Is Your Collarbone Size English, Irish, or French?

When I'm not playing Baldur's Gate 3, I'm generally trying to do some work on my writing. And that requires research. 

I love doing research. So much so, I am often guilty of going down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with what I started out researching. I'm not alone in this, right?  Right?

..... *crickets*

So anyway, I was doing some research amongst old newspapers, as you do, and one search keyword lead to another and I stumbled across this in The National Gazette (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) from 5 November 1829.  

Okay.

So aside from that last remark about Irish women -- and just what is that, by the way? Is he saying Irish women are "open chested" like French women? Is this some weird way of coding English women as more demure and refined than French and Irish women?  

Ahem. 

Aside from that. 

This "eminent anatomist" has "noticed" French women are shorter and more "open chested" than English women, so decides to make a study of women's clavicles?  Is this science or an excuse to go around touching random women's décolletage? 

He measures the clavicles so... valid science. Definitely. And I have "noticed" that many European chocolates are more creamy and tasty than American ones, so please fund my study into eating chocolate from every country. 

Seriously, this clavicle research sounds more like a naughty schoolboy prank than science. 

The clavicle is your collarbone. So he's not really measuring chests/ribcages, he's measuring shoulders. But if he were talking about shoulder-wideness, the term would be "broad shouldered," not "open chested." 

So I think what he's really talking about is breast size. He's trying to determine which country's women have the larger breasts. 

What does this achieve? I mean, in the field of women's health. How does this study help... anything? 

It's almost as if the study is being done for men to be able to choose the breast-iest country to visit, not for the benefit of women. 

And, historically, that's kinda how the medical field rolled. It's always been done for the benefit of men. 

Women were treated as mere engines of childbirth, inferior to men. They didn't need their own medical research results. Men's results would do just fine.

Is it better today?

Women are underrepresented in clinical trials,  which means they can have more unexpected side effects from medication. 

Women are left out of much medical research,  so it is impossible to know if some diseases or vaccines affect women differently. 

Black women have to fight to get doctors to believe them about their symptoms. Plus size women have the same difficulty. Fighting their doctors' condescension, bias, and racism puts women's lives at risk. 

So, no. The medical field still has a distance to go.

But at least they're not trying to relate breast size to country of residence. 

Damsel is a Word not a Trope

I have noticed lately a trend in which the word "damsel" is used as short-hand to mean "damsel in distress."

As in:
"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a damsel?"

Or:
"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel."

This chaps my hide.

"Damsel" is not an intrinsically pejorative word. It simply means "young, unmarried woman." The word itself has no relation to powerlessness.

In fact, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word damsel comes to us (by way of French) from the Latin domina which means mistress, as in a female master.

So the entire foundation of the word damsel is rooted in power.

It just happened to share the same first letter as the word distress, and thus someone, who confused alliteration with wit, coined "damsel in distress."

To conflate the "damsel in distress" trope with the actual word "damsel" is NOT A GOOD THING. 

Because -- remember, damsel by itself just means woman -- what you're actually saying is:

"I need you to scream for me."
"Like a woman?"

Or:

"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the woman."

When the word those screenwriters were really looking for is VICTIM.

"I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim." 

That is what Dolores should have said in the most recent episode of WestWorld. The show has rubbed our faces, across multiple episodes, in the victimization of Dolores, beating us over the head with how she is intended to be raped and murdered. That's her storyline, because that's all the men who visit WestWorld want -- to rape and murder an innocent farmer's daughter.

But her being a woman isn't the thing that needs fixing. She can be a woman -- a damsel -- who fights back. She can be a damsel hero. A Big Damn Damsel Hero.

What she wants fixed is her role of victim falling foul of evil, murderous men.

And the word WOMAN is NOT a synonym for VICTIM.

I don't care that what you really meant to refer to was the trope. What you're SAYING and what people are HEARING -- whether consciously aware of it or not -- is that women are victims. They have no other role. They can't be heroes. Women are by default "in distress"-- so much so that you don't even have to add the "in distress" part, you just say woman and the audience will fill it in on their own.

Oh, and only women can scream, apparently. That's adult women for ya, sniveling, crying, screaming. Men never do that.

I've only seen the trailer for that Tarzan movie, not the movie itself, but apparently the scream/damsel exchange was considered important because it's in said trailer. WHY?? Why does that merit a spot in the trailer? That's how our heroine is defined, is it? Ooh she's better than Ordinary Women, she's not a damsel!

Of all the comebacks she could have snarled, and this being a period piece, she could have spouted some very worthy phrases of disdain (I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR), all she does is throw shade on damsels? 

You can do better, screenwriters.

