Jenn's World

I haven't had a chance to watch the entire first GOT episode yet, but I did take time to start browsing the reviews and see what critics were thinking.

A mix of good and bad, mostly. And a bit of the expected pooh-poohing of the fantasy genre by mainstream critics. I have no problem with the critics who disliked the show...from the first clip of the first episode, I kind of had a "well, this is pretty good but also a little meh" feeling, partly because some of the acting didn't live up to the gorgeous scenery and cinematography, and partly from fannish gripes: ie, it seems like they de-awesomified Catlyn, I could shoot a bow and arrow better than Bran when I was his age, etc. Stupid complaints, really. It looks like they went above and beyond--I saw a documentary talking about how the right-handed actress for Arya had to learn to do everything left-handed and I was like, Really? Even I'm not obsessed enough to care about that. Besides the acting, there were also some odd...SQUEEEEE! TYRION! OMG! SQUEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway. (*Brushes off soiled dignity*)

But when critics go outside the show and start criticizing the audience for fantasy novels, I start getting a little pissy. I thought this kind of talk would lose some of its steam after Return of the King's Best Picture Oscar.

Par example, from the New York Times:

"The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half."

Um...(*raises hand*). Isn't it a little patronizing of said reviewer to decide what females do and do not enjoy? And, of course, it couldn't possibly be that a reviewer from the New York Times who scoffs at the entire fantasy genre might be moving in different circles than those who enjoy such literature. Or perhaps she thinks she can recognize a fantasy fan by sight? Because we save our dragonlance t-shirts for the conventions, we must not exist?

I don't have the surveys on me, but between 40-60 percent of fantasy readers are female. I suspect G.R.R.M.'s demographic tips male because of his cruelty to the characters, but if you look at Tolkien's fans, I bet it's a different story. Just because female nerds are still more socially stigmatized than their male counterparts (this may not be true--but I know I certainly draw funny looks every time I plop down at a M:TG table) and so don't wear our geeky cred so openly, doesn't mean we don't exist. [I've actually been thinking about trying to found a sci-fi/fantasy book group at my local college, coincidentally enough.]

I haven't bothered to send her an angry email. The internet backlash has already begun. (I wrote this before perusing the web to see what fire has been unleashed, and the Huffington Post does a better job of summing up the stupidity of this review than I do.) I figure the review writer will just ignore the electronic tempest or say she was using rhetorical hyperbole to make a point (I have a stuffed unicorn named Hyperbole, by the way. Speaking of nerdness). But I thought I'd make my representative stand on teh internets, anyway. If you don't like the show or the fantasy genre, fine. If you don't like the feminist implications of Martin's work, fine. But don't assume that a group that you obviously have no knowledge of is a cul-de-sac of white, horny, pimply Comic Book Guy lookalikes dressed in elf ears just because that's what your television has told you. Because we're all around you, girlfriend. Fat and thin, near-sighted and not, socially awkward or well-adjusted. And some of us don't like being talked down to by reviewers who assume that everyone of a single gender will share a single opinion.


In other news, I get to go to grad school. And they gave me a scholarship and research-assistanceship that means I won't have to pay a cent for tuition. We turned in our final for Brandon Sanderson. I finished 80,000 words in three and a half months, and turned in another 10,000 word outline. Yay me!

I'm reading a book that features the POVs of multiple siblings. As soon as I saw that, I sat back and started waiting for the father to die. It took 100 pages for him to kick the bucket, but kick the bucket he did. After George R.R. Martin did that so wonderfully in Game of Thrones, other authors have tried imitating it with various levels of success. Most of them end up failing. At this point in time, I'm so jaded, I prefer the authors who kill the father off pretty quick, or make it so obvious he's going to die, you're interested in the how, not the actual event. Books whose only twist is that the father dies bore me, because I can see it coming from fifty miles away.

