Some notes on the PS3

I haz wun, and itz kewl.

To play regular BluRay discs, you have to turn off the setting that controls how 24Hz BDs are handled. I don't remember the exact name of the setting, but "automatic" apparently isn't. Set it to "no" and you're in.

BluRay movies are better than regular DVDs, but I'm still not sure the difference is entirely worth the price difference. The so-called "live" content could be cool if my network bandwidth were sufficient to play 1080 x 1920p streaming video. It isn't, but that's mostly my own fault. I could move my cable modem to the living room and hook up the PS3 wiredly. Stay tuned about that.

EA Sports' Tiger Woods PGA Golf 11 is very, very cool. It has an experience point system that isn't much unlike Dungeons and Dragons. This system permits you to improve your skills (and it has a lot of skill categories you can tweak), and with your XP you can "buy" things in the Pro Shop. Upgrade your clubs, buy a new hat, sunglasses, shoes, etc. And get this! Various clothing and golfing items improve your skills. Like, just yesterday I bought a pair of "+5% Green Reading" sunglasses for 500 XP. You get the idea.

They also have many add ons for the game: courses, special skill tweaks, etc. I can't really see paying $1.99 real money for a skill tweak. The fun is playing the game, not acquiring things. I do admit, though, that improving my golfing skills is fun. Case in point: when I played the Pebble Beach course the first time I think I scored about 12 over par. Last night I played it to even par, but along the way I had 5 birdies. Also 5 bogies, but I think it's clear I've improved.

One small kvetch: I think sand-saves should be worth XP, since it takes a fair amount of skill to save par after missing the green, especially if your par putt is within 4 feet.

BTW, Tiger Woods does work with the Move controller, but I had trouble getting more than about 60% on any of my shots. On Amazon, most of the complaints about the game was that it didn't work with the PS3 Move controller, but it does now. The putting game (mentioned below) works very well with the Move controller (I think the Move controller would be the preferred method of controlling your putt), but at the same time the Move controller is extremely sensitive to your movements. So much so that I think it makes using the Move not quite worth the effort. See below.

Ratchet and Clank (yeah, I know it's more than one game--they're all fun) is a fun game with interesting graphics, but I suck at shooters, in general, so I'm not having as much fun with this game as others might. Aiming seems to be my problem.

Blur, a racing game, is fun, but I haven't caught on to all the "power ups" you have to get just to have a chance of winning. There's no driving skill involved, at all, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Planet MiniGolf is quite a lot of fun, and it effectively uses the Move option (which I have) but I suck at steep uphill putts. I have also come to realize some courses require using the power ups just to get past some holes, a point to which I most strenuously object. I don't mind gimmicks, but the object of the game should not be to hit the power up on your first shot, just to be able to make the second shot.

BioShock is uber cool as a game (visuals, etc.), but I think the stress of playing it is too much. I'm also not that good at shooters (I did say that before, didn't I?) so getting killed every 5 minutes got sorta frustrating, after about the 10th time. I realize it just takes practice, but know this: I'm probably not motivated to spend the frigging hours it would take to become expert at shooting with the duoshock controller. But it does come in colors.

BTW, you definitely want to hook your PS3 to your interwebz. One word: Netflix streaming. OK, that was two words, but they have a lot of stuff, and the resolution is pretty good even considering my crappy wireless bandwidth. How duz they do that?

I've downloaded several games and even some golf game add ons from the Sony PlayStation Store. Yeah, it's a clear temptation, and tres convenient.

My overall impression of the Move option is that they haven't worked all the operability bugs out of it. It's usually too sensitive to movement and therefore very hard to use for menu navigation, etc. Sometimes it lags, too, but I understand this is fairly endemic to these kinds of game controllers.

The Sports Champions demo game they give away with the Move option is all but totally unplayable. Contrast that to the Wii, where a five-year-old can master the movement in a few minutes. I spent 10 minutes just trying to figure out how to throw the damn frisbee, and could never get it to work. It's just not supposed to be that hard.