If for no other reason than the fact that "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the damsel" is an ehh line given strength by the situation, but "I imagined a story where I didn't have to be the victim" is MOVING, with call-backs to all the scenes of victimization we've witnessed before, where Dolores, Special Victim Extraordinaire, takes back her power and violates her programming to defend herself.

Eschewing stereotypes and trope trigger words in favor of being ACCURATE is just BETTER WRITING.

Try it.

Why Is It Always Planets?

I only recently was able to watch STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS. And I have a question about the Star Wars universe, in general.

Why is it always planets?

Original Star Wars (the 1977 movie) had the Death Star and destroyed Alderaan and I get that. Special effects of that type were totally new, and it made an impact. It also proved how irrevocably, irredeemably EVIL the Empire was.

Except of course, it WASN'T irredeemable. Somehow the most irredeemable character WAS REDEEMED. (Don't get me started.)

Back to the Death Star.
Even though it had a total major design flaw, the Empire decided to rebuild the Death Star for Return of the Jedi.
I guess because thinking you can repeat the exact same motions and they'll result in a different outcome is one definition of madness and the Empire is pretty insane? I dunno.

Anyhow.
Death Star 2 is also destroyed. And in spectacular ignorance of the saying, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall", the First Order decides that the problem was IT WASN'T BIG ENOUGH.

So now we have Starkiller Base, which can destroy five planets at a time, in contrast to the Death Star's measly one.

Which I suppose makes the First Order MOAR EVIL.

But honestly, did we need that?

The human brain can only process so much. Does the audience feel five times the shock as we did at the annihilation of Alderaan? Do we have time to feel *anything* before the plot moves on?

I believe we felt for Alderaan because we felt for Princess Leia. There is no emotional touchstone for those five planets. They're just fridged. They existed to be killed. And it's a waste, because they don't provide any particular motivation for our main characters that those characters didn't have already.

Not even the special effects justify it. We see awesome special effects all the time now. It's not 1977 anymore.

You may scoff, and say these quibbles are outside of the movie's reality. And you'd be right.

But I've got a problem with Starkiller Base WITHIN the reality of the movie.

Let's say I'm General Hux (because I'm assuming he's more likely to make calculated, strategy-based decisions on behalf of the First Order than Kylo I-do-what-I-want Ren). I would think the entire concept of Starkiller is a Really Bad Move strategically.

I get that the people on those planets are A Problem. And the First Order wants to Make An Example.

BUT WHY DESTROY THE PLANETS?

Each of those planets has flora, fauna, and mineral wealth. They have infrastructure, machines, factories, libraries. Why destroy all those resources when you could use them to strengthen the First Order?

ALSO

If you wipe out a galaxy, doesn't that make traveling in that area more difficult? Like those "Last Gas for 100" miles signs? Take away all those planets and you impair the First Order's future logistics for shipping, refueling, and combat staging.

So I'd be ordering the brain trust that designs Evil Weapons to create a contagion - and requisite delivery system - that kills people, dissipates rapidly, and leaves the animals/ecosystem/infrastructure and other planetary wealth intact.

Because that is totally what the First Order needs. It would make empire building much cheaper, easier, AND more difficult to fight against because the delivery system could be mobile, and there could be multiple iterations, because it wouldn't have to be THE SIZE OF A PLANET ITSELF.


I was just getting warmed up on how this could actually work, and how you could make the special effects for that shit really scary, and it wouldn't have the same science-related problems that planet explosions have, but I've deleted it all because really, who needs that sort of Evil? And maybe that's the problem.
Maybe these thoughts are TOO EVIL for the Star Wars universe.

*sigh*

This is why I write Happily Ever After Romance.

Because at heart I'm really a Psychotic Space Ginger. *headdesk*

Chatting with Lovecraft about Sex

SCENE: Young, exuberant REPORTER sits opposite quiet, horror-writing legend H.P. LOVECRAFT in a small New England sitting room filled with spindly antique furniture which has seen much use. 

Reporter: You can't believe how excited I am to be here. There are so many questions, so many questions, that fans and academics have been yearning to ask you. We all want insight into the worlds you created, the fantastic characters and places, the things named and unnamed. So let's start, shall we?

H.P.: Please do.

Reporter: Right then. How is your sex life?

H.P.: I beg your pardon?

Reporter: Describe your sex life for us. Are you homosexual? Are you asexual? Is that why sex is absent from your stories?

H.P.: (*long pause*) When I write weird fiction, I give you weird. When I write horror, I hope to horrify you. I don't write romance. If I wrote romance, I would include romance. Do you ask Edgar Allan Poe why he doesn't write more about lollipops and sunshine?

Reporter: But you created an entire mythology, and a dream-cycle, and no one has any sex in either of them.

