I Am a Dick

The fact is, I was going to write a counter-argument parable to Jim C. Hines. You see, I was angry. I was sincerely trying to understand this concept, but I kept getting shut down and told "you don't get it, so I'm not going to explain it to you".

It was going to be fairly well-thought out too. It was about a pig who went into a book store, where she was going to complain to the store owner (a Wolf) how they shouldn't stock the new book from Tim W. Grimes because it contains references to magic. And her son couldn't do magic -- some kids were making fun of him because he just couldn't do what the book says and now he feels bad about magic. Here are some choice excerpts.

COMPLAINING PIG: You see, a year ago, my son was trying to do magic. And some kids saw him and were making fun of him.

BOOKSTORE OWNER: I'm sorry, this happened a year ago?

COMPLAINING PIG: Yes. Some kids were making fun of him because he just couldn't do what the book says, and now he feels bad about doing magic.

BOOKSTORE OWNER: You understand that these are books about fictional worlds with magic, not books about doing sleight of hand or bunnies out of hats.

COMPLAINING PIG: I know that, but any mention of magic sets him off. He won't do it again, he won't even try, because he's afraid of being made fun of again.

BOOKSTORE OWNER: I'm not sure how that's my problem. Why don't you talk to those kids? They're the ones who made him feel bad.

COMPLAINING PIG: Well, they haven't really done anything since. Kind of ignore him now. And I don't like confrontation.

And this...

BOOKSTORE OWNER: But almost my entire inventory of YA has to do with magic.

COMPLAINING PIG: Why can't you simply stop stocking these books? Can't you see that people are hurting because of them?

BOOKSTORE OWNER: I have plenty of non-magic books your child might enjoy.

COMPLAINING PIG: I'm not talking about those books. I want you to stop stocking these. (she pulls out a short list) But if you insist on books with magic, I was considerate enough to find some that would be more acceptable.

BOOKSTORE OWNER: (looks over the list) Well, these are all well and good, but they aren't like the books I stock. A lot of them have a much weaker story and characters. They're not as well-written, blander, longer, some are too literary. They lack punch. Each book is different. Each has different information it communicates. One might be better than another in one aspect but weaker in another. I try and recommend the right book for the right reader -- the one that communicates everything needed.

And this little gem:

BOOKSTORE OWNER: Look, you need to tell me why I need to stop selling these books when you're the first person to ever complain about them. I didn't even know this was an issue. (He's trying to be open-minded -- even though this is the first complainer, there may be others out there who haven't spoken up).

The complaining pig talks about how she couldn't afford a good book on magic. Or that his hands are just a little too slow. And that it's society's fault because they treat people who do magic like geeks. Worse for people who can't do magic well.

BOOKSTORE PIG: With that argument, all these books have the potential to hurt someone. Look, I'm sorry your kid has such challenges, and I didn't intend to hurt him. But I had no idea your kid even existed when I put up this store. I can't fight his battles for him.

COMPLAINING PIG: Can't you simply stock different books?

BOOKSTORE OWNER: Is this your bookstore? I know it's awkward of you to ask, but it's awkward of me to give in to a foolish request. Why is it my job to protect your kid when I'm not the one with the problem? I won't be the first and I won't be the last. What gives you the ability to dictate policies for me? Are you the thought police?

COMPLAINING PIG: You do have the freedom to stock the books you want. But I have the freedom to ask you to stop because you are hurting people.

BOOKSTORE OWNER: True, and before you asked that, I had no opinion of you. But now you're acting like a jerk and making unreasonable demands of me, asking me to change my ways for one person who I don't know. You can't avoid pain in life, it's impossible to try. And by making a special exception for him, aren't I setting him apart from the crowd? The same thing that's ostracizing him in the first place? There are a hundred other people in this bookstore, magicians and non-magicians alike, who have no problem.

You see, because 'books' really mean words in this story.

...

Ahem.

...

And then it was going to end with the complaining woman bringing a "One Million Moms"-like group and other "concerned" sheep protesting and shouting slogans like "You're a bastard for stocking this filth" and "why are you hurting this little boy!" and closing the store. All very transparent to how mindless groupthink leads to bad things. I was even going to call it "This Parable is Retarded".

While I was pre-writing my story, the little voice inside my head kept telling me "don't do this", "you're wasting your energy on something hateful", "Wil Wheaton says 'don't be a dick'!", "you'll regret this", "you're just trying to extract some petty measure of vengeance" and so forth. I attempted to shut that voice up with Conviction. People take advantage when blind devotions are freely given, like in Kony 2012. They don't stop to consider there's another side to the coin, and I convinced myself it's my job to present that side. I understand that "freedom of speech" is not equal to "freedom from consequences of that speech". But I cannot reconcile the "stop using a word that's hateful" vs. "telling people how they should speak" which is a jerk move in my book.

Then I started reading the comments on the post to gain material. Here are some choice ones.