Here are the Pros as I see them:

• HD-capable. Supports HDMI and digital optical sound output.
  
• Plays BluRay and regular DVDs.
• Video resolution is HD, and sound output is very good.
  
• Connects to the internet, and you can buy stuff online right from the device itself. This could be a con, too!
  
• Netflix streaming. We already had the regular DVD mail service, so this is a "free" added bonus.
• Tiger Woods PGA 11. Fantastic golf game. Addictive for anyone who likes golf (I happen to love golf).
• Will play streamed music, etc., from a Windows Media Server. Did I mention Windows 7 will function as a Media Server?
  

Some cons:

• Move controller is way too sensitive, making it very hard to use.
• Needs a keyboard if you want to do much in the way of data entry (like entering a 53 character random passphrase for your WPA-2 authentication).
• DVD remote has no power off button (minor gripe), but it is Bluetooth, so I suppose that's to be expected.
• If you connect the PS3 wirelessly to your network, expect it not to keep up with streamed music, very well. Wired connection would be better.
  

The Trolley Problem compared to lifesaving abortions

I read several posts by Ophelia Benson castigating the Bishop of Phoenix for condemning a Catholic hospital for aborting a pregnancy to save a woman's life. The Church was wrong about that one. So what does the Trolley Problem have to do with this? Well, before we talk about this, let's review the Principle of Double Effect and what that might have to do with evaluating moral right (or wrong).

The Trolley Problem forced someone to choose between two apparent wrongs. Or choosing the lesser of two evils, which is how most of us would act. Flipping the switch to force the trolley onto another track that would kill one person versus five people seems pretty clear. If someone is going to die, fewer is better than more. Shoving the fat man onto the tracks is not the same, because it's pretty clear that he may not stop the trolley and yet still be killed. There's room for doubt, so another alternative would be preferable. There is also the idea of intention. Flipping the switch involves no intention, except to minimize the damage. Throwing the fat man to his death is intentional, though one could suppose he might survive.

So this brings consequences into the discussion. Consequences instantly take the discussion away from the abstract, because if there were no negative consequences to an act (such as pushing a large rock onto the tracks to stop the trolley), then no one would argue against it. Even if the trolley had a dozen people on it; clearly there's a reasonable chance most, if not all, would survive a trolley crash. Blowing up the trolley would be unreasonable unless doing do would definitively save many more. You aren't intending to kill the passengers. Their deaths would be consequential to stopping the trolley.

An eleven-week-old fetus cannot survive without its mother, which is the case mentioned above at the beginning. If there was a way to save both mother and fetus, then that's what you would do. If saving the mother meant doing the abortion, it still seems quite ethical (and moral) to do it, particularly since saving someone whose contribution to both her family and society in general is much more readily quantifiable. No, it's not that her fetus has no value, it's that its value is objectively less than hers.

I suppose the doctors could have counseled the family that they were unable to perform the abortion due to Church strictures, leaving the door open for the family to take the woman to another facility for the procedure, but if she died because of the delay or during the transfer, the ostensibly moral hospital would still be complicit in her death. Medical ethics can't simply be put aside just because of Church-imposed "moral" directives. It's a tough call for the hospital and the doctors, perhaps, but they did the right thing, and should be applauded. If thine eye offends thee; pluck it out. If the Church fails to meet your needs, abandon it as you would a worn-out coat.

I'm not surprised the Church is so hard-line adamant about their rules. After all, you gotta have rules or else all you have is anarchy. Dogs living with cats. Mass hysteria. It's just a shame that women and children don't rate more highly in their ideas of proper morality. Then we might just have something. And as a final parting shot: The Church and Christians like to complain about persecution and a "War Against Christianity." Perhaps they'd be less of a target if they changed some of their stupid, medieval rules, and got with the program. N'est pas?