H.P.: My characters are generally fighting for their lives or their sanity. Just when, exactly, do you propose they stop and have sex?

Reporter: Right. Of course. So how long would you say it takes you to achieve orgasm?

H.P.: What did you just ask me?

Reporter: These are actual questions people have discussed. Articles have been written. People want to know!

H.P. (*shifts in his chair uncomfortably*): I am a very private person from an era when a gentleman did not discuss such things and a place where being Puritanically uptight and uncommunicative was a sign of eminent respectability. What on earth or in the Outer Darkness makes you think I would ever discuss a topic as intimate as sex with utter strangers? I don't even discuss it with my friends.

Reporter: Aha! So you're squeamish? You don't like sex?

H.P.: (*now really irritated*) Squeamish? Seriously? Have you read my writing? (*sighs*) If you absolutely must know, I take my husbandly duties very seriously. I researched the topic thoroughly before marriage.

Reporter: Researched.... Does that mean you were a virgin? You were, weren't you! You must have a low sex drive.

H.P.: No, I have a modicum of self-control. I live in an age without reliable birth control, when unwed pregnancy is considered an unredeemable social sin. What sort of gentleman endangers the health and reputation of the woman he loves? Besides....

H.P. STANDS, CROSSES TO MIRROR ABOVE LARGE HEARTH

H.P.: You may have noticed, I am not particularly pleasing to the eye. My own mother said I was "grotesque" and advised me to go outside only after dark, so as not to frighten the neighbors. Advice I continue to follow to this day.

H.P. TURNS, SHUDDERS A BIT AS IF TO THROW OFF OLD MEMORIES, AND RETURNS TO HIS CHAIR.

H.P.: Thus it will be of no surprise to you that I was not overburdened with offers from the opposite sex. Sonia was the first woman who ever kissed me, apart from family. Had she not been determined to prove to me I was lovable, I doubt I ever would have known the congeniality of... of the.... (*hesitates, clearly searching for the perfect words*)

Reporter (*steam-rollers over HP's thoughts*): And is your wife satisfied with your performance? In bed? Your sexual performance? I hear she had more experience than you. I don't mean to say she's a slut or anything.

H.P.: (*very formal, with icy anger*) You are my guest so I shan't punch you. But you will leave this house at once.

REPORTER, SUDDENLY COWED AS HE REMEMBERS JUST EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE GRUESOMELY IN THIS AUTHOR'S STORIES, STANDS.

ENTER SONIA, Lovecraft's wife.

Sonia (*smiling*): Wait, don't go. You want to hear about our sex life first-hand, don't you?

Reporter (*looks at HP nervously, stutters*): I...I....ummm....I....

Sonia: My husband is a very sophisticated and conscientious lover who knows how to please a woman. I have to initiate our encounters, yes, but that's because he was brought up to believe no woman would have him and he doesn't wish to impose himself on me.

Reporter: (*backing toward the door*): So he pleases you. That's good.

Sonia (*her righteous anger slipping past her polite smile*): I didn't just say he pleases me, I said he knows how to please a woman. HE HAS TECHNIQUE.

ENTER FANGIRLS, peering in the windows from outside.

Fangirls: Did she say technique? Do you realize how rare technique is, even today?! Get out of the way, Lame Ass Reporter! Lemme see this guy!

Sonia (*approaching Reporter, who is fumbling for the doorknob*): (*accusingly*) You just want there to be sex in his stories so you can read about women who enjoy their sexuality being ripped apart by eldritch horrors.

Reporter: What? No!

Sonia: He doesn't slut-shame, he doesn't denigrate women as a gender, and sex isn't a part of my husband's stories because sex isn't a punishable crime in his universe. So there must be something wrong with him? It that it?

Reporter (*stumbling out the door*): No! It's not like that. Not all men....

Fangirls: (*pouncing on Reporter*) NOT ALL MEN. He said it! He said the thing!

H.P. (*sotto voce to Sonia, who has returned to his side, indicates Fangirls*): Why are they doing that?

Sonia (*strokes HP's hair affectionately*): Ignore them. That's an entirely different discussion.

The Unexpected Evil of Obesity

If you follow me on Twitter, you might have noticed it took FOUR MONTHS for my sick cat to be correctly diagnosed.

Four. Horrible. Months.

When I first noticed something amiss, I took my cat to the vet and told them he was losing weight very quickly. They weighed him and confirmed he'd basically dropped almost a pound a week from his last visit.

They said as he had been overweight it was good he was losing so much.

I pointed out that this was a dramatic reduction and I hadn't changed anything with regard to his food and exercise.

They said not to worry. Losing weight is a Good Thing.

And set us home.