The amazing thing is, when I read Game of Thrones the first time, I didn't see it coming. Looking back, I'm not sure how I missed it. Fantasy books are like Disney moives--if daddy's there at all, daddy's going to die so that the kids can go on adventures. Mommy is sometimes left alive--perhaps because our social views of women allow for a more passive female character. Mom is helpless, but dad, if he were alive, would do something, so we have to kill him for the sake of the plot. I've heard discussions of "orphan syndrome" related to middle grade and young adult fiction, but not in fantasy as a genre. The only example I can think of at the moment where the dad didn't die is Wheel of Time.

I think why Game of Thrones succeeded in the whole orphaning is because George R.R. Martin is such a wizard with slight of hand. He had us focussed on the mystery, the politics, the threads going on in other realms... (the wall, Daeny). We were so busy wondering if Cercei was going to kill Robert or Jaime was going to kill the children or what that we didn't notice the main character's death sneaking up on us.

So, if you're going to kill a father-figure in your book, at least give me a mystery to distract me while I wait for the inevitable assassination/beheading. Better yet, maybe you can let a father live, occasionally.

August progress report: I'm currently reworking a revision of God's Play; adding occasionally to Skin Farm, which is now two-thirds done; and plotting a new epic fantasy novel called City of Murderers, which may be my next project. I have more projects than I have patience to write. I'm listening to Terry Pratchett audio books and the aforementioned father-killing novel, which so far has been a demonstration of incredibly poor writing. I keep wondering if it's a translation, because many of the sentences make absolutely no sense. Terry Pratchett, on the other hand, is brilliant, and even more brilliant when read in the dry, British accents of Nigel Planer.

WRITING PROMPT #17

Title: Agree to Disagree
Genre: Any
Type: Character

So I had a dream. I don't remember the content, but I do remember this--I was watching something, something significant. I woke up and rolled over and went back to sleep. I repeated the same dream, except this time, I was someone different. And it showed. The changes in my perception were slight, but important. My actions were slightly different as well. Both character perceived each other's reasons for doing things completely inaccurately.

This happens in real life. Three people will remember the same conversation differently. They will also remember the same event differently.

I want you to take two characters through a scene. Any kind of scene--an argument, repairs to a space station in orbit, a battle against a red-skinned monster with three tongues. Write the scene from one POV, and then write the same scene from the other character's POV. How accurate are each character's perceptions? You can have them be diametrically opposed, if you want, but I think this exercise is more interesting with two characters who view the same things with only slight differences.

You can do this one of two ways. If you're like me, a discovery writer, then you write the two scenes and then compare them to gleam the differences in personality and such. If you're an outliner, you might come up with a list of major differences between how the characters see the world and try to work them into the text.

It's amazing how a little thing like an argument can completely throw off your mojo for an entire day. It destroys time you don't have, and leaves you frustrated because there's no way to resolve a conflict. Most of the time, you have to forgive, forget and move on, even though you crave the satisfaction of the other person admitting that you're right.

But enough of that. Anyway, here's the promised book reviews:

The Lies of Locke Lamora, by Scott Lynch

For writers, there are two types of books in the world--The books that make you think, "I wish I had had that idea because I could have done it so much better." And the books that make you think, "I'm so glad I didn't write that book, because otherwise I couldn't have gone along for the ride."

The Lies of Locke Lamora is definitely the latter. But what else would you expect from a Campbell award winner that the master George R.R. Martin himself graces with a blurb? (Speaking of which, a Game of Thrones preview is up on HBOs web site. If you're a fan, go check it out.)

Locke Lamora is a thief who steals too much. In a city of glass and canals, where gladiators battle sharks and thieves are ruled by hidden gods, Lamora is a conman who plays both sides against the middle. He's ostentatiously working for a man who is the fantasy version of the Godfather, yet at the same time he's stealing from the upper class nobles that the Godfather has declared off-limits. He's kind of a Robin Hood...except that he keeps the money.

Lamora is on track for pulling off his largest heist ever, until a mage in the service of a mysterious vigilante decides to blackmail Lamora into helping his revenge scheme against the Godfather figure and the nobles both.