Untestable hypotheses

Here is a question, hypothetically speaking: If there is an hypothesis that's untestable, can we even say that it has any effect on the material world, at all? And if the thing we hypothesize has no effect on the world, then can it even be considered relevant or important?

With respect to skepticism and being a skeptic, I look a phenomena and ask "what's the evidence?" Is the hypothesis of the Loch Ness monster testable? Is the idea of ghosts and other paranormal stuff a reasonable one? Do fairies exist? Yeah? What's the evidence?

I also agree that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to substantiate it. So here's my final question: If the hypothesis of an active, caring god cannot be tested--for any reason--then how can anyone say this god has an influence? Because, if this being influences this world, then we ought to be able to measure it. Otherwise, why do we make these kinds of statements about it? What's our evidence? How do we know?

Saying "you just know" points to things going on inside your mind, and while they're real enough to you, just don't quite rise to the level of reality. Usually we say if something "is only in your mind" and not a reality, we're referring to it as a delusion of some sort; i.e., not real.

I'm not saying; I'm just saying. As a skeptic, I simply cannot give the notion of god a free pass.

Entitlement

Entitlement: the state of being entitled. Entitled: to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.

OK, now that we have defined what we are discussing, let's discuss. I have highlighted the part of this definition that's in contention. Under what circumstances should we feel we have a right to something? What things do we have rights for? More to the point: Does a lifetime (or any amount) of hard work, obeying the law, and being good citizens and taxpayers. Does any of this entitle us to anything?

I have worked hard all throughout my adult life. I worked hard before that, too, but since becoming an independent adult I have expended a lot of effort (and put up with a lot of crap) to ensure a tranquil, secure existence. Pursuit of happiness, I suppose. But was that really my goal? Is that really important? What could I have done--what should I have done--instead?

I'm not looking into my motivations for having pursued the things I have. I am intellectually very curious, and if nothing else I have tried to ensure my ability to indulge my curiosity. I don't have any children, so I have had a certain amount of time on my hands. I like to do architectural design and I am an aspiring writer. Both of those consume a lot of time, and require a certain level of electronic gadgetry to in order to accomplish. So, I have worked to ensure I have a place where I can pursue my avocations, time to work on them, money to buy the things to make them possible, and lastly be able to have "hobbies" in an environment where I'm not worried where my next meal will come from. Wasted life? Wasted effort? Worthless pursuits? No. If I become published I think it will be apparent my time and efforts haven't been wasted.

I'm not focused on my career. It's just a job that enables me to have a real life. And no, my real life is not just sitting all alone and working on my latest story. My real life has a partner in it--my spouse--and I want to ensure she is happy and comfortable where she is. Why? Because when she is happy and content, I am happy and content. I'm experienced enough with myself to know that, and smart enough to have achieved that, as well. I didn't want to be alone, so I'm not. It isn't just money, not by a long way, but money does make it possible. Money makes it easier.

So, I work hard to make enough money to provide a stable, happy, serene home environment for myself and my spouse, and lately we've even been enough to provide a home for my youngest stepdaughter. This has been challenging, from time to time, but quite important for my spouse's happiness. I'd have been a rank fool not to have done it (that is, to have taken in the young woman when she was broke and trying to graduate college). It isn't about the money, but money does make it possible.

I have pursued acquiring stuff in my life: I had an expensive sports car, a few years ago. I had the latest computer equipment (that alone required frequent upgrades). I spent a fair amount of money on clothes and other trappings of "success." Those pursuits were interesting, but as time went by I realized their importance was dissipating. Much of that stuff (pun intended) just doesn't matter very much. Not if happiness is at stake. Having things does not, and will not, represent any sort of goal in my life. Not now, not later.

When we were in Florida on vacation, recently, we were subjected to a very hard-sell attempt to convince us to buy more timeshare points. (I do have a timeshare, already.) The primary notion was that if we wanted to take vacations twice a year, then we really needed more points to make that possible. The question was asked: "Don't you want to be able to travel when you retire, and know it will be taken care of?" Well, I know the answer to that: No. Not even a little bit.