And, to my shame, I bought into that because, as a fat person myself, I'm constantly being told I should lose weight. Losing weight when you're fat is Always Good. It's the only thing for which society will consistently congratulate a fat person.

Meanwhile, my cat kept losing weight. His hip bones became prominent. So did his spine. (Turns out he was losing muscle mass at this point.)

I took him back to the vet and told them I knew this was Not Right. Have you seen Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch? Looking back on it, this visit sounds similar.

Me:  This is not a healthy cat.

Them:  Sure it is. Lovely cat, the Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage.

Me:  NO. THIS IS NOT A HEALTHY CAT.

So they took an x-ray. And referred me to an animal heart specialist.

We went to the animal heart specialist and she took another x-ray. She diagnosed my cat with very mild heart disease.

The end.

My original vet was done. No follow up appointments needed.

Nothing.

And yet, even I knew very mild heart disease did not answer the question of why my cat was losing weight. Why he was now vomiting and having diarrhea and ate very little.

I contacted my old vet (3,000 miles away or I'd have gone to her first). She asked if they'd checked the condition of his stomach. (Answer: No.)  She asked if my cat had been given an ultrasound. (Again: No. Such an option had never even been mentioned.)

In that moment, I realized my current vet sucked.

So I found a new vet. And just for good measure, when we got in, I demanded an ultrasound. Luckily, he was thinking ultrasound anyway.

He diagnosed my cat as having a thyroid problem.

And arthritis.

And he thought he saw something during the ultrasound, so we were referred again, to an Animal Internist.

This time, the specialist doctor ran an endoscopy and discovered a mass in my cat's stomach. He took a biopsy and we were informed that my cat had large cell gastric lymphoma. And we were referred to the animal cancer center.

Finally.

After. Four. Months.

I have to wonder what the situation for my cat might have been had he been diagnosed with cancer in AUGUST as opposed to DECEMBER.

I also have to wonder if part of the original vet's incompetence had to do with the popular demonization of fat.

He'd been fat and he was losing weight? That's automatically A Good Thing.

You're losing weight incredibly fast? Why question your good luck? Don't look behind the curtain!

Had he been a thin cat, would they have looked harder for the reason behind his weight being in a tailspin?

And could such a thing could happen to a person?

Are fat patients shamed because fat is automatically unhealthy?

Do doctors write off symptoms as being due to weight without looking for any more dangerous cause?

A quick internet search revealed something quite unsettling---doctors desiring to deny any health care whatsoever to fat patients:

In Britain in 2012, a survey found 54% of doctors thought they should be able to deny treatment to the obese. 

Also in 2012, a Massachusetts woman was denied health care because of her weight. She's about my size. Obese but active. The female doctor said her office was unable to accommodate that weight.

Like there'd be a structural collapse? WTF?!

You want something more recent? February 2015 in the UK - David Cameron proposes to strip obese people of their benefits.

Fat-shaming is one of the few prejudices it's widely acceptable to practice.

It's so prevalent, we fat people---consciously or unconsciously---shame ourselves. We accept there's something wrong with us just because we're overweight. We accept that our body shape is open to being mocked, and that it's our fault, not the bigoted mockers.

So stop it.

Right now.

Realize that there are other people out there just like you and that you're all beautiful.

There are awesome companies out there, like Hips and Curves and Chubby Cartwheels and Pyramid,  that specialize in beautiful plus-size clothing.

And learn from my experience - be assertive in your pursuit of health.

Know your rights. Fight for yourself.

If you think your doctor might suck, get a second opinion.

If you know/feel something is Wrong and you're not being listened to, get a second opinion.

Not all vets/doctors are equal.

And, at least in the US, remember - YOU are paying THEM. (Quite a lot, actually.)
They're not doing you a favor by seeing you. They're your employee. If their work is not up to scratch, fire them and move on.

Never let an asshole be in charge of the health of you or your loved ones.
In that context, assholes can kill.


*PS - Like the lady with the teacups? It's a stamp on Etsy!

The Cat Who Lived

My cat has cancer.

Large cell stomach cancer. Had it been small cell, he'd have a good chance of recovery, they said. But this is large cell.

Stop talking about What You Could Have Done If It Were Different and TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH THE REALITY I HAVE, I thought.

This was the beginning of December. They said I could start him on chemotherapy, but it would be more a Quality of Life thing than a fix. Especially as he also has a thyroid problem. And arthritis. They hinted I might consider euthanasia. They said he would be dead by the end of January.

My cat is still alive.

Through the first couple chemo doses, I stayed up with him all night. Making sure he had fluids. Making sure he ate a little every few hours. Making sure he kept the food down and giving anti-nausea pills if he could not.

