Musings

This post is in answer to Sam Butler requesting that I reproduce a conversation we had back in November. Of course I have absolutely no memory of what I said, but according to Sam it was thoughtful, so I’m going to try and remember that, apparently, I was once brilliant.

As I recall this was in answer to why characters on television shows will make a choice that seems totally out of character, or against their best interests simply to keep them in a relationship, or on the island, or working as a cop when you’ve won the lottery, etc. Basically why television characters are static.

I think it’s a question of the need that television fills in our entertainment lives. Watching a TV show isn’t as intense as watching a movie. The events in a television series take place over weeks, months, even years. Most successful movies cover a very limited amount of time.

We don’t bond with movie characters as deeply as we bond to our TV friends. People tune in week after week, year after year to see if House ever stops being such a bastard and finds love, or if Buffy and Angel will ever find happiness, or Lee Adama will ever come out of his father’s shadow, etc. etc. Not that we every want House to find love, or Buffy and Angel move in together. We have an emotional connection to these people, and as viewers _don’t want them to change_.

Our lives are stressful and chaotic right now. It’s comforting to come back to a situation and a group of friends that are always going to be there for you. Tony Soprano isn’t going to become a priest and dedicate his life to working among the lepers. Buffy isn’t going to decide to go to work for Exxon-Mobile and become an executive.

Daniel Abraham www.bram452.livejournal.com has a theory that readers/viewers bond and identify with the first characters they meet in a book or a TV series. I think he may be on to something and that’s why it’s very hard to replace that first beloved character. When Linda Hamilton aka Catherine left BEAUTY AND THE BEAST the viewers never accepted the new leading lady. (Whose name I’ve completely forgotten. Indeed, I’ve forgotten everything about her. But god help me I remember Vincent and Catherine.)

So, here’s my bottom line — television is comfort food. It’s a plate of pasta or a piece of chocolate cake after a really bad and stressful day.

Some of you may have seen the Clinton/Obama struggle seen through the prism of Frank Herbert’s DUNE courtesy of Snarkyboys.com via Walter Jon Williams www.walterjonwilliams.blogspot.com. (I’m not linking to the Snarky Boys because I’ve been searching for their website and keep getting an error message and I don’t want to pass it on to any readers. If anybody has the correct address for the Boys, please share it with the class.) Anyway, I’m going to reproduce it here

The Dune Theory of Democratic Politics, Revised

We were wrong; Barack Obama is the the Democratic Party’s Kwisatz Haderach. He is the shortening of the way, the one who shall give meaning to our lives and make our planet anew.

Like Paul Muad’Dib, his youth was shaped by the untimely loss of his father, who was not of this land. He has been rigorously trained, and recently endured a painful test at the hands of a Bene Gesserit Witch. He achieved a surprise victory in his first combat and it is said that his greatest power is his voice. By some reckonings, he has come before his time.

His enemies consider him a lightweight and dismiss his followers as religious fanatics, prone to chanting his name over and over. Though he has inherited powerful advisers, his wife is counted as a liability.

His true enemy is accused of launching a preemptive war to secure a precious resource in a desert land. Though this enemy has now left the stage, he has been succeeded by a battle-tested champion. Soon, they shall meet in single combat, and the victor shall take the reins of power.

So, on Thursday morning Ty Frank and I were chatting over cups of coffee and I happened to mention that it sure would have been nice if Bush and the NeoCons had read DUNE before they started on this Quixotic mission to remake Iraq. And we were off to the races. We started riffing over how Iraq could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion a la DUNE. I said Bush would have to go to Iraq expecting a victory, and end up captured and have to offer one of the twins. To Muqtada al Sadr, Ty sang out, and I had to struggle to keep from doing a spit take with coffee.

So, now every time I hear some talking head pontificating about old Muqtada, and start to giggle, though god knows he’s no laughing matter.

This is a post that I’ve been meaning to make for a couple of weeks. It’s riffing off a wonderful post on Ian Tregillis’s blog www.iantregillis.com where he compared and contrasted The Sarah Conner Chronicles and New Amsterdam. Go check it out, because he makes some amazing points about good storytelling vs. trite storytelling.