It's not that I wouldn't want to travel and/or take vacations away from home, because from time to time I would (and do) want to do those things. But I see my wants being a very long distance away from the things that are actually important. Maybe there's an implicit assumption here that's not being said--the basic question of why I'm working. Is it to be able to retire in comfort, or is it for some other reason? Well, it's for some other reason.

I have been saving for retirement for a long time, but recent events have made that less certain. Of course, I don't want to have to work until I die, but there's a very real chance I might have to. Do I like that? No, but do I have a choice? What I do for a living is fairly challenging, intellectually, so having to continue working isn't as mind-numbing or dreaded as it might be for some. I'd like to think I can stop working and "relax," but if not, then I'm not going to lose my mind. Sure, I'd like to think I can stop working and spend more leisure time, but I'm not counting on it, and I will not jeopardize anything in the present to "ensure" anything in the future (speaking of vacation timeshares, specifically). Failure to manage the here and now makes the future even less certain, so it's clear to me that sacrificing things now just for more in retirement doesn't make complete sense. Especially since I know I cannot count on having that retirement work out the way I've planned. I'm still saving as much as I can, but I still need to live in the now.

This is where the notion of entitlement comes into play. Sure, I'd like to be able to travel, and not just in retirement. Sure, I'd like to have more "points" to spend on more leisure activities, but there are almost certainly more important things at stake. I am not entitled to have a comfortable retirement. There are no laws guaranteeing this, and no amount of effort on my part (short of becoming independently wealthy) will ensure it. I'm not independently wealthy. It's never been a goal. If I have the resources to have a vacation or two, from time to time, then I consider that a bonus in my life, but there is a huge difference between having disposable resources to use for leisure, and converting those resources into non-elective obligations. The difference should be obvious to anyone.

I guess the reason I've been going on about this "entitlement" thing is that the salesman's arguments all went toward selling to the baby boomer who thinks the world owes them something. They all hinted at the notion of entitlement, and it was that assumption (and the realization that he was probably quite successful selling to others) that struck me so profoundly. Because it just ain't so, and no amount of wishing is going to change anything. (I'm speaking about others' desires to have their two vacations a year guaranteed, or something like that.)

I have noticed quite a few younger folks at these "owner update" sessions. (These sessions are not to update you on anything. They are simply to sell you more stuff.) Now, I'm not wondering how younger (sub 40) folks can afford these relatively expensive timeshare vacations, because they might be doing quite well for themselves. Perhaps even better. Good for them. I also suppose if they feel they should be taking multiple vacations a year, then also good for them. Maybe they also feel entitled to being able to do these things, but that's where I fail to understand.

Baby boomers are notoriously selfish. Self-absorbed. I know, because you could call me self-absorbed. I have no children, a good income, and lots of time to do whatever I want. Of course I'm going to be "me first" about most things. There's no one else to consider. But these days I'm very careful about spending money. I might have been rather careless and carefree, before, but almost losing my job has alerted me to the rather tenuous nature of most of the things we've been taking for granted. Nothing is guaranteed. You are not entitled to anything. Work hard, save your money, and with luck you'll be all right. But you have to know that it might not all work out the way you think. Since one cannot simply crawl in a hole and hide, some risks will have to be taken, but there is a difference between a calculated, considered risk, and a foolish one.

I believe spending a portion of my income now on leisure activities that I may or may not be able to afford, later, would be an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. Even if I did nothing more than put the money in the bank, it would still not be prudent to spend any more money on vacation timeshares. And that's because spending discretionary funds today on timeshare points converts these funds from discretionary to non-discretionary. In fact I would be purchasing a "mortgage" with fixed monthly obligations to pay the damn thing.