He has a cream for his thyroid and I give him shots for his arthritis, and vitamin B12 shots as well.

He tolerates this as well as can be expected. Some days he's more annoyed than others. But he's still plugging away. His brain is still sharp as ever.

You have to understand, he was my first cat. I found him at a shelter. He'd had bad experiences with humans so it took some time for him to trust me. Since my previous pet experience was my family's pug (a very cat-like dog), I inadvertently approached him as such. I taught him words.

This cat has as large a command vocabulary as my pug had. At feeding time, I'd tell him to go sit and he'd go to the kitchen and hit the specific mark where he's supposed to sit. If he's not precisely on the mark, I can repeat the command and he will scoot over the inch or two to be precisely on his mark.

He knows how to heel without a leash when we go on walks. I can allow him to get ahead of me to explore and then call him back and he'll come. He'll complain at me ("Meow, meow, meow!"), but he'll come.

He also likes to play games on tablets and phones. But only if he can win. He doesn't like games that go on forever, he wants a Decisive Victory. It's pretty funny.

The vet techs at the cancer center are constantly amazed by him, his good nature, his chill personality. We go in without a carrier and hang out. He purrs.

Now we are approaching the end of his chemo. He gets an ultrasound next Monday. I am hoping for Full Remission. If it's not gone, he'll have to undergo a second round of chemotherapy treatments.

And yes, I've already decided that's what we're doing. If we have to, we're going down fighting.

I was told by one disapproving person that they would have euthanized the cat at the beginning rather than spend the money on chemo. So I knifed them.

No I didn't.

Bloodstains are sooo difficult to get out.

But they are correct, it is expensive. So.... if you've been on the fence about purchasing my writing, or ever even vaguely considered maybe buying one of my books, I would encourage you that now would be the time to do so. You could think of it as a donation, with the book as your free gift. Most of my ebooks are the same price as one cup of coffee. You'd buy me a coffee, right?

In any case, please keep us in your thoughts.

SusanneSaville.com/Books

Of Cats And Veterinary Health Care Costs

As some of you may know, my cat is sick. He has a cardiologist appointment tomorrow.

You know how there's always people who, when you say, "I'm having my tonsils out." they say, "I know someone who died from that." instead of "good luck" or "I'll be thinking of you"? Like you needed that in your head at this moment?

Apparently there are also people who want to tell you why your money is more important than your pet when your pet is sick.

The Disposable Society. Why get shoes repaired? Just buy new ones. Why fix your sick pet? Just get a new one.

ProTip: Don't ever say that to someone who considers their pets their children. Unless you'd also advocate disposing of sick children. Then you might be a Fascist.

Someone told my husband about how a vet told someone else that her cat only had two months to live and instead of euthanizing her cat, she spent $4,000 to keep her cat alive those two months and how horrible that vet was for milking her out of money.

There's so much wrong with that story. Give me a moment to stop pounding my forehead on my desk.

Okay.

First off, the vet gave her the options. The vet didn't "milk" her out of anything.

In fact, had the vet refused to provide health care and demanded euthanization, THAT would have been a crime against their profession to heal the sick.

Second. Now that we've established that the woman chose to spend her money, we can unpack from this story that the teller thinks the "loss" of the money was A Bad Thing.

Why? The woman had the money. She wanted to spend it on having more time with her cat. What's wrong with that?

For this to be A Bad Thing, presupposes a cat's life can be reckoned in dollars and that this amount is less than $4,000.

I'll get back to this.

Third. The teller frames this story around the cat owner being a victim. If not a victim of the vet, a victim of stupidity by spending so much money on just a cat.

Because people who value animals so much are crazy, tree-hugging leftists or something and ought not to be let outside without supervision.

Right.

Now then.

If you want to tell me why I should not bother taking my cat to the cardiologist, I want to tell you about this Abrahamic concept called Hell and how speedily you can go there. I hear hand-baskets are quite popular.

I believe my cat is priceless.  I believe this very strongly.

Polite people who value not being beaten to death with the bloody stump of one of their own limbs won't tell me I'm wrong to my face.

Green pieces of paper, even 4,000 of them, will never keep me warm the way my cat does when I've had a bad day and he comes to comfort me.

Being willing to eat macaroni and cheese for weeks on end so my cat can get proper medical care does not make me crazy. I did that to be able to get a college degree. I'll certainly do it for the animal who listens to me moan about how an Arts college degree qualifies you to bag fries these days.

I personally can imagine no greater guilt than being forced to euthanize your pet because you don't have the money to fix them. I really, really, really hope I do not have to face this situation, because I don't know what I'd do. I just can't.

By the way, there's probably a clever parallel to be made here with the human US health care industry, but I'm not in the mood to make it.