"'Retarded' refers to a state of being. People with learning disabilities are playing the hand they’ve been dealt, usually with an immense amount of effort to make the best of it. On the other hand, 'stupid' refers to a behavior. 'Stupid' is kind of a choice, or at least a mistake. It’s pretty close to 'ignorant', and personally I think ignorant people need to be called on it."
-Joe Murphy

"You get to decide what’s offensive to you. They get to decide what's offensive to them. Of course, you also get to decide whether you're going to respect their feelings or not, but don’t expect anyone to admire or defend you if you decide not to respect their wishes."
-KarenJG

"Using the word 'retarded' to indicate a bad situation, or a poor choice, or a willfully ignorant person, changes the context of the word. It's like calling something you don't like 'gay'. It's not that being retarded is a bad thing in and of itself. The person using it in a poor context adds a layer of disrespect and insult, by equating a word that doesn't signify in the situation, and implying that the word (and those associated with it) are bad in some way."
-Evan Middleton

This is exactly what I was looking for. Usually, when I post a comment, I don't read the other comments because there are always so many of them. I compensate for this by not posting comments often. In this case, I just got sick of the blind adoration, maybe because it was on the coattails of Kony 2012. I believe there were comments that were thoughtless praise. But clearly, others were from people who had reasonable justifications and well-thought out explanations. The issue is more complex and has deeper roots than I originally assigned it.

Like I said in my "philosophy on writing women" post, I no longer understand insults like "throws like a girl" or "gay", because it doesn't make sense to me. Girls like Jennie Finch are a good example and Sports Science has proven that it's harder to hit a girl's fast pitch softball than a male-thrown baseball (due to reaction time). Gay people get a bad rap, but of all their stereotypes, none of them are mean, hateful, or stupid (maybe a little catty and nescient, but comically so). In fact, if I could stereotype anything of gay people, they seem to be all about the love. Calling something "gay" is like thinking tar baby is a racist term. Maybe it was once, but enough time has passed now that all I know is that it's a statue made out of tar. The word 'retarded' is like that, in that it assigns a negative modifier to a condition that can't be helped, like being a girl or gay. I have learned that because you have a condition you are not in control of, it does not mean you are inferior, and words to that effect should not be assigned to inferior ideas, people, or things.

But I'm still going to use the word 'retarded'.

Not often, and not when it's unneeded. But I think it's a proper word to describe something so stupid and ignorant that it could only have come from someone who had a mental difficulty. For one thing, all of my favorite stuff uses the most vulgar, offensive language in heaps and buckets. For another, words only have the power that they're given. Words change and their meanings change. And usually in a way that diminishes the subject they're referring to. Let's go to George Carlin for more.

Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. ... There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap.

In the first World War, that condition was called "shell shock". Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables -- "shell shock". Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.

Then a whole generation went by and the second World War came along and the very same combat condition was called "battle fatigue". Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. "Fatigue" is a nicer word than "shock"...

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called "operational exhaustion". Hey, we're up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. "Operational exhaustion". Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then, of course, came the war in Vietnam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years. And thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called "post-traumatic stress disorder". Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. "Post-traumatic stress disorder". I'll bet you if we'd have still been calling it "shell shock", some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time.

We used to say "dwarf". Then that wasn't okay, so we said "midget". Then that wasn't okay, so now we say "little person". Why? "Midget" is a made-up word! And this screws up the language so now I can't tell what is a person with dwarfism (or similar disease) and an actual person who is little, like my daughter or Danny DeVito. Sometimes we use the term "special" -- a great example of using soft, inoffensive language that obfuscates truth. "Special" used to be a positive word. Now it's been coerced into something derogatory, almost the same meaning as "retarded". That's why I say it's impossible to avoid these situations. There will always be speech with a little hatred in it. I think humans need it. If you take it away, it'll be like Prohibition. Or "Demolition Man".

Fact is, there's always going to be someone who disapproves of what you say, no matter who you are. Someone who doesn't like your lifestyle or the choices you make, for whatever reason. Words are like guns. It's how they're used that makes them bad or good. For example, 'retarded' is the only way you can describe a movie like "Bio-Dome".

So to sum up, one would be wise to remember these words: "Everyone messes up. We all say things without thinking. We say things that are hurtful, offensive, or just plain stupid. What's important is what happens next." I wonder who said that. Some smart guy, I'd wager.

Stay tuned. More apologies forthcoming.

My Philosophy on Writing Women

I decided I needed to write this because I've been playing Half-Life: Episode 1 again, testing out my snazzy new computer's capabilities. And I have the Developer's Commentary on, which I love. It increases replayability, and gives you incredible insight into things you may have missed, and how a video game comes together. The things I'm most interested is in how it's written -- how do you create exposition in an interactive story, and how do you create characters you care about. One of those, one of the most popular women in video games today, is Alyx.

A great deal about the thought that went into Alyx. When most people these days want to talk about good examples of women in video games, the smart ones point to Alyx. The stupid ones point to Soul Calibur IV.

Shown for purposes of ballyhoo.  Pretty nice ballyhoo, though.

I'm learning about the thought that went into crafting Alyx, as she played a big part in Episode 1 and stays with you almost the entire game. The gameplay had to avoid making her A) an annoying Navi-esque prodder B) too slow and thus a hindrance to progress C) a robot with a gun. Escort missions are one of the worst gameplay elements. Half-Life did it right. It took story breaks to let you know Alyx is a human, and thus create a bond between her and the player.

A good woman is a good character, not a Red Sonja/Wonder Woman warrior amazon and not a damsel in distress. Alyx is not defined by the fact she's a woman. She doesn't do anything that only a woman would do. She doesn't act like how a stereotypical woman acts. For examples of that, watch any television commercial.

But that doesn't mean a writer can ignore the woman factor. That, like everything else in her life, makes up her character. It's part of her past, but it does not define her. It's part of the recipe. If you substitute man for woman, you'd get a similar Alyx, but not the same Alyx (I guess that'd be Alex). And you may have substituted salt for sugar. Might make the recipe unpalatable or it might not make much difference. But its change will have an effect.