I thought I’d amplify a bit as a long time screenwriter about how hard that is to accomplish. There are a lot of reasons you keep seeing the same scene (with different character depending on which show your watching) over and over again. The first, really nuts and bolts reason is money. When you are making a television show you have a number of permanent sets — the bridge, the bar at Ten Forward, Picard’s office. Giles library, Buffy’s house, the club. Well, you get the idea. As a writer you set as many scenes as possible in these already constructed sets because it saves time and money not to have to build a new set or go out on location. Also, the production is amortizing the cost of these sets against the budget.

When Ian and I set down to create our world for our spec pilot OUTPOST, we thought a lot about what would be standing sets. How often would we use them if we got lucky and the show went to series? Could we pick places that would be visually interesting.

The truth is your going to have scenes where information has to be transmitted to the audience. The captain’s office whether you’re on the Enterprise, or at NYPD headquarters is a standard, conference rooms, etc. As Daniel Abraham often says — the control of information delivery is critical to a good writer — and that’s true whether you’re writing prose or a screenplay.

There are techniques to keeping this kind of imparting of knowledge fresh and interesting. Sorkin in the West Wing used the “walk and talk” brilliantly. That sense of movement, people who are busy, sharp, quick dialogue got you over what could have been a turgid recitation of “what you need to know” in a very smooth and effective manner.

If the budget can afford it setting a scene in an unexpected place can also help. When the first cops talking in the bathroom scene occurred it was really cool and different. The director got to show of his/her chops by shooting using the mirrors, and you had guys unzipping their flies, etc. I don’t remember where I saw this for the first time. Hill Street Blues probably, but if somebody knows of an earlier incident, let me know. Anyway, it was different, it was new, it was cool and exciting. Now, of course, it’s as trite as the conference room. So, maybe you have the cops come to report to their captain while he’s taking his kids to the amusement park, and they’re talking while he supports his little girl who’s riding a carousel horse. (I’m not saying these are _good_ ideas, just examples).

Another trick that can help make a scene seem less boring and familiar is giving the actor some “business” to perform. They’re kneading bread while the conversation takes place, or hanging drapes, or feeding the cats, paying off the pizza delivery kid.

There’s a danger to “business” too. Sometimes business can undercut the power of a scene. Sometimes the actor’s faces and the words can carry a moment. I had a critical scene in one of the Reasonable Doubts scripts ruined by a less than good director. This was a scene where a rouge DEA agent is warning Dickie (Mark Harmon) that they’re going to kill Mark. It should have been a tense moment between two men who are threatening each other. Instead the director made it a scene about making coffee, because he had the bad guy busily putting in a filter, measuring in the coffee, pouring in the water, etc. etc. When I watched the scene in dailies it was as flat as a fallen souffle.

So, here’s my two cents added to the discussion begun over at Dr. Tregillis’s blog.

We’ve become an MTV culture. We aren’t taking the time to get the full story about anything, and when the problems that face us are vast and complex it would be behoove us to make a deeper study of issues. As evidence of that I’m posting a couple of links that Daniel Abraham has posted on his blog. You’ll find them interesting, and a clear example that things are rarely just black and white. (A phrase that can be viewed as unfortunate or right on the money, depending.) ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/ And here is the second link ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright’s-“god-damn-america”-sermon/

I’m not posting these because I’m an apologist for the Reverend Wright, but so people can see the full context of what was said rather than an endless loop on the Fox network to push their agenda. Some of the more heated remarks, were deplorable, but far less deplorable when read in the context of the entire sermon. And Obama was right — context is everything. The context of a life spent first under Jim Crow and then the fury and violence that followed integration.

Also, as I’ve posted elsewhere. There have been times when I have been so deeply ashamed of my country, and wanted to curse it too. Watching film of policemen in the South loosing dogs on peaceful protesters, and blasting them with water cannons, the McCarthy hearings, Chicago in ‘68, the bombing of Cambodia, Abu Ghraib, the My Lai massacre. The reason these events infuriate me and break my heart are because I know the promise and greatness of this country. I want to see us match our ideals. But I will not just blindly support my country. I’m going to challenge myself and my leaders to live up to our those ideals.