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 3

Flying by the seat of your pants is old aviation slang for flying by instinct, by how it feels rather than using your (at the time rudimentary) tech instruments. In the writing world, starting your book with no plot pre-planning, just putting pen to paper and seeing where you go, is called pantsing. The opposite of this is called plotting, where you plan out your entire story. This can be as simple as a five page summary or as intricate as a 50 page, seventh-level alphanumeric outline.

Plotting vs. Pantsing is a favorite hobbyhorse amongst craft books. Some people swear by one method, some by the other. Some are adamant that one method is better than the other, which can even escalate to the other being labelled "wrong."

I prefer to view it as a spectrum, with total plotting at one end and total pantsing at the other.

I also believe that the method you use to create is innate. If you're a born pantser, trying to make yourself into a plotter will only kill your creativity. So find where you are on the spectrum and go with it.

Ignore anyone who says you ought to write in a different manner. Do whatever puts words on paper for you.

Everyone says they want to write a book. Some do begin. Comparatively few actually finish.

Getting the story down is the biggest hurdle you'll face. This is because putting words on paper is a lot harder than most people realize. So do what gets your idea out of your head and into tangible form.

Now I will say, if you're writing something with multiple sub-plots in addition to your main story, you probably should find a way to keep track of them so all loose ends are tied up at the end of the book. Whether that's an outline or a checklist or whatever is up to you. But if you mistakenly leave something hanging, you can bet an angry reader will mention it on Goodreads. And Amazon. And everywhere else.

So the answer to the question - do you need to know your entire plot before you start writing? - is no. Not if you're a pantser.

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 2

So now you know how you're going to write. You've got your pen or your keyboard. What now?

Most Craft-Of-Writing books are full of useless advice.

Don't put in excess information (info dump). Yeah, obviously. But if you're a beginner, how do you recognize what's excess and what's not?

Don't begin with a description of the weather.  Okay, that's only because of Bulwer Lytton's "It was a dark and stormy night" and that is only considered bad writing these days because it GOES ON

That's all one sentence.

Weather is not the problem. If the weather is intrinsic to your opening, begin with it. You can make it work.

There are many synonyms for the word 'said'.  Yes. Yes there are. Don't use them. Really.

When one is reading, 'said' tends to disappear, unless you tack it on every single line. Words like 'responded', 'announced', 'remarked', 'verbalized' - the eye will begin to catch them, and then the reader will start noting how extensive your thesaurus is and not paying attention to the dialogue. So save those synonyms for when portraying how a sentence is muttered, recited, or declared really matters.

So.
Where would I say to go for craft advice?

If you're like me, if you go looking for a book on how to grind coffee, you want a step by step description of how coffee is ground. Practical advice. Not a description of how great coffee is and where it comes from and the history of coffee grinders.

I don't actually know if grinding coffee is that involved. I use a Keurig.

Anyhow. The point is, if you're looking for an actual How To book that describes the nuts & bolts of building a story, then I recommend without hesitation Plot & Structure by James Scott Bell.

If you have an idea for a book, this will get you going on how to set it up and write it.

Advice for Beginning Writers Part 1

I was asked a very long time ago to post some advice about writing for beginning authors.

This is more difficult than it sounds.

Writing is... Okay, I'm not going to say it's a mystical experience that can't be pinned down, or that it's something one does and cannot be taught. But it is difficult to describe.

If you're cooking, the implements involved are standardized: measuring cups, a specified size of baking pan, etc. Writing is all in the brain, and everyone's brain is different.

For example, say I give you an egg and say, "Open this." You might opt for the edge of a bowl, a hammer, or a Rube Goldberg machine (Heath Robinson, if you're in the UK) which involves several dominoes, a whisk, and a cat. All would be equally correct in writing. It's your creation. You do what you want.

So much freedom can leave you paralyzed, wondering what to do first. I can help with that.

First, decide how you want to write.

Back in the day, this wasn't a problem. Paper and quill. That's it. Even with the invention of typewriters, it was still generally found to be easier to write out one's story with pen and paper, then just type the final draft.

Computers changed that.

Yes, it is easier to type and format on a computer. You can also get so caught up in the minutiae of word processing that you edit and re-edit the same damn paragraph instead of going on to the next chapter. Or you can stare at the white abyss of blank page while the horror of nothingness stares back at you. So then you go surf the web, tweet some folks, and check your email five times.

So my first bit of advice is:  Decide if you are a pen-and-paper creator or a computer creator. Which technique will make you more productive? Because that's what it's all about, producing the words. What separates authors from wannabes is actually finishing the book.