Who doesn't love the fictional antics of a conman? This was a guilty pleasure for me. Yes, I got my credit card number stolen once and it sure as hell wasn't funny then, but that doesn't stop me from loving Lamora as he goes on his merry, rampaging way. It's always easier to sell me on righteous thieves than righteous assassins, even though the assassin character was very popular in fantasy for awhile. It's one thing to rob rich people of their money, it's quite another to kill them, and I thought that of lot of assasin books, much like the "pimp" phenemonon that inexplicably gripped pop culture, glorified a lifestyle that, in actual reality, was very sordid and exploitative. However, because I enjoyed Lies so much, and he only ruins people instead of murdering them, I guess I have to set my principles aside. It helps that the class conflict in the book is so demarked. It's also amusing that, though Locke Lamora steals, he doesn't really know what to do with the money afterward.

This book crackles with tension and suspense. Granted, not every twist and turn was unpredictable, but it's rare for a book to startle me so frequently and to such good effect. Lynch has mastered "the surprising-yet-inevitable" art of the twist. I found my jaw dropping in the middle of the novel, and I was cursing by the time I had to set it down and go to bed.

Like the Da Vinci Code, most chapters ended with a hook to drag the reader forward. Except in this book, for me, they always succeeded. What made this feat even more impressive is that the book utilizes an unusual structure, spacing chapters about Lamora and the other character's pasts in between chapters that propelled the main narrative forward. In other words, Scott Lynch could keep me wanting more even when I knew that the stakes were low--no character deaths, just a lot of info-dumping. Yet I loved every page.

Besides being a master of colorful characterization, Lynch also has a deft hand with description. Few of the details of his world struck me as stock fantasy set dressing leftover from the LOTR movies.

Lamora is also notable for not having much of a romantic subplot. This is strictly a buddy comedy. Well, in some parts, a buddy tragedy. There is a love plot in the sequel--a book which might even be superior to the first--but (SPOILER ALERT...Scroll over the text to see it) it's pretty obvious from the beginning that's it's going to be a case of women in refrigerator syndrome--a term propagated by comic book readers and applied to the love interests of superheroes who are fated to die for the sake of the plot.

Be warned, for those of you who aren't a fan of adult language, Lamora has it's fair share of it. It's not meant as a book for children. Also be warned that the second book ends on a cliff-hanger, and Lynch's blog suggests he's been having problems that may delay the third book for some time.

But if Hunger Games was the best book I read last year, I suspect The Lies of Locke Lamora will be my favorite of 2010. I read it back in February and haven't found another book that even comes close to toppling it. Lamora was fresh and exciting in a genre that so often embraces clones. I can't wait to read the sequel, and depending on how the rest of the series goes, "the Gentlemen Bastards Sequence" might even be up there with the works of George R.R. Martin and Robert Jordan.

***

Paper Mage, by Leah Cutter

I don't know if there's ever going to be another book where the magic system is centered entirely around origami.

Xiao Zen is a female paper mage struggling in a fantasy world reminiscent of Imperial China. She folds paper creatures to bring them to life. Her family is disgusted by her profession because they believe it will harm Zen's chances of marriage, but her manipulative aunt sees it as a way to guarentee herself immortality. Zen herself isn't sure what she wants and struggles throughout the book to come to terms with her talent, her feminity, and her duties to her family.

I'm putting this book next to the Lies of Locke Lamora because they both use a similar narrative system--one chapter on background, one chapter on the present, alternating throughout the book. While structurally similar, the purposes are quite different. Lamora, though populated with a large number of memorable characters, is a plot-driven book, and even the background pages give you a dallop of mystery. Paper Mage, on the other hand, is a character driven book, where the suspense comes more from the character's decisions than from anything about the plot. Because I'm not as much a fan of character-driven fiction as I am of plot-driven fiction, this didn't necessarily always work for me as well as Lynch's book did. For example, Xiao defeats the big bad evil warlord in the middle of her book, not the end, which honestly left me scratching my head a little.

Cutter is excellent at capturing a culture not her own. I'm not used to being in character's heads who are so alien from me. I think a lot of fantasy readers are so used to female characters who embrace the modern tennants of feminism, so it's surprising when we see a woman so firmly torn between career and family. And one who often believes that she is made less by the soft squishiness between her legs. Her attitude frustrated me to death sometimes, but also helped me see into a world that is admittedly very far from my own.