I should of worked this morning. Instead I watched the telecast of Senator Barack Obama’s amazing speech about issues of race in these early years of the twenty-first century. I think it was one of the most amazing speeches I’ve ever heard, and I think it will rank with King’s “I have a dream” speech. It was both thoughtful and practical and soaring when it needed to be. He did not play it safe. It was a gutsy speech both as a black man and as a Democrat. He invited people to have the discussion — to talk about their anger and resentment _one both sides_. He acknowledged the anger of whites against busing and affirmative action. He acknowledged the anger of blacks, particularly black men, against decades of Jim Crow

Just as we’ve been fighting the Vietnam war over and over again between Bush and Kerry, we’ve been fighting the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s over and over again. Obama is inviting us, urging us to see how far we’ve come, accept that we have a distance to travel yet, and join forces to make that journey.

You can read the speech, but I urge folks to watch it and read it at www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

I wanted to give an alert to any readers of my blog about a very worthy fund raising effort. As some of you may know, the wonderful author Terry Pratchett has been diagnosed with a form of early on-set Alzheimer’s. Terry has donated one million dollars for research, and is asking that people match his donation. You can donate and get all the details at www.matchitforpratchett.org

No one should have to suffer the indignity of this disease, and there is promising new research. Let’s help with the effort.

Thanks,

I finished the very large rewrite of my second book in the EDGE series last night! I emailed it to my editor, Patrick and to my agent, Kay. I collapsed in a gibbering heap. I think it is much improved and for that I owe thanks to my amazing writer’s group, Critical Mass. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my terrific editor who gave me the time I needed to improve this book. I’m looking forward to his notes that will take this book up another level.

This book is also an example of how stress affects your work whether you’re doing something creative or working as an accountant, landscaper, nurse, you name it. I was writing THE EDGE OF RUIN during the year we were building our house. Building a house is stressful when it works well, and we had the contractor from Hell so it was a nightmare. During this period I also lost Steppi, my grand prix horse to a terrible colic. It was probably the worst year of my life.

Book One, THE EDGE OF REASON is where my protagonist learns the secret that underlies much of the history of the world. Book two is where he comes to terms with the fact that he has to be in charge, and he learns to draw on his strength of will. Those of you who’ve been to my website, and downloaded THE ENSIGNS OF COMMAND will have seen my fascination with issues of leadership.

All in all yesterday was a really good day. Now I have to go deal with Western Minerals and Oil, and stop being a creative person and transform myself into a hard nosed business woman. Far less fun.

Oh, P.S. I got a nice review in Publisher’s Weekly. Usually I don’t read reviews because the book is published and there’s not a damn thing I can do to change it, and if they hate it, it just makes me feel bad because I’m a writer and I have a fragile little ego, but a good friend, and librarian Gail Gerstner-Miller mailed me a copy of the review. When it fell out of the envelope I was puzzling over why the clipping and by then I had read part of it.

That I love my horse. Except when I want to kill him. Like today. I had a great riding lesson, and he seems to be accepting my refitted saddle which is a big relief. I did not need to buy a new saddle right now. Well, great might be a bit strong. I learned a lot, but he was lazy because I could tell he needed to pee when I was saddling him. I left the saddle off to try and get him to urinate, but he just stretched out and then looked at me, so the saddle had to go on and we had to ride. When he has to pee he doesn’t like to really move — which is understandable. When I finished riding he started to stretch under me so I hopped off, and pulled off the saddle and just turned him loose in the arena to roll, and… oh,… pee. But he just kept standing at the gate flirting with Lauren and me.

I then learned from Lauren that a big article is being written about her and about Lusitanos as dressage horses, and the woman is coming to interview her and take photos on Friday. Lauren wants me to ride Vento for the photo shoot because an amateur rider on a six year old stallion (BTW, he turned six yesterday) says it all about the disposition of the Lusitano. So, I’ve got to be at the barn at 8:00 am, and on the horse at 9:15, and out of there by 10:00. Boy is Friday going to be a long day.

Anyway, the cold and snow and mud has meant that Vento hasn’t had a bath and he’s very dirty horse. But he has to look great for his close-up on Friday so he needed a bath. We were actually above sixty degrees this afternoon, and the wash rack has a heater on the ceiling so I figured I’d scrub him with my blueing shampoo. We got through the bath with only the sleeves of my sweater soaked. (Usually when I bathe a horse they manage to soak me from head to foot.) I put a wool cooler on him and took him for a walk in the sunshine. He was blindingly white, just beautiful.