When I write women, I try to make that part of her character incidental. Influential, yes, in small ways, but not the defining characteristic. My last story (Merm-8) didn't have much focus on women (only two female characters -- only one of which is central, and really, only half a woman). It would have failed the Bechdel test, even though it is feminist (at least it tried to be). But my next story will have lots of women and girls. It will succeed. I think the Bechdel test is important to keep in mind when writing stories, mostly for the spirit of which is intended -- that 50% of the world is women, yet they are underepresented in media. It is not the goal to center attention on a woman, but to make them characters just like you would do with men. Not Smurfettes.

I don't want a character that's defined by her presence, but by her motivations. She is a person first and a woman after that. A person with characteristics/traits that tend towards womanliness (is that a word?). I don't characterize her by her body or her boyfriends or yogurt or being inept with technology or doing laundry things. I give her interests and traits universal to any person. Then I layer a thin sheet of woman on it -- a little more emotional intensity, a little more nurturing, more connectivity with people. She's not aggressive and violent, she's not a linear thinker, not a constant crier, not so goal-focused (though goals are important and necessary, they are less tangible). A Barb Wire, high-heeled, cold warrior bitch is not a woman. It is a woman doing an impression of a man doing an impression of a woman. It's a fantasy -- unrealistic and implausible.

Take Hannah Hart for example, I've talked about her before, how much I love her and her funny. She's also likes girls, and I had no idea about that. I didn't even get a clue until her first second season episode when she was talking about Charlize Theron being on Top Chef and wanting to marry her. And yes, because I'm human, I had to stop for a second and think "what did she say?"



But the fact is, it doesn't matter one damn bit in her videos. Because she's not being a lesbian, she's being a drunk, inept cook. She's funny, cute, awkward, charming, winky, drunk, and lovable. It's not like she's those things despite being a lesbian. She is those things because that's who Hannah Har is. They're all part of the recipe.

I originally thought of this because of hearing this old laundry tag chestnut on the radio.

I can't remember which one it was

Doesn't mass media realize that times are a-changing? The fact is, this just isn't funny anymore. Not because it's offensive. It's not funny because I don't get it.

I do all my own laundry because if my wife does it, she'll screw it up. She'll put my underwear in with my pajamas or won't run the dryer until the clothes are actually... you know... dry. But that's fair, because every time I do HER laundry, I screw it up. So we just do our own.  It's stupid to think that woman are there just to make laundry or sandwiches.  As much as I'd like a personal slave, marriage doesn't work that way.

At this point, this kind of humor is simply lazy and dull. Not only has it been overdone, but it has no meaning anymore, like what a tar baby is.

[BULLET POINTS & UPDATE 1 REDACTED -- SEE UPDATE 3 BELOW]

UPDATE 2: Foz Meadows wrote some interesting stuff in the comments that I think is worth repeating (edited just a little bit for readability, let me know if you think I changed too much):

In order to write real women, you don't have to deny them femininity. Women aren't demeaned by their participation or enjoyment of traditionally feminine things/behaviors -- what demeans them is the idea that doing so makes them lesser people.

Wearing pink, crying, and shopping are stereotypically feminine behaviors, but that doesn't make them unrealistic. More importantly, though, they're only seen as negative behaviors because we associate them with women. Thus, men who shop, cry, and wear pink are also belittled for being feminine.

This is a problem, because it tarnishes femininity by association -- it makes us think that the only way for women to be valued or to rise above patriarchy is, in effect, to stop behaving like women, or doing things associated with women. But even so, woe betide us if we act in too masculine a manner. Then we're just being sexless imposters. Which only leaves us with gender-neutural things to do and be, and really, that's an erasure of womanliness, not a way of encouraging it.

• Women who behave in stereotypically feminine ways are not inherently less narratively interesting, worthy, or human than women who don't.

• A woman with some traditionally feminine characteristics (say, a love of shopping) can still be a kickass warrior. These things are not mutually contradictory.

• Women are whole and multifaceted human beings whose gender can define them in important ways without being the sum total of their identities.

• Female characters don't have to be wholly likeable to be interesting and relatable. All too often, people shy away from writing women who are anti-heroes, difficult, belligerent, grumpy, or otherwise flawed because culturally, we're conditioned to see women who act in those ways as bitches (always a pejorative) and therefore undesireable, even though we exalt male characters for exactly the same attributes.

I think that second to last bullet point is the most important. And it's what I was trying to communicate all along: being a woman is one part of the recipe. It should not be their whole identity, as is the case with The Chick.

And Anonymous (that guy gets around, I seem him or her posting everywhere. Sounds like a Greek name.) sent this link to a nice essay about the "strong, independent, warrior woman" persona and how it actually undermines feminism because, while people claim to want strong, independent women not defined by a man, it limits female characters to a single type. Diversify!

UPDATE 3: Since I'm getting so much flak for these bullet points (if you're fresh coming here, I had a bunch of bullet points up here regarding writing tips for writing women characters), I'm taking them down. Not because I believe they're wrong or that it's the fires I'm putting out are overwhelming, but because I DIDN'T WRITE THEM. These are not my words, they are the words of OTHER WOMEN, and I am not going to get flamed for someone else's crap.

But what I will do is put these up at a later date so we can all discuss them, whether they're right or wrong, since I don't want them to get confused with my actual content above. 'Kay? Kay.