The setting itself is interesting. I loved the tidbits like part-rat/part-dragon monster, and how Zen has to find creative ways to defeat things with paper.

Paper Mage is an impressive study in characterization and cultural exploration. Writers can learn a lot about using foreign cultures and different ideas in this book. But if you're expecting a lot of suspense, swordfights and flashy fireballs, this is definitely not a book for you.

Or pink. Whatever.

Anyway, I'm finally back from my excessive vacation and am kicking off by blogging the BYU Life The Universe And Everything conference/seminar/thingy. Anyway, it's directed to those of us who are aspiring science fiction writers.

We'll start the morning off with "Fantasies without Magic." The panelists are: Larry Correia (Monsters Hunter International) Robert Defendi (game designer, works for people, Death by Cliche), Paul Genesse (Moderater--The Golden Cord --Iron Dragon series) and Brandon Sanderson (Mistborn and Gathering Storm, Elantris, etc.)

Forgive the typos, no time to clean up and I'm typing perched on my purse. Not the stablest of positions! Brandon's a little late. The other panelists joke about how we're all here for Brandon...but he'll be here in ten minutes.

They do their intros. Buy these guys books! They're awesome! [Note on my style--direct quotes are marked by "quote marks" and everything else is paraphrase. Parenthesis are my own comments.]

Q: Is it really fantasy if it doesn't have magic?
LC: Sure. Mine has monsters. My magic is in the background. "The real question is 'Can you have fantasy without ninjas?'" (Apparently Brandon Sanderson is going to buy the 300-people crowd doughnuts...or at least so LC promises on his behalf.)
BD: The line between fantasy and sci-fi is so blurred anyway. When it comes right down to it, what is magic? Gods? Fantastic elements versus traditional magic.
RD: George R.R. MArtin--very little magic. Apparently none. (He asks the crowd who's read GRRM and there's surprisingly little. Shame on you! SHAME!) As long as the world is different...
LC: Anne McCafferey--fantasy (kindof) without magic. Bioengerneered dragons are still dragons!

(I'm surprised no one's brought up Guy Gavriel Kay.) Description of GRRM-- "It's like getting punched in the face for 700 pages" (--LC?)

RD mentions that he was inspired to write a child-torture scene because of GRRM. Without dragons or magic, books become less escapist.

Q: How do you create a sense of wonder in the reader w/o magic?

BD: Character still confronting the impossible, overcoming that obsticle can create the sense of wonder.

Brandon Sanderson walks in and comments on Bob Defendi's beard.

"This is what ten a.m. looks like" says BS. "This is the only time of the year that I get up this early." He brags about his A parking pass.

This is Brandon's first panel ever as a guest of honor. Says he's on the wrong panel because he doesn't do this.

BS: Looking at the history of fantasy, fantasy started without magic. Conan/Tarzan are the earliest predecessors of fantasy. Gemmell, GRRM are the spiritual successors. "It's gritty, it's dirty and if there's magic, it's not understood." Setting can be sense of wonder. Tarzan had the dark continent. Conan had pre-history. John Carter of Mars, Disney's doing a film of...even though they don't have clothes on. Mars is like that.

LC: I got bashed on, compared to Conan's writer.
BS: Notes that guys in loinclothes hitting people with big swords were actually pretty eloquent.
etc., etc., etc., eloquence and nudity! Woohoo! Recommends reading it because it's better than it's expecting. "If you're going to use magic, use the place to give a sense of mystery." The far east may seem normal to us, but it can be very exotic to the characters, making it exotic to us.

LC: Doing an alternate history series coming out next year. Magic isn't wonder for the main character because she's used to it. Indoor Plumbing causes wonder. Skyscrapers become wonder.
Magic is not.

Q: At what point does magic become science?
BD: When you're Brandon Sanderson!

BS: Admits he's built his career on this. Time travel turns science into magic. Bring science back from the past and it becomes magic. Joel Rosenburg, Dragon and the George sort of thing. The same thing works in reverse--wizards can be scientists.