Hot Men With Black Cats

Norman Reedus of The Walking Dead with a black cat

Adam Howden (voice actor for Anders in Dragon Age 2 and many other voices, like the Ostagar Prisoner, in Dragon Age Origins) is known to have two black cats.

One of whom is Goose:

This is Adam Howden:

There is also:

Yoko, John, and Pepper (Lennon)

Cary Grant and a black cat

Herbert Tobias and a black cat

Morgan Freeman and a black cat

Robert Redford and a black cat

And, although not actually the owner of this cat,

who can forget:

Spock with a black cat 

from the episode Cats Paw 

Why is this post focusing on black cats?

Because today is NATIONAL BLACK CAT DAY in the UK 

Check out Cats Protection to see what you can do to help out!

Norman Reedus and an armful of black kitty

Zaftig Is Sexy Too 2

I think this is a beautiful group, and I wish more jobs were given to plus-size models.

These are a few of my favorite things...

Jason Spisak

property of EniJoi on dA

I already posted this epiphany on tumblr. But why not here too, right?

I just noticed that many of the drawings of Tom Hiddleston's Loki that I like best, such as the one above, bear a striking resemblance to Jason Spisak, the voice and inspiration for the face of Vulpes Inculta in Fallout: New Vegas -- who is another character I really like.

I think I have just identified my “type.”

Me = Shallow but Consistent 


So. Do you readers have a "type" you prefer?  It's not always easy to recognize in yourself. My sister used to say she loved brunettes, but every single fan-girl crush she had was on a blonde fellow.

Share, my pretties! ;)

eBook Prices

How do you put a value on a digital book? It doesn't seem like this should be the conundrum it is.

Paper books are priced to cover the amount it cost to produce them plus a markup for both the publisher's and the bookseller's profit.

Ebooks should be priced the same way, right? The problem is, we assume the production cost will be significantly cheaper because there is no paper and no binding--forgetting that paper is cheap and binding is not especially costly either.

All the costly things--cover art, editing, etc.--must happen in the production of a digital book, just like a paper one. So logically the price isn't going to differ dramatically.

And yet, it doesn't seem right.

Maybe because so many eBooks are "free." It seems like the average price thus should be lower.

But those eBooks are free because either they are classics, antiques, if you will, long ago falling into the public domain, so libraries or volunteers can legally digitize them, or they're new books whose publisher wants to boost word-of-mouth on a particular title or author and is willing to take a financial hit to do it.

Those eBooks still cost time and money to produce, but your tax dollars, the goodness of others, or a marketing plan paid for them.

So, again, digital books should cost about the same as paper.

What about resale value? Maybe we feel digital books should be cheaper because we can't resell them as we can paper books?

That isn't within the publisher's purview. Paper books are not priced with any thought to the used market because neither publishers nor authors get any money from those venues. Why should eBooks be any different?

We aren't automatically entitled to resell things in our possession. Many items you buy cannot be resold, and we accept that. The video games industry may be going toward a used-games-are-unplayable model. That there is no used market for digital books may simply become the standard of the future.

So again, digital books' and paper books' prices shouldn't be that far apart.

But then why, when I am faced with a $12.99 eBook, do I wince?

I've paid $9.99 for eBooks. I'd pay $12.99 for a paperback. And yet I stall at $12.99 for an eBook.

$12.99 is what - the price of dinner for one? Lunch for two? Food you'll never get back (unless it gives you food poisoning and then it will be returned to the world in a state far different from when you last viewed it) whereas an eBook lasts forever. You can even lend it to others and, trust me, no one wants you to lend them your food or other perishables.

$12.99 is a few hours of work at minimum wage to pay for something that took the author months of agony to produce. If the eBook is nonfiction, it might have taken years. And yet we won't shell out our coffee money for it.

Why is that?

I really should buy that $12.99 eBook. I just... argh. Do any of you have this problem?

Where to find Knowledge

How Do You GoodReads?

How many of you are on GoodReads? Or any of the few other sites that allow you to keep track of what you've read and share your reviews with friends?

I'm on GoodReads and I've got a question for ya:  Do you only rate books you've read recently? Or within the last, say, 10 years? Or do you not have a cut-off point, and rate even books you read as a little kid?

I ask because I rate everything - and it has been brought to my attention that some books I loved as a teenager might not stand the test of time, and some books I hated at one point I might actually enjoy today -- so my star ratings might not be an accurate snapshot of my current reading tastes.

Does that matter? I suppose it would if you were interested in GoodReads' new if you like such-n-such, you'll like that-n-this matching program. I might miss out on a book I'd like based on an opinion I formed back when I thought boys had cooties.

I have a To Be Read pile taller than my dresser, though, so getting more reading material really isn't a problem for me.

