A Different Kind of Media Bias?

I am a television junkie. It started at a young age, with my mother fueling my habit. We'd roll the television table around the corner and watch while we ate. When she bought a new set, the old one went in my bedroom. I fell asleep most night with it on.

No surprise that I grew up still loving television. And while I'll watch a not-so-great show if it's fun, my tastes have become a bit more discerning. There is a lot of good storytelling on TV these days. Sometimes what I see on the tube is better than what I see at the movies. There's more originality and risk-taking, especially on networks like BBC, HBO and Showtime. AMC and USA also produce a fair share of good programming.

Which leads me to The Killing on AMC. The review I heard on NPR described it as Twin Peaks meets 24 meets Murder One meets The X-Files. Okay, they had my attention.  Here is the blurb from AMC's website:

The Killing ties together three distinct stories around a single murder including the detectives assigned to the case, the victim's grieving family, and the suspects. Set in Seattle, the story also explores local politics as it follows politicians connected to the case. As the series unfolds, it becomes clear that there are no accidents; everyone has a secret, and while the characters think they've moved on, their past isn't done with them. 

 Cool, right?

Well, no.

I've watched four episodes now, and I don't see where all the love is coming from. Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, NPR, etc. all gave glowing reviews of this show. I will admit that the story line with the victim's grieving family is something I haven't seen handled in depth on television before. It's realistic and well-acted.

However, the rest of the show is one big cliche'. Let me list just a few:

-Cop gets handed a big case on her "last day" at work
-Cop also gets saddled with a new partner
-Said partner has just moved to homicide from vice, with all the twitchy suspect behaviors that an undercover vice cop can be expected to display
-Single mother (Cop) is resisting making commitment to "nice guy" 
-Politician can't trust people in his own camp
-Politician is sleeping with an aide

-It is hinted that politician's dead wife was a victim of violent crime
-Politician's campaign is linked to murder victim
-Victim was a good kid from wrong side of tracks
-Victim's ex-boyfriend is a bad kid with lots of money
-Victim's best friend didn't know what she was up to

And so on.

I've heard the lead, Mireille Enos, praised for her acting. Again, sorry, but all she does is chew gum and stare--at people, at evidence, at walls. It would fine if you could see any kind of emotion or even evidence of thinking going on behind those stares, but there isn't.

Why the big disconnect then between what the critics are all saying and what I think?

I could be totally off base. But there have been enough comments from others that I don't think I'm waaaay out there. I think that critics get in ruts just like the rest of us. They love a book from Author Q or a movie from Director J or Actor V. And maybe they like the next effort. And the next. And soon, anything that Author, Director, Actor or TV Network does is A-Okay by them. 

The opposite happens, too. Author P, Director I and Actor U can do nothing right. Maybe some of their efforts haven't produced the best results. But soon it doesn't matter. The best book ever written or the best movie ever made will be roundly trounced by these critics simply because it comes from these people.

Does this just mean that critics are human? Perhaps. But I find it disappointing when those critiques I've trusted steer me in the wrong direction. Does this mean that now I have to distrust everything they say?

In Defense of "Was"

We've all heard it, right? Avoid all "to be" verbs. They weaken your writing. Find a stronger verb.

I've used Dickens as a defense. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity . . ." I've also heard that countered with, "But he wrote like 500 years ago." The person I was talking with wasn't all that bright, I admit.

Okay, here's one that's a little more current. From the best-seller "The Girl Who Played with Fire." We have learned that Lisbeth Salander has a twin sister. A twin sister quite different from Lisbeth, if only twenty minutes younger. Here is what Larsson writes:

"Lisbeth was first. Camilla was beautiful." 

Six words, two of them "was," that made me stop and say, "Wow." Didn't need much more than that to tell me volumes about these two.

And another thing about this, Larsson is not only using the dreaded to-be verb, but he's telling not showing. And it's better. He could have gone on for pages, and would have had to, to show us the same thing he tells us in six words.

I read a lot of criticisms about The Millenium Trilogy" that centered on Steig Larsson's story-telling style. That he tells too much, and this keeps the reader at arm's length. I must have short arms, because I've been right there with Blomqvist and Salander through two books, and I made sure I had the third on hand before I finished the second.

Your mileage may vary when it comes to the trilogy.  However, the next time you're struggling to get through a passage in a book (whether reading or writing), check to see if maybe that act of showing is what's slowing it down. Perhaps a line or two of telling could get the point across better and let you get on with the rest of the story.

