Avoiding the drama

Guess what? There's been drama on the Internet this week.

No news there, though it always surprises me that people are shocked when it happens. With the speed of communication, and the added bonus of so-called anonymity luring those who might not normally say or do things, there is always drama. In comments. In tweets. In blog posts. In announcements.

For the most part, I avoid drama at all costs. Why? Because my life has enough complications in it without going and looking for more that have nothing to do with me. I'm not talking about speaking up about genuine issues, like the fiasco in Indiana with their attempts to slide discrimination into law by masking it under lies that it's exactly like other laws already on the books in other parts of the country (newsflash: it's not). It's the little things like falling for trolls in comment sections who only want to rile people up that can suck away energy that is better served in other parts of my life.

People say things online they wouldn't say in real life. They think the Internet is a safe place. I wish I could grab them by the shoulders, shake them, and say, "Oh, hell to the no." Even when someplace is labeled "safe," it's not. It's online. It's archived. Identities can be created with minimal effort.

On top of that, intention can be completely misconstrued. The written word is absorbed through the filter of the reader, not the creator. Too often, as creators who try to keep as much control over their words as possible, this is easy to forget.

Don't.

My rule of thumb is, Don't put anything online I wouldn't say to an auditorium packed with strangers. I don't gossip or bitch unless I'm willing to have what I said get back to the wrong people. Which means, I usually curb my language, or don't comment, or click away from a post that unsettles me.

The only Internet drama I want in my life is that which makes a tangible difference to me and my family. The rest is superfluous. I'm going to treat it as such.

Thorn Birds rant

I'm going out on a limb here by admitting until this past weekend, I had never read nor seen The Thorn Birds. I knew it was one of those beloved mini-series/stories that romance readers hold fondly in their hearts, and that Richard Chamberlain played a priest who had a love affair. That was it. So when I was sick Friday and Saturday, I curled up on the couch to watch it, in hopes I'd see what everybody loved and fall in love with it myself.

Wow. I couldn't have been more wrong.

I hated it. Well, maybe hate is a strong word. For the overall production and story, it was okay. What I hated, what made my skin absolutely crawl, was the so-called love story between Father Ralph and Meggie. It's not the performers' fault. It's the story's. I can honestly say, I just don't get why more people aren't completely creeped out by this relationship.

I have zero problem with priests battling their sexual demons. I'm not religious, I've written more than a few of my own religious figures who give up their calling for love, and frankly, I find forced celibacy a ridiculous, antiquated notion.

My issues arise with the fact that theirs is not a healthy relationship. In the slightest. Ralph forms what is obviously an intense relationship with a ten-year-old girl, and while he doesn't encourage or acknowledge any physical interaction until she turns eighteen, he has still spent the last eight years making himself the center of her world in a lot of ways. The feelings she develops for him in return are based on a child's adoration. There's definitely the feel of an Electra complex going on there, because her fixation on him never goes away. And I'm sorry, I just can't find romance in any relationship where one of the parties is only ten years old and the other is a fully grown adult who is very well aware of his physical appeal (because everyone under the sun needs to tell Father Ralph how beautiful he is, including Vittorio, Ralph's superior and friend) when it launches, whether it's platonic or not. In the movie, there is never any doubt Father Ralph has supplanted her own parents' role in her life. How can that ever be healthy?

Mary Carson, who is presented as a bitter old woman, sees the truth, and yet she's completely dismissed as being vindictive and jealous of their youth. We're supposed to dislike her for being the only one to recognize how intense and inappropriate it turns into? Nope, don't buy it.

All of that is a shame, because without that element, it's actually a very moving idea about mothers, their children, and the struggles between them as mothers fight their own feelings versus those they should have toward their kids. It's just too bad it's locked within this so-called love story.