BD: Anytime your magic is so well understood, like the laws of physics, I think you blur the line.

(I disagree on this point. A well-defined magic system is still magic. No way it'll ever be science. Approaching something scientifically doesn't mean that the object approached is science.)

Argued with Dave Wolverton/Farland about speed runes versus endurance runes for horses, loves the nuts and bolts. The more you give me that, the more you enjoy it.

BS: Making magic a science sacrifices the wonder but gives more credance to plot. Gandalf and the vagueness of magic is okay. I have to find my sense of wonder somewhere else...usually settings. "That's one of the core ideas of fantasy: immersion." Realism, even with magic.

BD: Says he's now going to put a 'theoretical magician' in his book.

Q: When does science become magic.

PG: Speaks about an Egypt series, first book is 'Warlock' and everything he does seems like magic, but it's really not. (Sounds like a cool series! I wish I'd heard the name).

BS: Talks about GRRM. (That's what you get for coming in late, Brandon.) Calls it "proof you can do great, epic fantasy without this." His history is his strength. Brutal, but genius. Admits he couldn't read past the first book. Martin barely uses any.

(Martin does this because he has a great world. Note how many books he'd already written! I'd advise beginning authors to not expect themselves to do so well without the magic.)

Joe Abercrombie -- some magic, but heir to GRRM.

PG: Disappointed when GRRM started using more magic.
LC: Did a magic Deus ex Machina halfway through my book just because people told me I couldn't.
PG: Yes, and you swallow it because its built up.

BS: Dark urban. Fantasy gobbled up horror. Dark urban is its revision--low magic elements, like Twilight. Magical talents of vampires. "A lot of Vampire books aren't approaching it at all." Vampirism as science--STDs, blood disease. (I do like it when they talk about the science of vampires/werewolves/zombies. If the science has depth, its pretty cool.) Obviously Dresden files and those involve a lot of magic. Look at it: what do the readers enjoy. If it's not the magic,what is it?

LC: The sparkles?

BS: Wonder can come on events--what weird things would happen next.

Comment: Jonathan Strange & Mister Norrell does have the theoretical magician.

BS: Obviously, stole the idea.
LC: Is the epic quest for grant money?
BD: No, I want a magician who's like Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. (Audience shows love for Sheldon...I'm a Leonard girl, myself.).

Q: About Slipstream--

PG: Defines it. (Look it up, people.)
BS: Almost hallucinagenic, dreamlike qualities--sense of wonder and "sense of this person is stoned." Not magical, but a sense of stoned.

Other slipstream authors listed, included convention attendee L.E. Modisett.

Q: How do you define magic (Q from magic). (I always wonder why anyone asks this question. Who cares, really? Does it matter? It's like trying to define poetry...)

BS: Hard fight. Between science/magic. Star Wars gets tugged to pieces by both camps. "The line for me is someone breaks the line of physics as we understand them." Science fiction at least gives nod to what could exist.

(Odd, how this puts faster than light travel into the magic category.)

Other panelists agree.

LC: In a business sense, magic is whatever your publisher says it is. Pitched a book as epic fantasy with detailed rules, editor calls it "superheroes."
BS: Genre is a convention for booksellers, publishers and librarians. "It's a necessary evil in most people's eyes." Except the marketers... Familiar and strange balance act. Genre helds with the familiarity.
BD: Video Game marketing. It's an RPG because that's the marketing angle.

Comments: (Not sure where he's going...GRRM is an awesome writer, no duh)...GRRM has good characters, makes sympathy.

BD: Analysis on forums of GRRM...Magic is more ritual/religious than magical. Takes the place of the moral center? Ammoral characters.
BS: He makes my point about how GRRM has been doing this forever. "I think if people COULD figure out how GRRM writes, they would do it." Master of show, master of dialogue, master of characterize someone sharply, quickly, powerfully. Brilliantly brutal to his readers, but if he wasn't so good at characterization doesn't happen. Magic is not his strength. Characters were. Follow your skills! "That doesn't mean you have to do it GRRM or BS or LC or whoever's out there. Do it your own way!"

