What I like in a fiction writer

The question for me right now is: Do I do some work and try to get a couple more bugs out of the program I am working on or do I write? Hmmm .... I guess you already know the answer: I write.

I have wanted to write something on what qualities in a fiction writer appeal to me. I have this feel for what I like and what I look for. But whenever I try to explain it to someone, the words that come out of my mouth don't match the thoughts I have in my head. Perhaps if I try to write about it, I can get some practice in translating the ideas in my head to words out in the real world (are electronic representations of words on a computer terminal the real world?).

So, what is it that I look for? I want a plot that will keep me interested in the story (to the point that I don't want to put the book down). I want characters that are realistic. And I want descriptive language that puts me into the scene. That's not asking for too much, is it?

Oh yea, one other thing. These are things that I look for and will keep me reading a story. I am not saying this is what makes great literature. I would never say that I am a judge of great literature. I just know what I like and what I don't like (and what I will read even though I there are things about the book I don't like).

It seems to me that plot is the easiest one of the three for published authors to hit the mark on. I understand that there are tricks to keeping the reader interested in the story. Cliff hangers at the end of a chapter (I remember that the Bobsey Twins books were like that), correct pacing, revealing the back story a little at a time. These are all techniques that will keep me interested. And I suspect that some of these can be learned. Of course, there is the right balance for the use of these tricks so they are not overused (e.g. a too slow revealing of the back story).

Characters are a bit more difficult to get just right. They must have the right balance between being human (i.e. having flaws) and being interesting enough to make me care about them. I also want to be able to put myself in their place, since I use fiction as an escape into another world. Characters I don't like are the ones that seem to be perfect. Men for whom women fall under their spell when they walk into a room. Women that are perfect mothers, perfect wives and have the perfect, high-powered career. All at the same time. Basically, something that mere mortals are not able to accomplish.

Descriptive language is what pushes me over the edge to being in love in an author's writing. It is when I read words on the page that reflect the images and ideas I have in my head that I almost get chills. I want to copy it down so I won't forget the description. I think that any writer improves their descriptive language with practice. But like a concert pianist, only the talented few achieve greatness.

I don't know how well I have achieved my goal here. I've never written about writing before. It's tough. It's tough to translate those ideas swimming around in my head to words on the page. It won't get any easier if I don't practice .... and I can only practice by writing.

The last thing I want to do here is mention a couple of authors, both of which I like to read, but I think the one is a more complete author.

Clive Cussler writes what I call 'Men's Romance Novels'. They are page turners. When I am reading one, I want to spend all my time reading the novel until I'm done. I want to find out where the plot is going. At the same time, I don't like his protagonists. They are not realistic to me. They remind me of the Doc Savage books I read when I was young, just too perfect. I will still read Cussler's books because he comes up with fantastic stories. Finding the lost city of Atlantis under Antarctica, using earthquakes as weapons, following the journey of Odysseus after defeating the city of Troy. Stories that you just have to find out what happens in the end. Stories that I wish were true (and they have enough detail and research that it seems that they could be true). Because of the great stories, I can get past the unrealistic characters.

G. M. Ford is an author that I recently discovered. He is a much more complete author than Cussler. His stories are not as 'big', but they are interesting and keep me wanting to find out what happens next. The main character of the novels I have read is very human. He makes mistakes. He hangs with lowlifes. The relationship with his girlfriend is not perfect, but it still has many wonderful qualities. What really pulled me in with Ford's writing was his descriptive language. He used to teach creative writing and it shows. Some may think he is overly descriptive, but I think he has just the right amount. Here's an example from the book I am reading right now (The Deader the Better). The main characters have just dropped in on some friends that they have not seen for a couple of years.

We did what people do in those moments. We took turns trying to encapsulate a couple of years' worth of living into a hundred words or less. Sawing off the peaks and valleys so as to seem neither boastful nor weak, ending up with fictional renderings of our respective lives that hardly seemed worth telling.

I think that is just wonderful. It describes so well what one tries to do when you see someone that you haven't seen for years. This is probably something that an older person can understand more than a younger person. We have had more years to lose track of friends and then run into them again.

OK, it's getting late and I want to read a little before I go to bed. I hope I was able to tell you a little about what I like in an author. If not, I hope that at least you liked what you read.

Congratulations Scott Jurek - Winner, Badwater 2005

Congratulations goes out to Scott Jurek for his 2005 Badwater win. Almost exactly 3 hours ago, he passed the finish line at Mt. Whitney portal, just over 24 1/2 hours after leaving Badwater. I crewed a runner last year that finished in a little over 32 hours, and he was no slacker. For someone to almost break 24 hours for this race is unbelievable (although with Scott, who has won 7 Western States in a row, maybe not so much).

He made it from Lone Pine to the finish line (about 13 miles and 4000 feet) in under 2 hours. It took us over 4 hours to do it last year (I paced my runner on that section).