Knowing the Basics

I hate to end the week on a rant, but I got one. I had a book that was a DNF yesterday, and the reasons frustrate me. I won't tell you which one it was because it doesn't really matter. It's a small book, with a tiny press, and I got it free on Kindle, so naming it doesn't do any good. It has its supporters with some positive reviews, but I'm not one of them.

See, I could barely get through the first three chapters. Not because the idea wasn't interesting (it was), or because the prose wasn't pretty (it wasn't, but then again, it wasn't that sort of book), but because of all the technical errors in it. More than just typos. More than stylistic choices we all might make for the sake of a voice. This was about glaring verb tense shifts, often more than one to a page, that made it impossible for me to get into the story. So I didn't waste my time. I gave up on it and deleted it from my Kindle.

What I honestly don't get is...why? Why do some authors think that it's okay not to know the basic tools of their trade? Don't tell me that's what an editor is for. I don't buy it. Editors are wonderful for a lot of different reasons, but their job description should never include, "Teach authors what verb-agreement is," or anything that includes basic grammar lessons like verb tense. Honestly, editors have enough to do already, and putting that burden on them as well is lazy, selfish, and unreasonable. Typos? Sure, we all make them, though I'd hope you'd send in a manuscript as clean as you possibly could. Occasional lapses in POV? It happens. But the fundamental tools of the written language should be the author's responsibility to know, and nobody is ever going to convince me otherwise.

This is your work. This is your craft. Every job has basic requirements, and writing is no different. Being able to come up with compelling characters and stories is only part of the package, and sure, there are people who don't care or can't tell when a story is riddled with easily fixable grammatical errors, but why is settling for that enough?

If you don't know basic grammar, learn. The resources are out there. If it's still too hard for you, find someone who does understand to go through your manuscript before it goes to your editor, and then--and here's the hard part for some people--listen to them and fix what's wrong before making your poor editor do half your job for you.

Judging from appearances

Over the weekend, a friend shared this article that I keep going back to. In it, the young woman decided to do a social experiment where she created a dating profile on OKCupid, then changed the photos daily to look like different female stereotypes. She kept the bio unchanged. The responses she got are frankly unsurprising.

People judge. It sucks. We draw conclusions based on what we see, and while they can be correct, they might not be, either. I've spent a lot of my life fighting against the stereotype I've been pegged as, most of the time unsuccessfully. Of course, that can work to my advantage, but it's frustrating to say the least. Sometimes, genre fiction relies on those appearances.

What it makes me work harder for, then, is to keep an open mind about people. Everybody has their own unique stories, and we shouldn't base our opinions on them without facts. Are some of these stereotypes valid? Absolutely. That's how they got to be stereotypes in the first place. But it's those types of conclusions that create such a dangerous environment in our world today. Our headlines are rife with them.

How can we make the world a better place if we continue to behave so blindly?

Opening doors

I spent a lot of last week arguing with people about the Hobby Lobby ruling. In all honesty, I haven't been this angry about a political ruling since Prop 8 in 2008 when I sat up until 5:30 a.m. watching the numbers stay too close to predict, and then went ballistic that misinformation had so thoroughly been disseminated. I understand the issue of religious freedom, but the longer reaching implications of what this ruling meant were far more dangerous. Giving Hobby Lobby the freedom to ignore a law it doesn't like opened a door that I am 100% convinced will be exploited for years to come. Yet, a lot of people I know didn't see that.

The newest repercussions hit the news this morning. A number of LGBT-supportive agencies have dropped their support of ENDA. Previously, they'd supported the religious exemptions it proposed, but in the light of the Hobby Lobby ruling, they've finally seen just how that will be playing into the religious right's agenda.

Frankly, it's terrifying, and I simply can't comprehend how any reasonable person can see the ruling as a good thing. How can they not see that their behavior is analogous to how people found reasons to discriminate against people of race in the past? Or women? Rights are not arbitrary. They argue that it's their right to believe what they want. On this, I agree with them. What isn't their right is to inflict harm on others because of those beliefs.