BD: Gem of wisdom: he's brutal to his readers because his characterization is so good.

(Wow...this is like the GRRM panel.)

Q: Did that Eqyptian dude believe he was a scientist or a magician?

PG: (Wilbur was the author's name). He thought the gods helped him, but he thought of himself as a man of knowledge rather than a man of magic. He thought his knowledge was a connection to the divine.

Q: How far should you take explaining the magic system before it becomes repetitious, obscure, annoying? (Good rule!)

LC: When the reader becomes bored. No hard and fast rule. Look at Mistborn
BD: I was just going to go there!
BS: I love you guys...
LC: Note, he uses the appendixes.
BS: Balance--have more information to give to those who want it, but not so much that they depend on it. BS relates it to a learning curve, how steep a learning curve--all depends on different elements. Erik Stephenson--learning curve punches you in the face. No right answer. Some people want no answers, some people want tables. Brandon tries to cater to both.

(I definitely am a reader who likes less detail in terms of magic, though more in terms of culture and creature evolution.)

BD: I remember how things worked in Mistborn, but not why. BS told us what mattered. The theory versus the practical stuff--practical stuff is more important.
BS: Establish a rule and stick to it. As long you stick to the rule, then you won't need to do why if you're not doing rule-based magic.

Final thoughts. Is it fantasy w/o magic.
LC: Yes. (Talks about signing, workshop.)
BD: It's fantasy if I say it's fantasy. (Shills for next panel).
BS: Fantasy - Alternative. Has his personal assistant tell his schedule. (HA!)
PG: Shills GRRM.

Wow, my back really hurts after that. I doubt I'll keep up that level of detail. Next is a keynote address from an artist in a room with no plugs, so no coverage for you! HAAHAHA

Neil Gaimon had an interesting writing assignment. He wrote the stories for stamps for the British mail. Wonder how you go about writing those?

I love him for writing the words "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch."

As a reader, I know the frustration of waiting for books. That's why I usually avoid starting a B.A.F.S. that isn't done yet. Is that hypocritical of me, wanting readers to buy my stuff while not wanting to take the risk myself? Probably. Eh, what can you do. People are complex.

But I was always amazed about the amount of vitriol you'd sometimes see on message boards. I remember one reader talking about how much he wished Robert Jordan, master of the Wheel of Time, would die so some other author would pick up the series and actually move the work along. If someone said that publicly, the private correspondence he got must be poisonous.

I wonder if he felt guilty when Jordan did die.

The fact is, writers do the best they can. I'll slave on my B.A.F.S. until I die, but I'm a member of the MTV generation and my attention's bound to wander. If I want to take a break to write a Conan novel, I'd wish my readers could be grateful for the hours of entertainment I'd given them and wait with scarcely concealed impatience to strip the next book from the shelves.

I love books, I love writing, but writing's not like building a house. Or, if it is, would you want your contractor to be distracted? Maybe nail the toilet to the ceiling because he/she wanted to get the job done faster?

Speaking of fast, I'm totally going to be one of those novelists who can churn out one every two months. I type an average of 3,000-8,000 words a day. Godsplay's two and a half chapters away from being finished (now weighing in at a cool 109,000 words) and it's an even dice roll whether I can get it done before CONduit this weekend.

Of course, there's still revision. And finding an agent. And finding a publisher. Maybe writing the thing was the easy part.

What would you take if you had 30 minutes to pack for an adventure out in fantasyland? Megan Messinger over at Tor.com ends up with an interesting list.