Just saying.

Do It Now!

You've probably read elsewhere that instead of being nervous about dancing on stage, I had a blast. Loved being onstage, backstage, the whole experience of being in the theater. The thing is, I've dreamed about performing in some capacity since I was three years old and saw my first Shirley Temple movie. Subsequent movies, television variety shows and live theater only enforced those dreams. But, with the exception of my high school senior class play, I never did anything about it.

Why?

Well, there was school to finish, money to earn, weight to lose--you name it. Writing, which often took a back seat if not the trunk, also nudged any kind of performance out of the way.

Shame that. Here was something I thought I might enjoy that I didn't pursue. At all. For decades.

So what have you always wanted to try? That secret wish you never told anyone about? Maybe you never even fully admitted it to yourself.

Whatever it is, do it. Do it now. Don't wait. Why would you postpone what might be a great joy in your life?

Don't wait.

Not until the kids get older.
Not until things "settle down" in your life.
Not until you lose that 10 pounds.
Not until you have more money.
Not because you think you might embarrass yourself.
Not for anything.

Do it now.

You don't have to take a $200.00 art class if you want to paint. Pick up some supplies at Michael's or Hobby Lobby or even Walmart and get a book or a video.

You don't have to buy a $500.00 laptop if you want to write. A 10 cent notebook and a pen do just fine.

You can get used shoes if you want to learn to dance.

Same with learning an instrument. Check for used items online or at your local music shop.

There are free or cheap classes online for almost anything you want to learn. There may be a Parks & Rec program or community outreach classes from a local college.

But don't wait. Do it now.

The Same Amount Of Time

Project Runway is back. As is a new season of Top Chef. And watching them, I realized something. It takes just as long to make an ugly dress or an awful meal as it does a winner.

I think we, as writers, tend to dismiss bad writing as something that was just "dashed off." No real effort went into it. But that's not the case. Not always. Think about workshops or critique groups you've been in. There seems to be that one person. You know the one. Intense. Focused on their story, or character. They've been working on this manuscript for years. Honing. Reworking. And it's bad. It's really bad. Oh, there may be some redeeming value. He writes good dialogue. Or she can give you a wonderful love scene. But the characters are flat and the situations are trite. There's no music in the writing. You'd rather stick hot pokers in your eyes than read another submission from these people.


But they work at it. They spend a lot of time on their stories. So it's not laziness. I don't think it's lack of talent, whatever that is. So what is it?


Attitude. That "I know better than everyone else" attitude. The unwillingness to even listen to a different opinion. When you've got a Tim Gunn in the room, people, listen up. Because if you listen, he's not telling you to sell out or be just like everyone else. He's saying to step back and really look at what you're doing.


There have been so many people on these shows who are eliminated in early rounds, because they refuse to listen. Their attitude is that everyone else is stupid. If everyone else was just smarter or cooler or more refined, then this person would win the whole shebang. And when they leave, the parting words are usually along the lines of, "At least I didn't compromise my vision." Okay. If that's what is important to you, than go for it. But realize that people wear clothes that make them look good. We eat food that tastes good. And we read books about complex characters in interesting situations.

Now, I'm not saying that a writer should take every suggestion that comes his or her way. No more than a chef or a designer should. That would be crazy. But have a good reason for why you're doing something in a particular way. Be able to defend it with something more than, "because I want to do it that way."

So, if you're going to spend the time anyway, why not write a good book? And listen to your Tim Gunns.

Serial Killers: Part II

I tried another cozy mystery series. It had a few problems in Book1, but I could chalk that up to freshman jitters. 2nd book, about the same. By Books 3-4, it only got worse. So, I won't be seeing how she does on Book 8 or 9 like I will with Sookie.

What were the problems?

-Two characters in particular almost always use each other's names in dialogue. "Hi, John, won't you sit down?" "Thanks, Jill. That's nice of you." "Don't mention it, John. Did you find out anything about that clue we found yesterday?" "Why yes I did, Jill. Let me tell you about it." And so on. Annoying.

-She likes her protag too much. I can relate to this. My critique group is always telling me I don't beat up my protagonist enough. But I have someone who tells me this, and I fix it. This girl gets everything she wants. I can't relate to that. She even has a "mean breed" dog that no one ever acts nervous around.