The one aspect of this that saddens me the most is how it is driving an even greater wedge between the secular and non-secular portions of our country. I know plenty of Christians who are appalled at Hobby Lobby's hubris at pushing the law this far, but their protests are overshadowed by those who monopolize media time. It's those people who many secular citizens witness, which only exacerbates any negativity they might feel toward those holding religious beliefs. How are we supposed to move beyond this when there is such a schism? I have to hope that eventually the Supreme Court will come to its senses and fix this with later cases, but in the meantime, I will do all I can by voting and not supporting companies like Hobby Lobby that insist on abusing their religious freedom to discriminate.

Preserving LGBT History

As Pride month draws to an end, articles like this one remind me of how important it is to remember where we've been. It's a brief piece on photos from the 1950s that are in the archives at the University of Southern California Libraries, but it highlights just how far we've really come.

The photos' owner took the pictures in a photo booth, one of the few places where a young gay man might be able to sneak some intimacy with another. There's both an innocence about it and a sense of defiance that reverberates to this day.

We can't forget. When we get discouraged about prejudices in today's world, we have to remember there was once a time when it was much worse. The world is changing for the better, but it's a process, one we continue to fight for, and we owe it to our predecessors to remind future generations of their battles as well.

Go check out the photos. They'll make you smile.

One of the reasons I dislike Facebook

I'm not a big fan of Facebook. I'll admit that straight up. I have a professional one, only because I needed to join a group that I could only talk to on FB, and a personal one, because when half your family lives on a different continent, it's the only way to stay on top of what's happening to everybody, but that doesn't mean I'm particularly happy with it. Especially their arbitrary removal of photos they deem inappropriate.

Josh Rimer of The Sassy Scoop did a video earlier this month on the photos Facebook doesn't want you to see. It truly is a bit ridiculous what they take off...

Times, they are a'changing

When I first started publishing romance in 2005, one of the initial questions my husband asked me was, "Are you joining RWA?"

My answer was an emphatic, "No."

Back then, RWA didn't recognize digital sales. E-publishing was consigned to a special corner and ignored in a lot of ways. If there was one thing I refuse to be, it's a hyprocrite. I could not in any good conscience support an organization that denied the existence of a large number of its membership (except to take their money, of course).

As digital took off, that changed. It was great for e-published writers. Then Rainbow Romance Writers was formed as a special interest chapter within RWA, so more positive steps forward.

But I have a confession. I still hated it. I hated that RWA still used a lot of exclusionary language in so many different ways. I hated that LGBT writers still had to be relegated to a special group. Very persuasive people pitched that the only way to change RWA was from within, and while I most whole-heartedly support those willing to fight that fight, I am not that person. I fight with the consumer dollar. I don't provide business to those who practice intolerance (which kills me when I see how huge our local Hobby Lobby is, lol). RWA was going to be no different.

It's now 2014. RWA has taken strides to move past their prejudices and exclusionary practices. Is it perfect? No, but my definition is a strict one, I'll admit that (there would be no need for any special interest groups at all, if I had my say). People I respect are excited about the organization again, and that's enough to get me thinking.

Am I ready to join up? Not yet. But I don't have a kneejerk, "Oh, hell, no!" reaction when the discussion gets raised anymore. I'm going to start looking at some of my local chapters to see what they provide, if I can get value from being a member. I don't know how that'll turn out.

But times, they are a-changing. Thankfully.

Spectacle vs Substance

One of the two shows we had tickets for during our visit to Las Vegas was The Beatles' Love at the Mirage. That's what we went to see last night.

My reaction is...mixed.

Technically, it's really well done. The staging is clever, the costumes stunning, and the music is (understandably) fantastic. I loved that the speakers were in the headrest of the seats without being obnoxious about it. What didn't work for me was as much was just how busy the show is. I was fine that, unlike other Cirque shows I've seen, it was mostly interpretive dance rather than a lot of acrobatics, but it's very much focused on the spectacle and cramming as much into the space as it possibly can, so much so that it's impossible to know where to look. It's like one long hallucination. The best moments were those that were allowed to be more intimate, but they were just too few and far between.