Why Did My Story Get Rejected (condensed)

Basically, I'm rewriting this article, which I found in college and only just now found again, for myself. All credit for this content goes to Marion Zimmer Bradley, who is awesome.


WHY EDITORS BUY STORIES
-Editors do not buy stories because they are well written.
-Editors buy stories that will give their readers the kind of specific reading experience the magazine provides.



Ways to Make a Story Sellable
• A Satisfying Reader Experience, the kind that magazine provides.
• A clear-cut, likable character. One that the reader can identify with.
• A story that tells and solves a clear-cut narrative problem. This problem is solved by the main character's own efforts.
• A story that makes the reader glad he read it, therefore giving a Satisfying Reader Experience.




Reasons a Story Can Be Rejected (that are in your control)
• Pacing or Scope: My source calls it "pacing". I call it "scope" or "scaleability". They mean the same thing: you either have too much in there or too little. You're either trying to pack a novel into short story form or your idea isn't long enough to stretch into ~5000 words. Note: This is the most common reason a story gets rejected, so watch out for that "pacing" keyword in rejection letters.

• Incomplete Story: The story reads like a novel excerpt or first chapter of something. The central problem remains unsolved, and the reader is still asking what happens next. Unfinished business leaves an unsatisfied reader.

• Character -- Either Unidentifiable, Unlikeable, or Too Many of Them: Either you were telling the wrong person's story or your main character was a jackass/douchebag/bastard. Selfish bastards can be likeable (Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, J. Jonah Jameson, Shrek, Eddie Vailiant, Severus Snape, Sherlock Holmes, Cloud Strife, Squall Leonhart, Midna) as long as they're a jerk with a heart of gold. A story with 10 or less pages should have one main character, a minor character, and some "walk-ons". A twenty page story can four to five characters, but only one POV character. And those characters should be clearly distinct from one another.

• Not Enough Interest in the Characters: If you don't care "whodunnit" by the end, the story is a dud.

• Not Enough Happening: Although there may be some events of interest, nothing much happened and no one was changed. The characters are back where they were. The story obviously satisifed you, because you wrote it, but it won't satisfy 10,000 readers.

• Central Conflict/Problem -- Either Not Interesting or Not Solved by Main Character: No deus ex machina. Also, make sure your plot is not the result of characters acting idiotically, when a little common sense would resolve everything.

• Too Grim or Downbeat: Too bloody, too violent, too sadistic, too much tragedy (that's not resolved). Horror markets are more forgiving when it comes to this.

• Too Offensive: Again, part of editor taste. Only 10% of stories really fall under this category.




Reasons a Story Can Be Rejected That Are Not Your Fault (but can be prevented)

• Editor Unable to Read Story: Due to poor formatting, unreadable spelling or grammar, incorrectly addressed or labeled.

• Does Not Fit Market Requirements: You submitted a sword-and-sorcery story, which this market does not publish.

• Ending Unsatisfactory: Editor didn't like the ending, and didn't like the overall story enough to ask you to change it.

• Opening Unsatisfactory: Editor got bored before he/she got to the good stuff.

• Personal Editor Preference: Your story may have pressed one of the editor's buttons. For example, a devout Catholic and a story with an anti-religion message. Or a character that paints a hated aunt in a favorable light.

• Word Count Fit: The editor needed a story of exactly X words and yours was too long or short to fit. (This only applies to paper magazines now, I guess.)

• Similar Theme Collision: The editor just bought a story with a similar theme by someone much more talented than you. Them's the breaks.

• Personal Vendetta: You broke the editor's favorite vase at a party last year. This is why we can't have nice things.

Little Red Riding Hines and the Big Bad Wolf

I don't know why I keep getting in kerfuffles with Jim C. Hines. I think that if we ever met in person, we'd get along great. It's just we have some convictions we disagree on, or I'm woefully ignorant of. It's not like I'm coming away obstinate and unchanged. I now understand that inability to give consent for sex = consent not given. You'd think that'd be a no-brainer, but yes, it did need to stew in my brain a little while before I understood it completely. White male privilege is an insidious thing.

I resolved it by using the metaphor of stage-diving. You want to jump off the stage and crowd-surf, like it in the movies. It looks fun. You do not want to have a hundred hands squeeze your ass or grope your breasts or put their hand down your pants. That's inappropriate, no matter what you're doing (unless you're having sex... with consent). It's not what you asked for, and there's no circumstances where that's okay, and we should all know that. But we don't. Yes, it's a bad idea to get so drunk you pass out, and it indicates a serious problem. It does not mean you want to have sex. Anyway, that's not what I came to talk about.

I came to talk about the parable he wrote which is a thinly-disguised story about colloquial use of the word 'retarded', and how you shouldn't say it. At least, I think that's what he meant to illustrate. Go ahead and read it, it's short. As you can tell by the comments, there are kneejerk claps and praises abound, but not a lot of thinking about possible consequences or different interpretations. That lack of analytical thinking is what gets things like Kony 2012 started.

I get uncomfortable when people start telling me what words I can and can't use. It angries up the blood. The first thing I thought of was Neil Gaiman's Defense of Icky Speech. But then it was pointed out to me that this story is not about the legality, but the responsibility that speech. I see some gray area in that, because the way I see it, if the Pig had his way, if he were a supreme court judge, he would try to get that word banned. I don't see an alternative goal -- what else could the Pig be seeking? Maybe I'm assigning something that’s not there, but the simple parable nature of the story makes it hard to see.