-By Book 2, she established that any new characters coming into the circle of friends would be the victim. If 2 new people arrive, one is the victim and the other is the killer. And it's obvious which is which. So why read past the first chapter?

-Doesn't even come close to real police procedure. The protagonist (not in law enforcement) has nabbed a couple murderers by secretly taping them confessing. And apparently this has held up in court. In the most recent one, a key piece of evidence was buried under debri at the crime scene. The police neglected to search thoroughly so it was found during the owner of the property's clean-up. The item so upset the owner that the protag took it back to her house. Then she called a retired detective, after major handling of the thing, who carried it back to his place before taking it in. Can you say "chain of evidence"? Yeah, thought so.

What could save this series for me? Well, start adhering at least a little bit to the realities of what would and wouldn't be admitted into evidence for starters. Then kill off one of the inner circle. There are now about 6 couples (everyone eventually pairs off in this series) and a few incidental characters (who are married, but the spouse hasn't been seen yet). It's getting crowded. It would shake things up nicely, and make any threat more, well, threatening.

But I won't be around to see it. It's too bad. There was potential there. For a while I'm switching back to other genres. Right now I'm reading The Time Traveler's Wife. Present tense bugged me for about two paragraphs, and then I realized it has to be that way. Pulled in hook, line and sinker. Hope it pays off.

Shortcuts Make Long Delays

As you may have noticed, many of my friends are writers. Very talented writers. The links for some of them are at the left (in the current template anyway). And they all work at their craft to make it better. Some are at the point of putting their babies in front of agents.

One friend recently entered a contest with a big prize--publication by a major publishing house. Pretty cool, huh? This friend made it through the first cut but did not make it to the last round. Bummer. And I would be bummed, too. Think about all the steps you could skip just by winning this contest.

That's the dream, isn't it. Not having to do the slog. You know the one. The seemingly endless querying of agents. Realizing after you hit the on the email to Agent A that you've left in the opening paragraph that relates to Agent Z. Getting rejection after rejection. Then a request for pages. Which turns into a rejection. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then finally getting the agent only to have to go through it all again with editors.

It's why we go to conferences and put ourselves through pitch sessions. Or join social networking groups in order to maybe possibly meet Agent J (or his cousin) or Editor M (or her mother's neighbor's best friend's daughter). Anything to get us closer to the person who will say yes without all the other nonsense. And it's why we enter contests.

But I'm beginning to suspect that writing is like other things in life. Most of us have to do the slog. Write. Rewrite. Rewrite again. Query. Submit. Query. Submit. And while you're querying and submitting, you're also writing and rewriting other things.

The only shortcut I see is to keep writing through the disappointments. Because if we let each and every setback stop the process for a few days or a month or a year (and that has happened to more than one of us), then it just becomes a longer and harder slog. With the feeling that even more is on the line. The little successes can interrupt the flow, too. Oooh, Agent S asked for a full. I'm going to send it off and celebrate by not writing anything until I hear back, because she might want some big revisions and I want to be waiting by the phone. Uh huh.

Maybe the biggest revelation in all of this is that, for me, the writing has to be an end in and of itself. Maybe that needs to be the goal. Not nabbing an agent. Not getting published. Writing. Just for the sheer joy and necessity of it. Publication can be the extra sprinkles on top. Because if I don't love the writing, why am I doing this? There are easier ways to make a buck. Other things I enjoy doing in my free time. And focusing too much on that end of things can make me forget why I started doing this in the first place. Because I love putting one word after the other and seeing what they create.

Not that I don't want the sprinkles.

And whipped cream.

And maybe a cherry.

OMG

Revision is the Mobius Strip of writing!

Warning: Political Content

I don't usually talk politics here. Not because I'm not interested. Not because I don't have opinions. But because, over the past decade, I've learned to keep my mouth shut. I live in a community in which I am most decidedly in the minority. I've also worked at a company (not my current one, I'm happy to say) where having it known that I was part of that minority made my life hell. So I said nothing. Especially not publicly.

Add to that the atmosphere of fear that has been built in this country over the last eight years. "You must be afraid" and "It won't work" and "No, you can't".

Well, last night I heard a man stand up and say "Yes, we can!" I watched people of all ages, races, religions, incomes and from all around the globe celebrating that man and what he stands for. I felt a glimmer of hope. That just maybe we can put aside our fear and distrust and do something good. Make a difference. Make things better.