But I'm curious how other people approach this conundrum. How far back do you rate?

Zaftig is Sexy Too

Here I am, in my long underwear because winter is chilly, waiting for my coffee to awaken me of a morning.

Well, no, obviously this isn't really me. It's Hilda, the recurring character drawn by artist Duane Bryers.

I found these images on tumblr but I'm pretty certain they came from HERE and I recommend you check that website out.

What I particularly like about Hilda is the fact that she is plump and yet presented as a pinup girl.

Maybe it's only me, being as I'm fat errr I mean zaftig myself, but I think this image is sexy. Wish there was more art of plump women in popular culture today.  What do y'all think?

Remembrance Day 11-11-11-11

I originally published this Veteran's Day/Remembrance Day post 2 years ago. Figure it could use a re-run, especially as this Remembrance Day is 11-11-11-11. 

---------------------


The Red Poppy is the symbol of Remembrance Day, 11 November. Remembrance Day was started in 1919 as Armistice Day, to honor the end of The Great War. The War to End Wars.

Which came to be known as World War I.

After World War II, the name was changed to Remembrance Day to honor the dead of all wars.

This year is the 91st (2011 = 93rd) anniversary of the end of World War I. Did you realize that? I only know because last year - the 90th anniversary - was covered extensively by the BBC. They put up amazing content on the BBC website. Why don't US news organizations have similar content?

Possibly because in the US this is known as Veterans' Day, when we honor living veterans of war. The US has Memorial Day to honor its war dead.

Personally, I think we should nominate another day as Veterans' Day and return November 11 to Remembrance Day. Why? I am so glad you asked.....

We are traveling back in time to the final days of The Great War (this is "great" as in BIG HUGE GINORMOUS, not great as in cool). No one is winning and the cost in human lives has been enormous. It is agreed between the warring nations that an armistice should be called. An armistice is when countries just stop fighting. No one is the winner. No one is the loser. They just stop.  This cease-fire is signed at 5:00am on the 11th day of November, 1918.

But the war didn't end.

Because this had been The War To End All Wars. Millions of people had died.

Quoting from the Imperial War Museum:

"One in three families in Britain had a loved one killed, wounded or taken prisoner. In other warring nations, the figures were even higher; France lost nearly a million and a half men – double that of Britain – while nearly two million Germans and a similar number of Russians died."

They couldn't just end the war and walk away - not with all those dead. Their deaths had to mean something. There had to be something, something memorable, that people could point to and say, "This is when the last war ended."

They chose 11-11-11. War would end at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month

So they KEPT THE WAR GOING until 11:00 am. MEN DIED so that we would have the symbol 11-11-11

Of course, we all know war didn't end. But what is even more tragic is the fact that soldiers died for a symbol that is no longer remembered in the US.

Quoting from the BBC

"The respected American author Joseph E Persico has calculated a shocking figure that the final day of WWI would produce nearly 11,000 casualties, more than those killed, wounded or missing on D-Day, when Allied forces landed en masse on the shores of occupied France almost 27 years later."

Wrap your mind around that, if you can.

And if that didn't blow your mind, this will: Again quoting the same BBC article

"What is worse is that hundreds of these soldiers would lose their lives thrown into action by generals who knew that the Armistice had already been signed."

Yup.

For example, the 89th American Division was sent to take the town of Stenay by a general who knew the Armistice had been signed, but he'd heard that Stenay had bathing facilities. And apparently he couldn't wait until 11am.

"That lunatic decision cost something like 300 casualties, many of them battle deaths, for an inconceivable reason," says Mr Persico.

Those were American casualties, did you notice? They died because of a "lunatic decision" and for a symbol of which most Americans aren't even aware.

In fact, the last soldier killed in action in World War I was an American boy from Baltimore. He was shot at 10:59am. His name was Henry Gunther.

Does he get a mention over here? Not that I'm aware of. We don't even have a moment of silence at 11:00am. Because it isn't Remembrance Day for us. It's Veteran's Day.

"No man surely has so short a memory as the American." - Rebecca H. Davis

Prove her wrong. Today, remember poor Henry and all the others who died for 11-11-11.

Death Stalks the Common

Last weekend the music video cast and crew for the song based on my book HIDDEN HISTORY OF SALEM was in Salem filming. Apparently someone called the police about the man who was playing Death in the video, telling the cops a "scary man" with "a real axe" was on Salem Common.

Here he is, relocated to the wharf, the scary dude and his real axe:

I feel your fear. 

I know if I assure you he's the sweetest fella in the world, you wouldn't believe me, right?

*sigh*

Caller, you waste police time. Salem, don't let me down like this again.

Jake Gyllenhaal of Brokeback Mountain