Yes, I know words can hurt. We are all part of a generation that knows that. But it’s not the words themselves, it’s the context, as nicely illustrated in George Carlin’s philosophy. What this parable basically is, in one of its facets, is advocating censorship. And I hate censorship. IMO, the only real appropriate action the Pig made was calling the Wolf a "jackass"/"douchebag". That’s all one really has the power to do in that situation, and it's all one should be able to do, whether that's a fortunate or unfortunate result.

And I have a problem with people being punished because of one person. At no time did any of the Wolves call the Bunny retarded — they were all referring to something else. They didn’t even know the Bunny was there, or what his condition was. What made the Bunny feel bad was that the word evoked a memory of kids teasing him. Those are the bad guys. Those are the ones that the Pig should be talking to.

We all have bad days. We all end up with scars. If you live life without being hurt, then you’re doing something wrong. I have a problem with other people telling others how to act when the consequences of that action are, in reality, quite small. Why is it my job to change my way of speaking when I'm not the one who has the problem? The fact is, we ALL get teased, we ALL get bullied. Everyone got bullied by someone in their life -- the popular kids, the jocks, the nerds, even the bullies.

I was bullied frequently. And I bullied others. I'm not proud of it, I regret it, I'd change it if I could. But I did it, and I know why I did it -- so I could feel better about myself than I was feeling at the time. When you've got nothing, you can always pick on someone weaker than you. And at some primal level, that will make you feel good -- that in some way you are better than at least one person. Sometimes on a bad day, you need that. I'm not advocating bullying here, I'm saying that's why it happens.

And I've been called retarded many times (and not peripherally, like in the parable. I'm talking about to my face.). I probably got called 'retarded' more than an average person, because, while I'm not retarded, I look retarded because I have some nerve damage in my face that makes it look like I'm talking out of the side of my mouth.

I think back to all those times on the bus with kids teasing me, girls and boys, getting kicked while I was sitting on the ground reading a book (and this was by freshmen when I was a senior), being laughed at and made fun of. People thought I was in a car accident because I didn't talk. So I know words can hurt, just as much as anyone, especially being called 'retarded'. But I grew beyond that.

Now I have two daughters of my own. They are not retarded -- they won't go through the same thing I did. But I am dreading the day they start public school, because I know they will be made fun of or come home crying because they were teased. Why? There's nothing wrong with them, they're quite beautiful, they're normal, they have normal behavioral characteristics. Why would anyone make fun of them? Because EVERYONE DOES IT. It is an inevitable truth of life -- there are no boundaries to the cruelness of children. Girls especially have a reputation for it. I can't stop it. No one will ever be able to stop it. I guarantee you one of them will call one of them retarded. That's not okay, but it must happen if one is to become stronger, and to recognize what's right and what's wrong.

But, thinking back to those kids on the bus, now that I'm grown up, I'd still defend to the death their right to say 'retarded' in that context. Because as Patrick Henry said "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." and as Neil Gaiman said, "Freedom of speech is not a scalpel, it's a club."

So here's my question to the Pig: You get one magic wish. You can either make it so no one uses the word 'retarded' any more, or you can make it so your Bunny is no longer learning disabled. Which one would you choose?

I know what I would choose.

The Books I Read: January - February 2012

Holy Smoke. Last edition, I read seven books in five months. This time I read eight books in two months! Thanks eReader, but it also probably helped that I was reading at work too. Onto the books! More exclamation points!!

Lightning by Dean Koontz

My wife picked this for book club because it was one of her favorites growing up. I liked it too, and you know what's weird? The character has the same name as her. I don't get to read books I've previously read too much. I've got so many on my to-read stack, the idea of repeating books seems negligent. I would re-read books if I could, especially ones I read in my teens. Now that I'm an adult, I gain so much more perspective. Both in terms of maturity and now as a writer. I can see the things I missed the first time around.

For example, the biggest problem is that the story takes a long time to explain the plot. I only remembered the interesting half -- as Laura is growing up. The other half which I selectively amnesiaed was Stefan setting up explosives in some building, and watching the "gate". But we don't know why, who he is, or what he wants, besides keeping Laura from dying. This building of tension would be fine, if we knew what the stakes were. Plus the explosives never result in any consequences to the plot. It falls flat because there's no investment (and because it doesn't work). If I was writing this, I wouldn't have included any of Stefan before the halfway point.

When I first read it, I had no idea he was a nazi until he says that he is. And I still wouldn't have any idea now, if I didn't know the ending. I guess Koontz kept it ambiguous for the big reveal. I also didn't remember how annoying the comedienne best friend was or the main character conveniently knowing someone rich up the ass AND an underground gun dealer working out of Chuck E. Cheese who has access to super-lethal nerve gas. What I'm trying to say is that the book is more flawed then I remember. Rose-colored glasses and all that.

Mapping the World of Harry Potter: An Unauthorized Exploration of the Bestselling Fantasy Series of All Time by Mercedes Lackey, et al.

This was written before "Deathly Hallows" came out, so a great deal of the essays deal with now defunct speculation over "what will happen?" Even so, it's still fun to see what people were thinking and how many of their predictions were eerily accurate. For example, one suggests that Harry must fight Voldemort alone, that Harry will not die, that Harry will die, that Neville will take a larger role, that Hermione and Ron will get together, that Snape is not as evil as "Half-Blood Prince" made him out to be.

