different. My list would include stuff like:

-Finish writing Hope’s War.
-Read the 20 or so books sitting on my bedpost (at least).
-Publish at least one new book.
-Pay off more of my student loans.
-Start grad school, if possible.

But there’s something I’ve thought about doing around this time for several years. Sometimes I do a bit of it, but not enough. In fact, it weighed so heavily on me during the Christmas season it kept me awake one night (thanks, God). 😛 What is that?

Downsizing.

Now, I’m not a pack rat who needs to go on Hoarders (though I know people who should). However, I do tend to hang onto stuff that has sentimental value and/or I think I’ll be able to use later. I have sizable DVD/Blu-ray, book, and video game collections, and while I have trimmed those down a bit (they could stand a little more), what I specifically need streamlined is my toys.

Yes, toys.

As a kid, I collected several series of playthings, some of which are probably genuine collectors’ items (Transformers, Star Trek, etc.), but many were only popular at the time (like Z-Bots and Superhuman Samurai Syber-Squad). I have most of these stashed in several trunks. I don’t keep them because I play with them, obviously, so the toys’ purposes are defeated. I thought at one point I might share them with my own kids, but I don’t know if or when that will happen. So, at the moment, they just take up space that should be freed up. I’m a storyteller now, hence why my focus is more on books and movies, and not a kid or a toy collector. I haven’t bought a toy in years.

He kinda looks like me, actually. (Image courtesy of Tumblr).

Unfortunately, I’m like Andy from the Toy Story films. I don’t want my toys—most of which I slaved to keep in good condition—to go to just anybody. I want to give them good homes; I want them to go to people who will cherish them the same way I did; people like a collector or an appreciative kid. (Wow! That was an excessive use of semicolons!) I know, it sounds weird. It sounds like I’m talking about a pet I can’t keep. These are just toy—hunks of sculpted plastic (and a sometimes metal). They’re not alive. Well, technically they’re not. But when I was a kid, with my wild imagination, I made them come to life. They were “friends” I had adventures with; characters in whatever goofy stories I would cook up on the spot (that might partially explain my zany mind). They were the avatars of my brainchildren. (Though some I keep because of the people who gave them to me, like deceased grandparents).

That’s the thing, though: What I cherish most are the memories those playthings gave me. It isn’t necessarily the things themselves. But barring a traumatic brain injury, I’ll never lose those memories. If they gave me this much joy, they can do the same for new owners.

I just want to make sure I find the right ones, is all. 😛

(No wonder the Toy Story films appeal to me on many levels).

Blog

Pretentious Hypocrisy: Thoughts on the Movie ‘God Bless America’

Normally, I’d be writing something Christmassy, but I think I’ll save that for next week. I wanted to write about this a few weeks ago, but wasn’t able to find the time. Why? Because that’s when I saw a movie called God Bless America.

Watch trailer here.
Watch trailer here.

Don’t let the title fool you; it’s supposed to be ironic. This 2011 indie film made a splash on the film festival scene. I vaguely remember hearing about it back then, but completely forgot about it until I visited a friend who was watching it on Netflix. I missed the first five minutes or so, but I was quickly able to surmise what was going on.

This movie, written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait, is a satire of American culture. It follows an angry man with an apparently terminal brain tumor and his psychotic teenage girl sidekick as they go on a cross-country killing spree eliminating people they find mean and/or despicable. It takes potshots at reality TV, the religious right, and conservatives. Yet for all its sound and fury, it says nothing. In fact, I found this to be the most pretentious and hypocritical movie I’ve ever seen.

It is less a story and more a rambling, angry diatribe where Goldthwait uses the “characters” as mouthpieces. He bombards us with constant monologues declaring that modern American pop culture is shallow, mean, and stupid. I’m inclined to agree on many points, but they don’t need to be pounded into my head every five minutes through profanity-strewn speeches. It’s the sort of thing people—myself included—complain about with Christian-made movies (i.e. constant preaching), but here it seems many viewers applaud it. I say it kills what little story the movie has and buries what good ideas it presents. Even then, the movie feels more like a wish fulfillment than a story. As the so-called “heroes” go on their killing spree—with little or no suspense, I might add—I got the impression this was Goldthwait living vicariously, that he actually wanted to murder reality TV personalities for the crime of being petty.