I figured out later what my difficulty with it was. It comes down to spectacle versus substance. Too much of the former and not nearly enough of the latter. I'm not a big fan of grandiose or being different for the sake of being different. This had so much happening all at once--multiple aerial acts at the same time, two or three different components on the stage, projections happening behind us--that it ends up diffusing the entire effect. It's an avalanche that buries you rather than allows you to experience it.

Phantom of the Opera is another example of this. I get into arguments with other theater friends all the time because they rate it so highly and I just don't. I do like a lot of the music, but too much of the show feels superfluous and shallow. Give me Les Miserables and almost anything by Sondheim instead, please.

Those have substance. Those have meaning. They know when to pull back from the spectacle to best highlight the singular moments that make the entire show worth it.

It's a lesson that can be learned in a lot of different venues.

Waiting for the next installment...or not

Yesterday, I spent a lot of time sitting in a waiting room while my daughter got the upper half of her braces done. That meant reading, woo hoo! I was finally able to get caught up on Frank Tuttle's Markhat series, as well as a historical mystery called As the Crow Dies. The bad part, though?

Now I have to wait forever for the next Markhat book.

I'm not good at waiting with series. It's why I will often wait until something is completely done before starting it. I'd rather do that then have to wait on cliffhangers in between installments. I watched 24 like that, mainlining an entire season three days at a time. I did it with the second half of Harry Potter, too. I stopped reading after the fourth book, then waited until the seventh was done before sitting down and reading the last three all at once. Trust me. That one was next to impossible to remain unspoiled for, though I'm proud I managed it for probably 95% (and all of the good stuff, thank goodness).

Sometimes, it's hard, though. I don't like being spoiled, and in this day and age, it's very easy to happen when you're not paying attention. Twitter is the worst culprit for TV, especially since I live on the west coast. I've had to unfollow a few people because I couldn't trust that they'd be mum long enough for me to see something.

Am I just too paranoid? How do you handle series?

Why are we still arguing about this?

Yesterday, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal, claiming print was "here to stay," and that e-books will serve a role similar to audio books and nothing more.

I got pissed.

Not because it's true or anything, but more because of the obvious bias of the article's author. He's the writer of The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, a 2011 Pulitzer Prize finalist in general nonfiction. He's a proponent of the philosophy that we're losing the ability to think deeply as a result of having too easy access to tools that will do the thinking for you. I'm not saying I disagree with him on that, but the fact of the matter is, he has a definite lean toward getting rid of technology because it's ultimately detrimental in his eyes. This shines through in his conclusions in the WSJ article.

In it, he proposes that the decline in e-reader and e-book sales means that print is still king, that we've "misjudged the nature of the electronic book." It's just a more disposable paperback of lightweight entertainment, and thus, "real books" are going nowhere. What he fails to even mention is that print is still on the decline, as reported by Publisher's Weekly. But doing so, I'd bet, would weaken his headline.

Genre fiction is the bread and butter of the publishing industry. It always has been. Literary fiction, while worthy and often notable, doesn't sell in the same numbers the vast majority of the time. He's weighing them all equally when evaluating statistics about who has read print and e-books in the last year, when in fact, they're not.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think print is disappearing at all. But relegating e-books to a novelty format is a  mistake, perpetrated by ideals that don't match the direction in which society is marching. The two can, and should, live side by side, supporting each other, rather than competing against each other and attempting to tear down the other in order to bolster their sales.

I don't think he's ever going to believe that. I can only hope that the reading public is smart enough to see the holes in his arguments.

Movies vs. Musicals

Yesterday, I got to see one of the movies I've been dying to this season. Les Miserables. I saw the stage version for the first time in April '88. I was in New York City for spring break my freshman year at college, and as a theatre major, Broadway was my drug of choice. I had nose bleed seats, but that night, I fell in love.