Besides the predictions, it's also great to read analysis of a literary series I know about and love, so I can see exactly what was done right and wrong. I learned that the Durselys have a purpose beyond comic relief, why Snape has so many creepy fan girls, the series's roots in "English boarding school" books, and not only why Dumbledore died, but that he had to die, because he's the mentor on the hero's journey. My favorite is the last essay that details a "what would happen" scenario if Voldemort does win. Basically, Hermione goes medieval. I wouldn't have minded seeing that ending either.

The Magicians by Lev Grossman

I had this on my "to read" list for a long time, and I finally got it for Christmas. I had no idea when I was reading "Soon I Will Be Invincible" that I already had a book by his brother in my possession. I just didn't make the connection to the names, probably because "Invincible" was an impulse read.

Midway through it, my interest started to wane. It's so grim. I know it's trying to show the darker side of the Narnia/Hogwarts "magical escapism" fantasy. And I was interested in that concept too -- I always wondered why a guy who can control dragons and set people on fire with his mind is content to stay hidden from the world, tinkering with candies that make your tongue swell. But the main character never seems to want to seize that opportunity either. Maybe the scope of the novel is too high. Maybe there's not a strong enough goal for him, besides to learn magic at not-Hogwarts. Maybe that's part of his character (it's a boring one, if it is).

And I'm not fond of any book where characters hate their parents when there's no reason to. "The Tree of Life" did that. When we visit the romantic interest's parents, she vehemently hates them. She hates them because they don't really talk to each other. She hates them because they do self-indulgent stuff. One is concentrating on a report about fairy music (which may or may not exist) and another spends all his time transforming the house into various fancy historical architectures. Yet, they're still together, they raised her well, they apparently love her, there's no abuse or discipline, and they support her studies. Well, fuck you book. What do you want out of parents? I'm sorry we're not all made out of solid gold.

I guess when you learn magic, you can only change the world in "subtle" ways. Can't let the secret out. That would ruin the whole thing. In case you can't tell, I'm calling bullshit on that because A) that's implausible -- no one can keep a secret and B) who would want to? You're now a superhero. But when they graduate, the book becomes "Magic & the City". The group gets a Manhattan apartment where they fiddle around, have casual sex, and get drunk ALL the time. I mean all the time. Maybe my body is different but I can't believe you can consume this much alcohol per day and still function. I get a hangover if I'm dehydrated and have 2 Captain's Cokes.

Why do I feel I would appreciate this book more if I lived on the east coast? It seems like rich white kids messing with power and getting everything they want, and no one is happy. Or maybe it was aiming for that audience, written NYT bestsellers list in mind. The thing is, it's a good book, but I'm not sure I want to read the sequel. It's just so gloomy. It's not a fun story. But it's not boring, and it has some terrifying moments. Maybe the TV show will work better.

Boy Toy by Barry Lyga

I've wanted to read this for a long time. It's a YA book about a high school student who had a sexual affair with a teacher when he was twelve. Now he's eighteen, about to graduate, and he is angry. And he has every right to be. He feels extremely ostracized, mostly by his self. He hangs onto what he has -- baseball and math, as he has flashbacks to his sexual assaults incidents of abuse molestations... I guess there's no real good word to call it. Because there's a huge double standard when it comes to this sort of thing. And it's nice that the story is written in such a way that there's no thing you can point to and say "if we eliminate that, this'll never happen again".

And it fascinates me. Not to diminish anyone who was in this situation but, as far as the "dominant, aggressive, older male with younger female" relationship goes in writing, it's been done to death. "Dominant, aggressive older female, younger male" is not. Especially with stories like Mary Kay Letourneau, Debra Lafave, and Pamela Rogers Turner. It follows the mental state of the boy very nicely, as he struggles for normalcy in his current relationships, and how his past troubles color him. But he's really coloring himself.

Once again Lyga knocks it out of the park (baseball!). I haven't read a book of his yet that I didn't like profusely. I got exactly what I wanted -- an answer to the question of how a boy gets in a sexual relationship with a teacher. The only thing I wish was that we got a little more insight into the teacher. We never really learn her deal. Was she abused? Was she just unhappy? What was her motivation in starting this relationship? She makes a confession, so there has to be something in there. Maybe this is like real life, where the state keep the victim and victimizer in the dark about each other's state. And that is the scariest part.

The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett

My recommendation of the month months. I was almost going to make it Boy Toy, but this book was just too much fun. It's also the first real Terry Pratchett that I've read (the exception being Good Omens co-written by Neil Gaiman). Dunno why it took so long, some authors just slip around the radar from time to time. Maybe I was afraid because he's so prolific, so well-liked, and all his books take place in "Discworld", which must be a giant universe by now.

But I didn't need to know a damn thing about his previous books to read this. My favorite part is the setting -- a small town in... Scotland? Northern England? Made-upland? Not sure. But it's cool, because it's about a daughter and her relationship with her grandmother, the town "might-be-a-witch-not-sure-I'm-not-gonna-ask", one of the many shepherds. I love everything Pratchett says about shepherding, like burying one with a piece of wool to let God know that this was a shepherd and maybe didn't go to church every Sunday because when sheep give birth, you gotta be there for that.

And the funny thing is the titular "wee free men" are only in about half the book (but scattered throughout). And they're hilarious too. They speak in thick Scottish accents and love drinkin', fightin', and stealin'. And they swear fealty to a little girl who's a smart cookie due to trading vegetables for lessons at the local bazaar.