On this cold gray November morning, I feel warm. And I'm smiling.

Oh, and check out Pat's blog today. I dare you not to cry.

NaNo Gets Short Shrift For A Bigger Issue

I'm off to a slow start this year for NaNoWriMo. But I'm looking at it like athletic training. You start slow and build. Yeah, training. So, I'm stealing time at work where I can. And I've got a weekend coming up with nothing much planned.

What about tonight?, you ask. Well, there's this thing called an election going on. And I know I'm going to be parked in front of the tube, watching Comedy Central's coverage--don't laugh, they usually have the smartest and least annoying people covering these things. Elections are important. So, I'm giving myself permission to care about something other than writing tonight. I'm hoping there's a clear outcome before I go to bed. And I'm hoping it's the one that helps me sleep better.

BTW, if you haven't voted yet, please do so. Vote your conscience.

I Don't Need A Hero

A couple weeks ago, I realized that I wasn't enjoying Heroes the way I had in the first season. Too many characters, too much of them acting against the way they'd been drawn. Even the acting started to bother me. It seems like many of the main characters--the ones we've known from the start--now have one expression. Peter Petrelli in particular. [say that ten times fast] And part of the problem for the show is that the one before it, Chuck, is a heck of a lot more fun to watch. Still have a guy saving the world, but he's a bumbling hero. All he wants is the girl he can't have. Besides any show with Adam Baldwin in it has a definite advantage over one that doesn't.

Then this week my Entertainment Weekly shows up with a cover story about Heroes being in trouble. The other day Courtney posted on her blog about no longer taking up DVR space with the show. I also realized that over a month into the new season and the Pirates have not discussed it once. Bad signs all around. Looks like that fascinating tipping point thing has kicked in.

For me, though, it's going a bit deeper. More shows are annoying me this year. Top of the list? I may get lynched for this, but House. This show, too, suffers from a surfeit of characters. And I don't like the new ducklings. Never did. Bring back Chase and Cameron. Those two held their own against House. And why would anyone let this man treat them? You'd better be at death's door when you show up, because he's going to put you there anyway. If he's such a diagnostic genius, let him be geniusy. Instead of one big mystery, let there be half a dozen people with different problems. I've always thought the best parts of the show were when he's working the clinic. That's almost been non-existent this year. And please let's end the requisite strong woman reaching middle age and realizing she forgot to have a baby-oh my!-subplot and let Cutty get back to being the kick-ass administrator she's supposed to be.

I guess this is a good way to feel going into NaNoWriMo month. I won't have much time for television watching anyway. Guess I'll just wait until Burn Notice and Dr. Who come back. In the meantime I can watch my DVDs of Dexter Season Two and both seasons of Torchwood. Maybe check out True Blood online. In December, of course.

Wow! And Disappointment

First the Wow! Dark Knight would have knocked my socks off had I been wearing any. Very dark, very disturbing. Without going into spoilage territory for the handful of people who haven't seen it yet, it's about choices and where a person draws the line and then what would make them cross that line if anything. Add the additional layer of a tour de force performance by Heath Ledger and the obvious thought of what he might have been able to do as he matured even more as an actor and it gets darker and more disturbing. Great performances by all, with maybe the exception of Maggie Gyllenhall who seemed to be trying for a Katie Holmes impersonation.

Now for the disappointment. Not total, but enough. As promised, I picked up my copy of Breaking Dawn, the final installment of the Twilight series, on Saturday morning and dove in. All seven hundred and fifty-four pages of it. Even with it being the longest book in the series, it didn't seem to have the bloat the other three did. One of the things I like about the books is the humor--particularly from Edward and his brother Emmett and that's in brilliant evidence. And I have a feeling that the teenage readers will be thrilled with it. Let me just say before the break that I think Meyer copped out. And that makes me want to retract what I wrote about the first 3 books. To rate them lower than I did on first reading. Not the way you want fans to react.

Again, I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but I would say that if you plan to read the series yourself, STOP HERE--POTENTIAL BREAKING DAWN SPOILERS AHEAD (highlight with cursor if you want to read it):

Early on there is a choice one of the main characters has to make. It should be a difficult and scary choice that at least takes into consideration another character's opinion. There is no hesitation nor consideration. Just, done. There could be dire consequences, but no. Meyer's religious bias is apparent. I wouldn't have had a problem with the choice, if there had been some deliveration at least. And throughout the book there is not one bit of sacrifice on the part of the main character. None. Gets everything without losing anything. Makes it sort of hollow. And sad in a way.