If my situation were to improve, then I wouldn't miss the money, likely. But I don't know that and can't guarantee I will maintain my employment at the required level. It seems almost as likely that I'll need these discretionary funds because they might go away in the future. I can feel like I deserve two vacations a year all I want, but that feeling can dry up in a heartbeat. The salesman's argument that "you'll spend the money anyway, so why not spend it on points" falls down hugely, because I would only spend the money if I had it. An elective vacation is not a sunk cost until I spend money on it. Timeshare points, in case you haven't figured it out, are a sunk cost whether you can afford to go on vacation, or not.

I suppose what dismayed me the most was that his pitch was developed and tuned to the intended audience--me. My demographic, and the general population of middle-income folks who really do feel like they are entitled to something. Not just for their labors, but by their very existence. Some folks think government-sponsored healthcare would be a socialist disaster, but don't you take away their Medicare! In principle we are against spending money on others, but we have no problem spending money on ourselves. There really should be no question why, because of course we're all entitled.

Short story mania!

Though it does not presage a change in my approach to my ongoing novel-length work, A Far Sun, lately I've been looking at and working on a few short stories. I have one put to bed, and though it has its flaws, it's pretty good. The title is Life Cycle, and when I get back from vacation I plan to submit it to as many Sci-Fi magazines (both online and print) as I can find willing to accept submissions. By then Escape Pod should be accepting submissions, so I will post it there, as well.

So yeah, I'm about to head out on vacation, back to the same place we've gone the past few years: Orlando, FL. Hey, we have a timeshare there (and we didn't plan far enough in advance to ensure we could get accommodations somewhere else).

What's Life Cycle about? Well, it involves humans landing on an alien planet and the strange events that transpire after one of the crew dies, and is buried on the planet. But methinks I've perhaps given too much away, already.

My second story, which I'm about halfway through, is entitled Baby Madeline. This is a dark little tale about what might happen if they started offering women trendy, "artificial pregnancies" the way some women get boob jobs. I got the idea when I saw a commercial for a truly creepy, life-like (it even breathes!) doll called Baby Ashley. When I saw the ad I asked "what's next?" and let my imagination go.

My third story is just too much fun. It's called Moe Kauble - "The Alien in the Drum Kit" and any similarity to the SNL skit "More Cowbell" is entirely non-coincidental. This is a YA story about two plucky homeless kids, Jenny and Jeremy, who find old Mr. Kauble's garage and start coming there to watch and listen to the practices of a truly awful rock band, then discover there is more to drumming than meets the eye. Moe is the alien, of course. Think "My Favorite Martian meets Rock Band" Yeah, you got it. I just got this idea yesterday, so of course it's subject to change.

I've never tried to do much in the way of short fiction, and I think now that that's been a mistake. There are many valuable and useful things to be learned from short fiction. Ultimately I think it makes all our writing better, so wish me luck on my latest endeavors.

I'm in fairly good shape with A Far Sun. I pushed the word count for book 3 past 36,000. While I'm on vacation I do plan to add to that number. When I get back I'll post the results. I may even finish Baby Madeline, which should be exciting. I don't think I will be posting any of these stories here, but that doesn't mean I don't love all zero of you! I do.

So, in the meantime, keep cool, and as always, stay tuned.

Some interesting parallels

I came across this article on the blog Science-Based Medicine, "Certainty versus knowledge in medicine" written by Dr. David Gorski. In it he discusses the phenomenon whereby people actively discount the results of science when it conflicts with their personally-held beliefs. It's very interesting, but what struck me as most were the parallels that can be made between people's dismissing of science and their dismissing of religious skepticism, i.e., atheism and it's weaker cousin, agnosticism. Indeed, he even begins his article with this very simile:

If there’s a trait among humans that seems universal, it appears to be an unquenchable thirst for certainty. It is likely to be a major force that drives people into the arms of religion, even radical religions that have clearly irrational views, such as the idea that flying planes into large buildings and killing thousands of people is a one-way ticket to heaven.