Oh yea, he won his most recent Western States just over 2 weeks ago

Update: Oops ... too quick of a calculation. It was just under 3 hours up to Whitney portal, not 2 hours. Still ... an impressive time after already traveling 122 miles.

Bush's Slight of Hand

I have wanted to write something on this since the Valerie Plame affair came back into the spotlight. Or, perhaps I should say, the 'Reporter's rights issue' came back into the spotlight with the Supreme Court's ruling that Matt Cooper and Judith Miller must reveal their sources to Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald. It bugs the hell out of me that the Bush supporters are able to use slight of hand to change the focus of a story that is negative to Bush to the messenger. And what is even more frustrating, the media goes right along with that change of focus. Three very prominent examples come to mind:

1. The Dan Rather story on Bush's National Guard record.
2. The Newsweek story on the abuses at Guantanomo Bay.
3. The outing of Valerie Plame by a 'high administration official'.

I am sure there are more examples, but these three come to my mind right now. I know these are all old stories and much has been written about them. But I feel it's good to review what the Bush supporters were able to do in each case.

The Dan Rather story was turned from a story on how Bush used his connections to avoid his obligations to the National Guard to a story on Dan Rather using a fake document to support the Bush Story. I know much has been written on this story on both sides of the blogsphere, but it is not often mentioned that the secretary who was suppose to have written the document (but did not) said that even though the document appeared to be fake, everything it said was true. So the actual story was true! But instead of focusing on that, the Bush supporters were able to switch the story to Dan Rather and the fake document. Fake document or real document, George Bush still went AWOL from his Noational Guard duty,

The Guantanamo Bay story almost seems like a setup. After doing everything it could to confirm that the story was true (including asking the Pentagon about it), Newsweek published a story about prisoner abuse at the prison. After the story was published, their source retracted the story and Newsweek immediately (to their credit) and went public with the fact that their source retracted the story. Again, the major story was the fact that Newsweek published something that was later retracted rather than the fact we are abusing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The facts in their story had already been published in other sources and in stories published since. But Newseek was blamed for anti-american riots that occurred after their story was published (even though the Bush Administration said that the story had nothing to do with the riots). Whether or not Newsweek's source restracted their story, the US has been abusing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

The last story bothers me the most. I do believe that reporters should protect their sources, with certain exceptions. One exception is when they are told lies. Another exception is when the reporter is being used (OK, this one is not black and white. But when a reporter is used to get back at an adminstration critic, they should not protect that source). This has turned from a member of the administration committing treason by outing an undercover CIA agent to a reporter's right to protect his (or her) sources. I don't think that either Cooper or Miller should be considered martyrs. Instead, they should be condemned for not helping the special prosecuter to find out who in the administration committed treason. It doesn't matter that Judith Miller may spend some time in jail, someone in the Bush adminstration outed an undercover CIA agent That is a felony, and someone shoulud spend some time in jail because of it.

It is sad that the MSM doesn't get a clue and realize that they are being grossly manipulated by the Bushies.

Failed Iraq Policy?

One of Bush's arguements for being in Iraq is the flypaper theory (because of our invasion of Iraq, the terrorist are attracted there to fight us instead of going elsewhere to wreck havoc). It is difficult not to raise the question: Do the bombings in London this morning indicate that the flypaper is not working? That our policy (at least the flypaper part of it) is not working?

Inquiring minds want to know .....

Father's Rights (right wing, that is)

As a divorced father who has his kids half time, I find the 'Father's Rights' movement pretty much a joke. All of the sites on the web that I have found have been either right wing or crayon-toting, evangelical Christian based. Not my cup of tea.

The men that write columns on these sites seem to me to be more upset about losing control over their women (and their paycheck since many have to pay the dreaded 'child support') than losing their family. Yes, I know I am painting this all with a very broad brush stroke, but I only know what I have seen.

An example of such a man is David Usher, who writes for a web site called MensNewsDaily (I have not figured out this link stuff yet, so no link at this time). I found him via a feminist blog called Archaeopteryx. The particular article they pointed out is titled : Winning the War Against Fatherhood, Alive. The gist of the article is that women (driven by the evil feminist) are doing everything they can to destroy the institution of marriage and family (he calls no-fault divorce a 'feminist institution'). It is quite the tome. Everything wrong with marriage today and the high divorce rate is all because of the feminist movement.

Surprising enough, he may have a point. Feminism and the empowerment it has provided women has had a large influence on the movement towards no-fault divorces and the child support system. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but that is not how Mr. Usher sees it.

My favorite part of the article is when he cites Perry Manley as someone who gave his life for the Father's Rights Movement. Mr. Manley was shot by police outside of a courthouse when he was brandishing what turned out to be a drilled-out WWII hand grenade. He did not like the fact that he had been ordered by the court to pay child support to his ex-wife. Usher compares Manley to the people in China that were mowed down while they demonstrated for free speech. I think that may be a bit of a stretch.