In the years since, I've seen Les Miserables sixteen more times in three different cities. Needless to say, it's my favorite musical ever, so my excitement going into the movie theater? Pretty unparalleled.

I walked out with my brain abuzz. Is it the greatest movie ever? No. But that doesn't mean I didn't cry at certain parts, or that I won't buy it as soon as it's available on Blu-ray.

The movie has definite strengths. The cinematography is sensational, gritty and sweeping as epics are meant to be. Some performances absolutely shine, as well. Anne Hathaway portrays Fantine as an angry, desperate woman, and her one-shot solo of "I Dreamed a Dream" is stunning. Hugh Jackman's transition from the bitter convict to the well-meaning father is clean and realistic, even if his vocals sometime strain to reach the purity the part often demands. As Cosette, Amanda Seyfried gives one of the more sympathetic versions I've ever seen, though her vibrato gets annoying by the end of the long (2 hours and 38 minutes) movie. The Thenardiers - Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter - aren't the comic caricatures that are often seen onstage but instead dark reminders of the seedier side of survival.

A couple performances pretty much fail for me. I've never been a fan of Marius as a young romantic lead, but Eddie Redmayne manages to turn him into an even bigger flake than usual. (On a side note, I just don't understand the physical appeal of him at all. He always reminds me of Cletus the slack-jawed yokel.) I've adored Russell Crowe for decades, but this is a singing role, not an acting one, and his nasally, rock style of singing - sliding into notes - is utterly unsuited to the operatic style Les Miserables requires. Javert is actually my favorite male character of the show, a tragic figure broken by his inability to accept any flexibility, especially his own, but I felt nothing of his inner conflict as played by Crowe.

Some of director Tom Hooper's choices didn't work for me, either. He plays it too heavy-handed sometimes in driving home his symbolism, like Javert's literal walking of edges and the giant eye looking over Valjean's shoulder during "God on High." His decision to change some of Eponine's actions turns her unrequited love from being sympathetic to selfish, and the complete exclusion of her from the final number weakens the theme of selfless love that makes Les Miserables resonate.

Because that is ultimately what this is about. One of my favorite lines from anything ever comes from the final moments. "To love another person is to see the face of God." It's about learning to care more about someone else than yourself. Fantine giving everything for Cosette. Valjean taking steps from accepting the fresh start given to him by the Bishop (a moving performance from Colm Wilkinson himself) all the way to saving Marius at the barricade so Cosette can finally have the future she deserves. Javert's failure to accept his own growth when he breaks his code of ethics. In the stage version, Eponine was part of this cycle, the representation of unrequited love who will do anything for the object of her affection, even at the expense of her own life. It's a shame that Hooper felt that had to be changed for the cinematic release.

I'm not sure I need to see it again in the theater (though after checking imdb and seeing Frances Ruffelle - the original Eponine - credited as one of the whores, I'm insanely curious to go back and watch for her part), but I don't regret going. It's flawed, but there are so many layers to peel away from the experience, it was worth it.

Proud of San Francisco

Sometimes, I love where I live so very much.

Last week, San Franciso's Health Commission voted to create a comprehensive program for uninsured transgender residents.

It won't happen right away, of course. They need to figure out costs and parameters first. But the point is, measures are being taken to give rights to individuals who constantly get ignored or forgotten.

I know a lot of people who will be upset by this. Unfortunately, some of them are in my extended family. I've never gotten that. They often use religion as justification, and though I know plenty of religious people who don't do that, it still boggles me when I run into that wall.

Shouldn't it be our priority as human beings to look after those who can't?

It's not California, but at least there's hope.

I tweeted about this yesterday, but I just wanted to post about it again because it fills me with so much glee.