And it's all science's fault. As Dr. Gorski points out: "[O]ne of the hardest things for many people to accept about science-based medicine is that the conclusions of science are always subject to change based on new evidence ..." Science is by its nature a moving target. Truth may be out there (paraphrasing some others), but we're never sure we've found it. Yes, the state of uncertainty is an awful place to be. I've heard it said that the certainty of misery is preferable to the misery of uncertainty.

He discusses some examples of how stubbornly even "sciencey" people hold onto outdated beliefs. The so-called "conventional wisdom" of the profession. Then he moves on to a discussion of what he calls "scientific impotence discounting." In other words: science is unable to explain things with certainty. It is impotent in some respects because of its provisionality. And given that it's always waffling about "the truth" there is the tendency to disregard the things that it does uncover. Sort of: Hey, if what we thought last year was true now turns out to be wrong, then what's to say what we think is true today won't be debunked in another year? But that's an over-generalization and not at all fair to science.

What we thought last year hasn't been completely thrown out. It's been refined--altered--to better fit new evidence we've uncovered. Of course, we could be wrong this time, too, but are we getting progressively more wrong, or less wrong? I still believe we are gradually getting less and less wrong. Much closer to the truth. But now, here is where things get really interesting:

Another common strategy I’ve seen for scientific impotence discounting is to dismiss science as “just another religion,” just as valid as whatever woo science is refuting, or to label science as “just another belief system,” as valid as any other. In other words, postmodernism!

Yes, this postmodernist thought is very disturbing, because not all hypotheses are created equal, and it seeks to treat every idea as equally likely. If there's a "faith" element to science, then it's in the belief that there's a huge mountain of scientific evidence behind our current theories, and that what we "believe" today to be the truth aren't some brand-new untried and untested ideas, but the result of years--eons--of testing and refinement. It's the natural selection of scientific ideas at work, in the most thorough, ruthless way we know. There's no room for fluff in the marketplace of ideas.

I've seen these postmodernist thought arguments made in an attempt to discount atheism, as well. Replace the word "science" with "atheism" in the above passage and see if it doesn't sound familiar. In fact, I heard these very statements last night from a person who openly categorizes herself as "mostly atheist." Wow! (I may have more to say about my experiences with this person, but not in this post.)

Almost everyone comes to non-belief via the route of critical analysis of the world around us and the obvious lack of any evidence of the supernatural. We do become somewhat ingrained in our non-beliefs, because to think otherwise appears delusional. And we'd like not to delude ourselves. But, is science and belief in science a "religion"? Is atheism nothing more than a funky kind of negative religion where we all wear funny hats and sit around making fun of others who wear different kinds of funny hats? It does make sense that the same forces that cause otherwise rational people to discard good science in favor of more comfortable (albeit false) beliefs would also play into why religious people seem quite happy to tell non-believers that their ideas are no more valid than anyone's. Never mind one perspective is based on the world around us, and the other on what we feel in "our hearts." I'm not saying to ignore your heart, just wait a little while and see if it doesn't change. The natural world is not so ephemeral.

Dr. Gorski goes on to say:

Skepticism and science are hard in that they tend to go against some of the most deeply ingrained human traits there are, in particular the need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Also in play is our tendency to cling to our beliefs, no matter what, as though having to change our beliefs somehow devalues or dishonors us. Skepticism, critical thinking, and science can help us overcome these tendencies, but it’s difficult.

I see the relationship between religious belief and scientific "belief." They may both be beliefs, but where one (religion) seems to be adherence to a certain set of "facts," scientific belief is based on the process of determining the facts, not in the facts themselves. It's easy to see how someone would confuse these things, but they're really not at all alike. As Dr. Gorski concludes, belief in science dooms one to a life of uncertainty, but it's something that one learns to live with. So, I suppose, if you cannot deal with uncertainty, then go find a nice religion.

How time flies

It's been more than two years since I last posted to this blog. With limited time and with altogether too many blogs to manage (entirely my fault), this blog went unwatched. It's not going to be unwatched and neglected any longer. For now.