So a fifty-fifty weekend. Although I devoted a lot more time to consuming Breaking Dawn, I have and will spend much more time thinking about Dark Knight.

Heroes and Genre

Over on Marie's blog (see new entry under Friends of Debbie), she discusses the phenomenon of wanting favorite authors to have lived lives as exciting as the ones they write about. She uses Jane Austen and the highly fictionalized movie about her brief acquaintance with a gentleman as an example.

I think we do that with all of our heroes. We want them to have lived extraordinary lives before they create extraordinary works. Even with politicians, business moguls, athletes, etc. Because if they were just ordinary before they did these things, well then, why aren't the rest of us ordinary folk doing extraordinary things?

But I think with authors there's another level to it. And it has to do with genre. In order to write in a particular genre, one should look and be a certain way. Face it, we want horror writers to look like Stephen King or speak like Alfred Hitchcock. And romance authors should be beautiful, sexy women who've had dozens of exciting lovers. Only ex-Navy Seals or other special ops veterans can write a good thriller, right? Mystery/crime authors are British men who smoke pipes, and cozy mysteries are written by little old gray-haired ladies with a dozen cats each. Sci-fi writers are geeks with thick glasses. Fantasies, well I picture Neil Gaiman, but I think the standard would be a stuffy old professor of ancient runes. Literary fiction? Too cool for school New Yorker, born and bred. Can't be more than thirty either. Women's fiction? Thirty-something career woman turned housewife.

I'm not sure any of the Pirates fit the mold. Except maybe Bret, who spent 20 years in the Navy. Jenny looks nothing like Stephen King. Shane's pretty cool, but he's from California. Mary, too, is cool but from right here in Colorado. I'm neither 30-something nor a housewife. Ali, not stuffy or old. Nicole, ditto. DB would hit me if I ever called her a little, old lady. Hard. Fleur isn't a British man and I've never seen her smoke a pipe, but who knows? John hasn't settled on a genre, and may not, why should he? But given the examples above, he looks like he could be ex-special ops so he'll have to write straight thrillers.

So we're all doomed. Except, the stereotype is, as all stereotypes are, ridiculous. We don't have to be struggling, depressed, starving artists to write wonderful stories. We don't have to put everything into our work and let our characters lead our lives for us. We can just write. And just live. And be ordinary or extraordinary as we see fit and still create wonderful, magical, incredibly beautiful works.

News as Entertainment, Entertainment as News

Heath Ledger died yesterday. That is all that is known for sure right now. Yet, every 'news' report is leading with the 'story' today. Before the autopsy was even performed, speculation was reported as fact. Words were thrown around.

Overdose
Brooding
Easy-going
Depressed
Suicide
Accident

"Well, that's their job," a coworker said this morning. No, their job is to report what really happened. And no one knows that right now. It could take up to 10 days to get a toxicology report back. The ME has said the autopsy was inconclusive. Yet, you'll see and read reports over the next week about 'what really happened'. Yet none of it will be the whole story. Because they're rushing it out. They're talking to only one person at a time and then regurgitating that one person's point of view.

What happened to journalistic integrity? Fact checking and getting second sources and all of that? Some of it is the competition between the 24 hours news outlets. But what about the magazines? Will Entertainment Weekly and People and Us wait to start their articles until all the medical and forensic reports are in? Doubt it. I'd bet that the next issue of each will feature Heath Ledger on the cover.

***From Ad Age: NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- People magazine's issue on newsstands Friday will be the only celebrity title this week with a cover story about the awful, but clearly biggest, news of the cycle: yesterday's discovery of Heath Ledger dead at 28. ***

And here's the tough question: is it really news? It's tragic for someone that young and talented to die. But young, talented people die on a daily basis and it doesn't even make a headline in a local paper. This goes hand in hand with the reporting about Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. Is it really news? I don't think so. But there it is. They've been on a movie screen or been recorded singing and that makes them special.

Another coworker went to a funeral last night. A 15-year old girl made a bad decision about sneaking out of the house and was killed in a car accident. Sad. Tragic. I just Googled it and only one local television channel's website comes up. Not the local newspaper or the other three television stations.

A lot of people died last night. And a lot of people mourned last night for people who died in previous nights.