Therein lies the heart of my problem with the movie. It might be a satire (I use that term loosely because I rarely laughed), but the movie offers no solutions to the cultural problems other than violence and death. In other words, Goldthwait is advocating a Nazi-esque “final solution.” Those who are seen as purveyors of cultural downfall should be killed. Not only is this overblown and unjust, it begs the question, “Why do you think you know who deserves life or death?” I threw that question mostly at the movie’s characters, but it applies just as much to Goldthwait. What makes it worse is there are never any mention of killing truly evil people—serial killers, criminals, etc.—who, I’d argue, do real damage to society. Nope, instead the audience is forced to watch reality TV stars, religious zealots (who are obviously inspired by West Borough Baptist Church), and conservative TV talk show hosts be murdered for being “mean.” All while being preached at by the antiheroes. Heck, they even murder a group of teenagers for looking at their cell phones and talking in a movie threatre!

I might’ve been able to stomach this had the “heroes” realized later that they were becoming who they hated, or perhaps even worse. It would’ve introduced thought-provoking conflict and moral dilemmas. I expected them to commit suicide after realizing how far they’d fallen. Instead, they die in a police shootout while murdering the hosts of an American Idol-type show on live TV.

If the characters’ speeches are analyzed, it reveals many oversights and discrepancies. For someone who purported itself as smart, Goldthwait comes across as a pseudo-intellectual. The characters assume all Christians are mean because they won’t allow homosexuals to get married. Then Roxy sings (not literally, thankfully) the praises of Alice Cooper, saying he was doing things like writing songs about death and wearing dresses before everyone else. At least three times during this speech, I said to her, “And you’d kill him because he’s a Christian.” Frank lounges on a sofa and watches TV only to be bombarded with stupid commercials and shows, but it never occurs to him to shut the thing off and read a book. Each speech seems to indict just about every group one can think of as responsible for America’s downfall and worthy of death, which is bad enough, but then I realized they never attack politically liberal groups. Goldthwait might’ve been able to garner legitimacy if he was evenhanded.

In the end, this movie was an obnoxious diatribe that pointed out scores of problems but offered no hope or solutions. It’s pure nihilism. (I would say more if I could, but that would require I re-watch this dreck).

If you want to see a film that satirizes modern culture that isn’t hypocritical and is actually funny, watch Idiocracy. It won’t leave you feeling like a depressed snob.

Blog

Why the Doctor Shouldn’t be a Woman

A female Fifth Doctor from Gen-Con 2014. (FYI: I'm not against women cosplaying the Doctor. It's cute). (Photo by Nathan Marchand)
A female Fifth Doctor from Gen-Con 2014. (FYI: I’m not against women cosplaying the Doctor. It’s cute).
(Photo by Nathan Marchand)

My apologies, fair readers, for neglecting to blog last week and for posting this one late. I was busy last week, what with the holidays and giving a science fiction presentation last week at the Roanoke Library. Perhaps I’ll post two blogs this week to make up for it.

I’d originally intended to write about something else, but with the brewing, well, brouhaha over this topic, I felt I should say something. If you’re not a Whovian (fan of Doctor Who), feel free to skip this post. It’s one of my favorite franchises, so I felt I should give my thoughts on the matter.

Recently, some fans have been clamoring for a female Doctor. At the risk of sounding sexist and/or misogynistic (FYI: I am neither), this is a bad idea. Here my reasons why.

1) It’s motivated by political correctness

No matter what showrunner Steven Moffat or anyone else says, the big reason this is getting pushed is because of political correctness. The Doctor has been male all his life. Making him a woman is nothing more than an attempt to placate an outspoken minority of women (and possibly feminists?) who, apparently, think they need to be represented by the character. It’s stupid, perhaps even insulting. It assumes women can’t enjoy a good story unless it features a female character(s). The Hobbit films made the same mistake adding a lady elf to the cast who wasn’t in the book because they thought it’d attract a female audience. The truth is that a good story can and should be enjoyed by everyone regardless of the characters’ ethnicity, age, and/or gender. Making the Doctor a woman because it might appeal to a female audience is shortsighted.

2) Gender is not interchangeable

I could be wrong on this, but I wonder if making the Doctor female is at least partially inspired by this modern notion that men and women aren’t that different (other than their “plumbing”). This idea is, in general, false. The differences between men and women go beyond reproductive organs and hormones. There are huge differences emotionally, mentally, and psychologically. Men and women think differently. Gender and sexuality isn’t some tabula rasa (“blank slate”). Much, if not most, of it is innate. There seem to be exceptions because of the corruption of sin. God created mankind male and female (Genesis 1:27). (I realize I’m talking about fictional aliens here, but its born out of ideas related to humans). To suddenly switch that is an insult to both genders.