My only beef is the last part, where the final battle with Generic Queen Witch drags on for quite a few chapters. It bobbles back and forth between "is it a dream or isn't?" and repeats the same tension. Not to mention that the bad queen has no strong beef with the protagonist, so the dramatic conflict has nothing invested in it.

A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail by Bill Bryson

An old man with little physical strength and no hiking training decides to travel one of the hardest and longest trails in America. Hilarity ensues.

Bill Bryson returns with... not his best narrative, but not his worst. It's not a must-read by any means, but parts of it are entertaining. Especially if you're into hiking. I am not. He experiences annoying fellow hikers, equipment quirks, and frightening himself with bear attacks. Those are entertaining parts. Then there are other parts which are pure description of the purple mountain's majesties that don't work for me, punctuated by random histories of the trail -- what it could have been and what it is.

I still like Thunderbolt Kid best. Once his fuck-up friend leaves in the first half, the book takes a nose dive into tedium. It's too bad he couldn't have deleted those parts and just left the highlights. Hiking is hard to make a compelling story, unless you have bears. Of which, there really aren't any.

The God Engines by John Scalzi

When John Scalzi announced that he'd be donating all proceeds from Subterranean Press eBook sales for Feb. 1-8 to Planned Parenthood, in response to the Susan G. Komen kerfuffle I jumped on board. A) I love contraception B) I got a new eReader that needed some love and C) it gave me an opportunity to read some Scalzi I wouldn't have purchased otherwise. I bought his writing book, a short story, and his Hugo-nominated novella - The God Engines.

It had been on my "to-read" list for a while, and seems to be Scalzi's first try with fantasy. Dark fantasy. But it still has plenty of space action. It reminded me of the Old Man's War trilogy with the contrast turned way down and added religion. But it's a hella awesome combination - space opera with "mythological religion" - two great tastes that taste great together.

But I gotta air one beef. And I didn't realize this until I was doing my fun thing where I look up trivia/info about the story. I saw this review that called attention to one component -- the established harem on the ship designed to give the crew "release". That's all fine and dandy -- not uncommon practice for this level of cultishness -- until Scalzi points out he never assigned any pronouns to the prostitutes. No physical gender characteristics or anything that could define as this, that, or the other.

This is creepy. It's clever, but it's creepy. And I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, it's a neat writer trick, one that I didn't see coming. I guess it's a technique to let the reader fill in the blanks with what he/she wants to. Which is the sign of a good writer. On the other hand, now that I know that the prostitute could have been a girl or a guy, I feel icky. All I can do is imagine him as a guy. Maybe it's my instinctive homophobia. Maybe in my mind, if the character has no gender, it's potentially both -- a hermaphrodite or someone like Pat.

I also feel betrayed by the author, that he fooled me. Maybe it's that I know how the trick is done. Maybe it's that I feel, as a writer, omitting information for the sole purpose of messing with the reader is not cool.

Hunger by Jackie Morse Kessler

This book is really short, more like a novella. Nonetheless, I love the concept. Death calls upon a teenage girl with anorexia to be Famine, one of the horsemen of the apocalypse. It's something I should have thought of. I like the parts that seem real for anorexics -- constant calorie calculation, excessive exercise, obsession with what she eats (to a point where it starts to interfere with the narrative), and denial.

But I was a little sad that, despite being a horseman... horsewoman of the apocalypse, there is no apocalypse. And I'm not sure what her purpose in being Famine was. One says her job is to spread chaos, another indicates she's supposed to pave the way for War, to work in tandem with Pestilence. Or is she supposed to eliminate hunger?

In fact, that's what she does, once she starts to understand it, to feel the joy that satisfied hunger brings. And she ends up killing War, then renouncing her crown, making her stint seem pointless pandering to dark fantasy nerds. The four horsemen stuff is kinda what I came here for, so it was disappointing that most of it was about the girl and her horse. There are other books in the series though.

And they don't wrap up nice and tight either. Her disease is still there after the climax and she seeks help. I think the author did a good job and gave me what I wanted -- a plausible portrayal of an eating disorder + a little dark fantasy.

Harry Potter and the Implausible Scenario

"I'm half and half.  Me dad's a muggle; Mam's a witch.  Bit of a nasty shock for him when he found out."

The character of Seamus Finnegan spouts that line in the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone".  It's a one-line condensation of a much bigger, more subtle part of the book, meant only to say indicate that wizards can be born from two wizards, two muggles, or one muggle and one wizard.  Parentage doesn't seem to matter where magic prowess is concerned.  Of course, this becomes a much bigger issue in following stories.  But that's not what I'm here to talk about.

I'm here to talk about what must have been going through his dad's mind when he found out all this.  I've got two daughters, so these are the things I think about: what if one of them developed psychic powers like Carrie, or turned into a superhero, or was invited to a school for witchcraft & wizardry.

I can imagine myself sitting in my easy chair, staring at this letter that just came down the chimney (despite us having a gas fireplace), turning it back and forth in my hand.  My wife has given me a brief explanation of what it means and that yes, she's a former graduate and can do magic too.

"So, magic is real," I say.  "You can light things on fire and make gold and heal wounds and shoot fireballs.  And change princes into frogs and pumpkins into cars."

They nod.

"And this school is going to teach you how to do all that.  How to make things fly and find unicorns?"

More nodding.

"So unicorns are real.  And dragons."

They nod.