Part of the election process on Tuesday saw two more states granting marriage equality for all. It's so encouraging to see forward steps being taken, especially since I still get sick to my stomach remembering the 2008 elections, and waiting up until nearly 6am watching the results on Prop 8. I tend to avoid discussing politics with anyone (unless we both already know we share the same views), but I got all fired up about that one, largely in part to how misinformation was being so widely disseminated to ignorant people who didn't bother do any fact-checking. I still live in hope that California will go back to doing what's right, allowing anyone who wants to get married, regardless of gender.

In the meantime, I'll be grateful that there are havens in the US for those couples who want the basic rights they deserve.

The same old fights

Yesterday, Dan Savage posted his must-read for the day, a 35-year-old episode of All in the Family called "Cousin Liz." In it, Norman Lear introduced a lesbian to the American public. It's amazing watching it now. Yes, the show can get a little preachy, but the edge and honesty it brought most of the time sets it apart from most sitcoms.

So I'm doing my part, as Dan requested. I'm spreading the word on it. Some of what Edith says just makes me tear up. And why are we still having these same fights, thirty-five years later?

Thinking outside the box

My husband, who's a science geek to the core, always tells me I'm the creative one in this relationship. But creativity isn't limited to fantasy worlds artists create, whether it's with words, music, or paint.

It's about thinking outside the box. The ability to imagine something that isn't there. Frankly, I marvel at scientists. The lengths they go to, the research they undertake to try and make this world a better place, so many things that all of us take for granted.

For instance, I was reading today about some recent research done at Harvard. A group of people from various disciplines - mechanics, tissue engineering, and materials science - have been working on creating a new substance, a hybrid hydrogel with phenomenal strength and elasticity. Though it's still in developmental stages, the preliminary results are incredibly encouraging in a number of fields, including many potential applications in medicine. It's being posited that it could become an artificial cartilage, replacing broken or destroyed cartilage in humans, a process that is currently impossible.

How amazing would that be? Osteoarthritis plagues millions of people, with joint replacement on the rise. There is no cure for it, just treatment, but if ten or fifteen years down the line, the scientific community finds a way to utilize this hydrogel safely within human biochemistry, a common affliction could become much less so. Those aches and pains that so many have to live with could be a thing of the past.

And that's not even taking into consideration other possible uses for it. The article mentions both robotics and optics, as well as artificial muscles, but I'll bet that's just the tip of the iceberg. It always is, isn't it? We're only limited by our imaginations.

Lucky for us, scientists have some of the best ones.

Unpopular opinions

On Thursday, Dear Author posted an article about a high school girl's basketball coach who'd written a how-to guide for women on how to make a man love you. In it, he makes claims that have infuriated a lot of women. Many readers have weighed in on their opinion of this, and most tend to agree that he should be fired. That his misogynistic attitude is too creepy to be allowed near high school girls because he wrote the book as non-fiction, claimed workplace experience with women, and used his real name.

I have to admit, I don't agree with the popular opinion on this one. While I intensely dislike his attitude, as well as the admission of so-called real world experience (though he never cites the students specifically, that's an inference everyone is making, and honestly, how do we know he's not referring to all the female teachers he's worked with over the years), unless he's in some way inappropriate with the kids, I don't think there's fair basis to force him out of his job. To me, it wouldn't be any different than firing a female teacher who wrote erotic romance. A judgment is being made about him that may or may not be correct, and frankly, firing someone just because they're an asshole isn't right. Any one of us has worked with people we thought were awful, women who were catty bitches, men who were chauvinistic pigs. That doesn't give us the right to take away their job, just because we don't like or agree with them.

I understand that he works in a profession that demands higher standards regarding his personal life than others. Odds are good that he'll be held accountable for it. But you know, I can't agree with it if this is the sole reason used for his firing. It would make me a hypocrite since I would get equally outraged at a woman getting fired for writing erotic romance. Would I like his coaching my daughter? No. But unless his attitude is bleeding into his job performance - and nobody can say it is at this point - all I can do is make sure that I've done my role as a parent and taught her to recognize acceptable behavior and mores.