• Clothes, worn in layers rather than put in the bags. Women: long skirts, hippie shirts, pea coat, boots, and something to cover our hair. Men: slacks, boots, sweaters, pea coat, a hat. Extra socks.
• Everyone's pocket knives and Leathermans.
• Matches and lighters. This might be the only time I’m glad that two of my roommates smoke.
• My lame-ass keychain compass. Better than nothing, right?
• One cast-iron pot, a couple of forks and spoons, the big kitchen knives, a mug or two.
• Make one of the roommates run to the store for bags of lentils and chickpeas, cans of tuna, and Neosporin and bottles of multi-vitamins. One thing we assumed was that if this was to be Fantasyland* and not medieval France, there would probably be a higher standard of medical care, administered by nice men and women wearing green, so less need to hoard medication. Some things are still good to have, though; for example, I would not want to live in a world without Aleve. I might recognize a willow tree if I saw one, but aspirin has never quite done it for me.
• On that note, tampons. I know we’d run out, but just for the adjustment phase, you know? One thing I don’t want is to be shlepping along through the underbrush in layers of clothes, slung with bags full of cast-iron pots et cetera, and have a freaking “moontime-clout” wedgie. No way.
• All the toothbrushes and toothpaste in the apartment, so that we blend in with the Fantasyland natives, most of whom have strangely good teeth, except for beggars and old fortune-tellers.
• Hairbrush
• Nit comb. (Yeah, we have one. It would be just our luck to get a Fantasyland rampant with lice.)
• Soap, which is lighter and less messy than shampoo and can also be used for hair.
• Ziploc bags. I don’t care if they’re shockingly non-period, I want a re-sealable way to keep things dry and airtight while we’re on the road.

Best line of the blog: "I will also be wearing my fuzziest pair of pajama pants under all those skirts."

Second best: "For example, if we were going to Mercedes Lackey’s Valdemar, we’d be totally fine and probably even get to meet the Queen; if it were George R.R. Martin’s Westeros, we’d be screwed no matter what, so we might as well make merry around a campfire until we’re slaughtered by roving bandits."

Yesterday, instead of blogging (or writing) I went to the Tulip Festival at Thanksgiving Point. Gorgeous pictures, which I will hopefully, one day, have time to Photoshop and push here. I'm thinking of trying to sell the gardens a calendar or something that they could sell in their Gift Shop. Money is as money does.

My novel's coming along swimmingly. I can do 3,000 words a day or more if I concentrate. Of course, I'll have to throw half of them out the window because they're repetitive but ah well. the only problem is, sometimes my mind can't keep up with my fingers and I write some strange things.

Oddly enough, I write faster sprawled on my stomach in front of my laptop than I do at a desk. I think my 1.5 years as a corporate word-jockey have permanently given me a fear of desks, desk job, and everything that goes with them. With a laptop, I find I can be more creative. I can let the typos flyyyyyy. So, note to writer's block sufferers, try typing on a different kind of computer and see if that jars some words loose.

I've been doing a battle scene, originally minor in the outline, it now sprawls over 10,000 words and three viewpoint characters. The problem is, battles require a heck of a lot of description and a lot of motion. They're not just static. And it just EATS the words up.

Besides, its hard not to expand things to an epic scale when you're listening to Celtic battle music. I dare you to TRY writing a short battle scene after listening to Foggy Dew (see lyrics above).

A strange side effect is that my dragonriders developed an Irish brogue. I doubt I'll keep it--I'm not very good at writing dialect, it's HARD. On the other hand, how cool are IRISH dragonriders? I mean, c'mon. You just know you'd want them swooping in to save the day.

In news, George R. R. Martin reports that filming has begun on the miniseries (for HBO I think) "Game of Thrones." I've always thought these epic fantasy series would make better miniseries than movies. I'm sure a thousand Hollywood screenwriters have knocked their heads together wondering how on earth to turn Wheel of Time into a movie. On the other hand, I think it would make a good series. Episode one: Moirane comes to town + the Trollocs attack. Episode two: Rand hauls his dad through the forest and gets him healed, boys are forced to leave. Episode three: fleeing from Trollocs, hitting Baerloen, maybe cutting out everything else until we reach the gates of Shador Logath. Episode four: Mordeth and the flight from Trollocs... Etc.

HBO did a good job with TruBlood, although I think it lost a lot of its charm in translation just because you can't capture the quirky humor inside Sookie Stackhouse's head with a corny voice-over. The Wonder Years, vampire style.

Gotten go answer email now. Audios!