"So if we wanted to, we could pack up the car, buy a ticket.  And go see a real dragon right now."

They look at each other, shrug, then nod.

"So let's go!  Let's see some dragons.  And monsters and giants and whatever else might be out there.  Goblins?  Can we fight some goblins?  Are there cool swords?"

"Well, yes.  Usually you use a wand," my wife would say.  "I have one here."

I stare at the wand.  A nine-inch cherry-wood with unicorn tail hair.  "So you... so you've been able to do magic all this time.  So you could have made the faucets spout gold at any time.  So I wouldn't have to break my back working for Big Roy's Heating & Plumbing for twenty years for the mortgage payment."

She nods.

"And you can put dinner on the table at any time, without having to slave over a cooking stove, instead of me having to wait half an hour while you burn the steak?"

She puts up her finger.  "Actually, you can't just transfigure food like that.  It's not possible.  It has to be magically transported from the kitchens."

I steeple my fingers.  "So magical transportation.  This is essentially teleportation?  You are in one place one second and in another the next?"

They nod.

"Which means instead of a forty-minute commute each morning and afternoon...  Plus the business trip I had to take cross-country on Jet Blue where we sat on the tarmac for eight hours and wouldn't let us go to the bathroom..."

They nod.

"Get out."

My Top Ten Hottest Women Who Aren't Real (6 through 5)

6. Crysta

Huh, another fairy. I didn't realize that until I was making this list. Not one of the smartest fairies either. All she does all day is fly around being twee, occasionally growing plants with magic. She openly embraces the stranger in her forest at the same time all the trees are disappearing. Didn't work too well for the Aztecs. Her naivety is a pale copy of the charm of the little mermaid, and it doesn't work.

Sort of. I said before I'm a sucker for projects, but there are two types. One is the dark and twisted, self-hating, self-destructive kind. Crysta and her lot is the other kind -- a derivative of the manic dream pixie girl that's so trendy right now. In her case, she's simply sheltered in an alien land which makes her so clueless you could stick a paper bag on her head and she'd continually back up. She even looks like Zooey Deschanel.

Of course, in my dreams, that's not exactly what happens. Unfortunately, I often find myself bewitched by her inexperience, as most of us were. And it helps that she's got an even skimpier fairy dress than Tinker Bell. And she's voiced by Samantha Mathis, who was pretty hot during this time (one of the only reasons to watch Super Mario Bros.)

Unfortunately, there isn't really much to Crysta besides that. The movie's half heavy-handed environmental preaching and half cheesy movie romance. And that makes no room for plot. There's something about her fluffy black hair, her bright blue eyes, and her bare midriff. I like her "falling in love" montage and her (almost) self-sacrifice when she finally defeats Dr. Frank N. Furter Hexxus. She probably shouldn't be as high on this list as she is, but not for blatant pandering.

5. Asuka

Any anime fan is going to know who Asuka Langley Soryu is. They're also going to know she's fourteen years old and has several nude scenes (including a super-funny one in the Rebuild movies that reverses Shinji's in the series). However, we're going to pretend she's eighteen for the purposes of this article. She certainly acts like it.

They're also going to know why she's hot -- the stunning red hair, the unabashed confidence, the cute little outfits. Sometimes she seems barely aware she's doing something sexual, like kneeling down on all fours so we can see down her shirt, or letting her skirt flap in the breeze, or cuddling with Shinji. Sometimes she acts like she knows exactly what she's doing. Asuka is complex, to say the least.

She's had a chip on her shoulder since she was born. When she was four, her mother went insane from a bad Eva test. She thought Asuka's doll was her daughter and ignored her real daughter's existence. The day Asuka found out she was going to help defend the world, she ran to her mother to tell her only to find her dangling from a noose.

After that Asuka built a wall around her heart and consumed herself with drive. Of course, her false self-confidence begins to fall as the pressure builds. Like an overactive boiler, those repressed emotions emit in hot bursts, hurting those around her. She ends the series (the conventional series, not the movies or Rebuild) in a catatonic state, after having apparently attempted suicide by slitting her wrists in a a bathtub in an abandoned house.

Everyone in Evangelion is a project, but Asuka takes the cake. But there's a reason she's on the list instead of Rei, Misato, Ritsuko, Horaki, or even the budding Mari Makinami. That reason is succinctly stated in The One I Love Is..., a fanfic.

Spoilers: In the end, Shinji has to decide between the two lead female characters: the motherly Rei or the aggressive Asuka. He visits her in the hospital and tells her:

"When I'm with Rei... I feel... how could I say it... safe. I feel good. Comfortable. There's nothing for me to do. I know that she's the kind of girl... who'll love me no matter what. She'll never do anything to hurt me. She'll never scold me or tease me. She'll do everything I'll ask of her with a smile... Asuka... I don't want a comfortable life! I don't want someone who'll make me the only goal of her existence. I'd only be hiding from reality again. And it wouldn't be fair to Rei. Asuka... what I'm trying to say... I want you Asuka."

Asuka is not the safe girl. She is the girl that will kick your ass if you make a mistake. And if you're a snivelling, sheltered introvert like me, you need someone like that in your life. I like Asuka's grit, I like her aggressiveness, I like her vigor. Could she be a good mate? Probably not. She's prideful, she's stubborn, she's "yelly". She also reflects the internal dialogue a lot of us loser nerds feel -- the "bad" voice. Ignoring the physical for a moment, there's a lot of facets to her, like a multi-tasking program.