3) Ruins the “romantic” appeal

I was chewed out a bit in a Facebook group for saying this, but I know this is true. One of the appeals of Doctor Who (particularly the new series) is that it’s a romantic fantasy. A handsome and mysterious man who comes to young women and offers to take them on fantastical adventures. While not every Companion falls in love with the Doctor (precious few don’t on the new series), this appeals to men because they want to be the man who leads the adventure, and women want to be taken on adventures. By making the Doctor a woman, this dynamic is ruined. Either she asks (or drags) men on adventures, which won’t appeal to a male audience, or she’ll ask other women to join her, effectively making the show a “chick flick,” thereby alienating the male audience. This sounds harsh, but it’s reality.

4) It’d alienate old-school fans

Doctor Who has been around for over 50 years. Like it or not, that means the franchise has built traditions, and those aren’t easily broken. One of those is the Doctor being male. By changing that, many, if not most, longtime fans who’ve been watching since the days of Tom Baker (or longer) will abandon the series. It wouldn’t be the show they loved. It’s hard enough keeping people on board after the Doctor regenerates—adding a gender swap would be killer.

5) More backlash if and when “she” regenerates back into a man

The flipside of the issue would be the backlash that would probably come if and when the hypothetical female Doctor regenerated back into a man. You can bet accusations of sexism would get thrown around. Feminists would probably say something about the show going back to its “chauvinist roots.” If this was being done because the female Doctor wasn’t well-received and, much like what happened with Colin Baker in the 1980s, she was being quickly replaced, this controversy would kill the show.

6) Female versions are usually either new characters or reboots

Gender swaps have been done before with traditionally male characters, but in most of those cases those were either brand new separate characters or part of a reboot. For example, in the mid-2000s, Clint Barton, aka Hawkeye, seemed to die at the end of “Avengers Disassembled,” a tragic storyline published by Marvel Comics. A young woman who had admired Barton then took up his name/mantle and became a superheroine in his honor. Or when SyFy rebooted  Battlestar Galactica, Starbuck was a woman. The former worked well and the latter, while weird, also worked for most people. But since the 12 (or 13, depending on how you look at it) incarnations of the Doctor are technically the same person, it wouldn’t get a pass. Now, if the Doctor passed on his name to a worthy Time Lady as his dying act, I think fans could support that. (Sidenote: Ever seen a traditionally female character becomes a man?)

7) Difficult to write (and cast?) well

I’m not saying a female Doctor wouldn’t have the Doctor’s trademark quirks and witticisms, but I’d argue the usual challenges faced with recasting the Doctor—age, appearance, costume, etc.—would be worse and judged more harshly. If a young actress is cast, will that alienate older fans? Should she dress and/or act sexy? Some fans already object to how some the female Companions have been eye candy, so you can bet there’d be an uproar if the same happened with a female Doctor. Her every word and action would be scrutinized. (This isn’t to say there aren’t any actresses out there who play the part, though).

8) Need more nonviolent male heroes

As someone pointed out on the Fans For Christ Facebook page, one of the things that makes the Doctor great is he is an nonviolent hero. Most other famous fictional heroes—James Bond, Superman, Aragorn, etc.—distinguish themselves in battle. They aren’t bad characters, but the Doctor differentiates himself from them by using his intelligence and wits to save the day. This is a great thing for boys to see and admire so as to remember that not everything can be solved through violence.

9) Oversteps the limits of regeneration

While the concept of regeneration has been around since the First Doctor, the rules surrounding it have been murky. Except for a few throwaway lines implying a gender swap was possible through it, it never happened until this season when it was learned the villainous Master had become a woman (I argue this is open to interpretation). Regardless, I say a gender swap is beyond what regeneration can do. It makes sense that things like hair color, eye color, and body build can change because that’s still using the basic building blocks available. Swapping genders means adding whole new organs, glands, and hormones. In other words, it’s going from a renovation to a complete teardown and rebuilding. That’s ridiculous, even for Doctor Who.

10) Lesbianism (or Bisexuality)

As said, a staple of the new series has been Companions falling in love with the Doctor (to date only one hasn’t). If the Doctor becomes a woman, would she still have her old attractions, or would they switch too? Doctor Who is a family show, and despite Britain having a liberal definition of what constitutes such a program, I doubt a lesbian or bisexual Doctor would be deemed acceptable. Yes, there have been oblique pro-gay lines in the series sometimes, but most of those go over kids’ heads. And yes, there was Captain Jack, but even he wasn’t allowed to go full-throttle homosexual on Doctor Who (that was saved for Torchwood, which was an adult show). Again, it’s asking for trouble.

These are purely my opinions. You are welcome to disagree. If you’re a Whovian, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this subject, whether you agree with me or not. Please leave comments so we can discuss it.