OK, you might ask. What about the child support court orders that seem on the surface to be way out of line. Isn't that unfair? Perhaps. I am sure that one can find examples of abuses of the system by both men and women. But I find it hard to argue that children are not entitled to the lifestyle that the highest earning parent can provide. Just because the parents are not together should not affect the lifestyle of the children.

Yea, yea .... I know. This means that the other parent is able to string along with the children and enjoy a lifestyle that they may not deserve. But so what? It is still important for the children to have that lifestyle.

I know I am making this more simple than it really is. I think it all comes down to the fact that parents must try to find that right middle ground between:

• The best thing for the kids
• The best thing for the parents

It's unfortunate that divorce tends to be very emotional. It doesn't make an easy environment to take a step back and mutually try to find that middle ground. But that is what 'should' be done.

I know I have rambled a bit here (hence, the blog title) and have covered a number of different areas. My intention was to focus on the Father's Rights movement, but instead ventured into divorce and children in divorce. I will make another attempt at some point to write more about the Father's Rights (and Men's Rights) movements (hopefully when I have better web access and have figured out how to put links into these posts).

Update: Guess if I open my eyes, I will see the link icon on the editor. Added some links to the post.

Yoga

I've been attending yoga classes for a little over a year. Anywhere from 1 to 3 classes a week. My intention when I started was to provide a venue to stretch my muscles more than I do before and after my runs (I always tell myself that I should spend more time stretching than I do. It is something I certainly need, but don't do). The only thing I knew about yoga was what popular culture says about it:

• Originated in and strongly connected with India
• Breath and breath control is a part of it
• Experts can turn themselves into human pretzels
  

Instead of heading out for a run one Wednesday, I decided to attend a class at noon. There is a studio in downtown that has drop-in in classes every day of the week. Some during that day and others in the evening. The first class I attended went for 75 minutes, starting with everyone sitting and claming their minds, moving into a variety of poses, and ending with a relaxing pose.
At the time I was reading some Dan Millman (I'll write an entry on him sometime .... he has some thought provoking ideas and advice for living). One of the things he talks about is 'being in the moment'. Don't live in the past, don't obsess about the past .... it's past. There is nothing you can do about it. Do spend all of you time living for the future. It's not here yet. Besides, by the time is here, it will not be what you expect it to be. The only time you can affect is this moment in time. That is what I focuses on when I was calming my mind at the beginning of the sessions. Focusing on letting the thoughts of my morning, of what I planned for the afternoon, letting them all flow pass me and let my mind focus on the here and now.

Guess I went off on a tangent. This is suppose to be about yoga, not about what I was reading when I started taking yoga. But it does relate. It all seems to relate: yoga, focusing on the here and now, calming the mind, paying attention to you body. It all relates. That is what surprised me about yoga. How it fit into what I was exploring at the time. Some would call it New Age, some would call it 'evil' (I am thinking of the crayon toting evangelicals). I call it spiritual. The spiritual side of life, which just doesn't mean a Judeo-Christian type of spiritualism. It encompasses your attitude toward life, towards other people, towards yourself. It is a way of life, not just a set of beliefs. I cringe when I see (or hear about) people that believe they will have their afterlife reward just because they attend a gathering every week and say they believe something about a man who lived 2000 years ago. But if you look at the life they lead, it is about as ugly as you get (no, I am not talking about all Christians or even all evangelicals. Just the hypocrites that wear their religion on their sleeve). Damn, off on a tangent again. This is suppose to be about yoga. Focus, dude!

What am I trying to say about yoga? Maybe that is part of my problem, not having anything specific to actually say about it. It is a humbling thing to do. Even though I have been doing it for over a year, I have so much work to do (that, of course, is ignoring the fact that I don't do it every day). The class I took today had a leader that I have never had before (the husband of the woman that usually leads the class). Every instructor is different, they emphasize different poses and focus on different things . It was good to have someone new, although it was also tough. He put me in positions that I have not done before. He also pointed out things in my poses that have not been brought to my attention (I like getting help with the details. There are so many things to concentrate on in most poses, that even experienced people can use help with their poses. Especially from someone who is looking on and knows what to look for.).

The other part of yoga that is wonderful is the mental part. How you are able to forget about the world around you and focus on you, on the pose, on how you body is feeling with the pose (and trying to twist a couple more degrees or bend another inch, while keeping that inner knee pulling to the front). Being in the here and now is one of the things I've been working on for the past year or so. Yoga fits into that work quite well.

I would recommend yoga to anyone. No matter what shape they are in, no matter how lethargic they have been, yoga would be a good thing to do. As my sessions leaders remind us quite often, you don't compare yourself against the others in the class. You compare against yourself, against what you have done in the past. Consider why you are deeper into a pose, why you aren't as deep. Is it because you ran 20 miles the day before? Or you worked in the yard all afternoon? Or is it because you have a lot on your mind. You lover left you, you lost your job, you lost a loved one. It could be any number of things, it is up to you to use the opportunity to get to know yourself better.