He was dancing around, because he _still hadn’t peed_, and making it hard for me to walk him. He was pretty dry so I took off the cooler and turned him loose in one of the turn-outs. Which are footed with sand. Very find sand. He gave a little grunting whicker, and hit the ground before I could react. I’ve never seen a horse roll that fast. When he got up he looked like he was breading himself in preparation for a run through the deep fryer.

He got another bath. Then he stood under the heater while I cleaned tack. And then I locked him in his stall where it’s just sawdust over rubber mats. He was not happy with me. I got home at six o’clock. Because my horse thought he wanted to be a hush puppy.

I’ve been really good, and haven’t burbled about Vento for several weeks. But… have I mentioned I love my horse? Today I’ve got a riding lesson in the morning, and a saddle fitting in the afternoon. I’ve been riding in borrowed saddles since I got my boy, and it hasn’t been fun for either of us. Finally we tried a Legacy that my friends owns, and it fits him wonderfully, but then I’m having to make sure I don’t overlap with her ride times, and we don’t get to ride together.

A lot of people don’t realize the importance of a good fitting saddle. They just throw the same saddle on different horses, and ride off. That’s why most horses are going through life with chronic back pain. I’d never get that far with Vento — he’s the horse version of the heroine in Once Upon a Mattress (which if you don’t do musical comedy is a retelling of the Princess and the Pea). Anyway, if I put a saddle on him that doesn’t fit right he tightens up his back, closes his shoulder so his strides get much shorter, and eventually he starts bucking when I try to canter. The Iberian Prince will not tolerate an ill fitting saddle!

The saddle we are adjusting was custom made for my horse Pi. Fortunately on a Schleese saddle the tree itself can be adjusted. Which is good because Pi’s back measured as a medium width, and Vento wears an extra-wide saddle. For those of you who have never done this I’ll give a little background. First the saddle technician just stands in front of the horse and behind the horse and looks down his back. Then they measure with a flexible piece of metal. If they decide to go all the way they pull out this device that fits across the entire back like a saddle, but it has hundreds of soft pins in it. When you lift it off you have a three dimensional picture of the horse’s back. Horse’s are generally left footed so often the right side of their body is not as well developed as the left.

Once that is done the technician takes my saddle, and cuts open the leather. She then expands the tree, and reflocks the saddle. Usually a saddle is stuffed with lambs wool between the tree and the leather. She flocks based on what the pin measure showed, so there will be more padding on the side of his back that is less developed, etc. The goal is that the saddle sits level on his back, doesn’t pinch and impede his shoulders or pinch or put pressure unevenly on his back. Saddles are now made with really wide gullets (the channel on the underside of the saddle that runs down the middle of the horse’s spine) In the old days they were very narrow, but now they realize you don’t want to have anything pressing on the horse’s spine. If you do it impedes the swing of their back, and that’s what gives you those big floating steps.

Anyway, now you’ve heard more about saddles than you ever wanted to know. But maybe the other writers will find it useful. And I got to talk about my horse — because when I’m not riding him I’m thinking about when I get to ride him again.

I’ve lost all respect for Hillary Clinton. I’ve listened to her praise herself and John McCain as being ready for that “3:00 am call” or “to be Commander-in-Chief and reduce Obama to a guy who gave a speech. I truly think that she would rather see McCain win rather than allow Obama to win the nomination. I guess she thinks that this would be a tactically good move for her — McCain’s old, maybe he’ll only serve one term, and she can then try again in 2012.

But what about the damn Supreme Court? I’d always liked the Clintons, but now I see what’s been said about them was, sadly, true, they really only care about themselves — the country can just go hang as long as they get what they want. I don’t mind a tough campaign, but this is trashing the party and the things we stand for. She’s rapidly becoming Lieberman, and believe me, I don’t mean that as a compliment.

Oh, and in case you missed it — that whole NAFTA flap — it was the Clinton campaign who actually went to the Canadian government and said this was just all posturing. Obama’s guy took the meeting, but repeated his candidate’s position — there needed to be some re-negotiation. Obama’s campaign flubbed the response badly, but out and out lies make me crazy. I, the super-voter, am beginning to understand why people don’t vote.