Here is some history: Time passes, and Blogger decides to eliminate their FTP publishing option. Of course this happens during a time when I have no time to execute a conversion. I am also someone loath to change things, so ... I have let my options expire on my primary blog, Prepare to be Assimilated. I will eventually get some kind of blogging engine hooked up to my primary domain, RLAEnterprises.net, probably WordPress, but until then I'm going to vent my pent-up blogging desires here.

When I last posted on this blog, I was still slogging through book 1 of my story A Far Sun. That book is "complete" and in second draft form at about 120,000 words. Book 2 is also complete (at 98,000 words), but it's still in first-plus draft form. It hasn't been independently read by anyone, though my oldest stepdaughter has the printed draft. She read and commented on the first volume, and her comments were hugely helpful. Author's myopia, you know.

These days I'm slogging through book 3, which has just bumped the 34,000 word count. Progress isn't quite as rapid as I had hoped, but it still may be possible to finish the story by year end. FYI, book 2 got finished at the end of 2009. It's hard to say when book 1 was "finished," because I was up to 145,000 words before I decided to break the story into pieces.

My biggest "worry" of late is whether I can really finish the story by the end of this book. It is still the same basic plot I started with, though in the course of writing I've rather significantly fleshed out certain aspects of my story world. There is a larger, more epic struggle taking place, but it's being told at the level of the individuals involved. I have conspicuously tried not to "boil the ocean," but there is a lot to tell. I am working on making my stories shorter, in general.

I find it humorous that once upon a time I worried whether my antagonist was going to be "bad enough." By now ... well, he's more than bad enough--he's certifiably insane and represents a huge obstacle to my protagonists. Actually, early on I was worried about exactly how he would exert control over others. Now it's very apparent the operative word is "fear." Everyone is afraid of him, and for good reason. He'll do anything and everything to get his way. They could single him out and eliminate him, but he is still very powerful and he does have "friends" who are helping him. I suppose it's predictable that my "heroes" will overcome the bad guy and win the day, but I'm still hoping the way they do it will be somewhat of a surprise.

I have, at various times, speculated on further stories in this "new" world. I made up a language that my natives speak, and they have a history and a culture (of course every made-up story world has these things), and wouldn't you know it--there is more that could be told. On the other hand, my younger stepdaughter thought my "new" story idea too trite and predictable. She may be right, but then again, I haven't written it yet. Most story ideas have been done before. Most are very cliche and trite, as well. It's only in the telling that a story gains some measure of originality, most of the time. I'm not really worried that I may have nothing of value to add.

On a (slightly) different topic: I also have another story I have worked on, from time to time. It's nothing at all like A Far Sun, and the preliminary reviews of the portion I've written (22,000 words, more or less) are very good. The working title is Rider on the Storm, but it's almost a certainty that this title will change. Unfortunately my second choice for a title: Persistence of Memory has been used in a novel, so that name seems even less likely.

This other story is all about time travel, and plays fast and loose with characters moving in and out (and between) different timelines; perhaps even different universes. Some parts of this story are not terribly original, at all (at least for some people), but when has that ever stopped anyone? Yes, one man's tired trope is another man's discovery. If you've read a bunch of time travel stories (or seen your share of time travel movies), then you might find some of the ideas rather well-known. But even then you might find something interesting in what I've got going.

I have also written a short story but I know I need to revise it before it's ready for consumption. I have ideas for a couple other short stories, but those ideas still need to be developed a little more. Short stories are good exercise. They help you develop your plotting and characterization muscles, but in a medium you can much more easily grasp in its entirety. One could say short stories are harder to write because you have to very carefully choose your words. In truth I find careful wordology to be important even in longer works. Particularly when you want your story to be more easily read by younger readers, which I do.

Some last comments on what I think will happen to A Far Sun. It seems very unlikely it will be published either as a graphic novel or as a podcast. As much as I might like to podcast it, it's very long and I am not as good a reader as (I think) is required. (I tend to talk too fast, my voice is a bit too nasal and high-pitched, and I am terrible doing female voices that don't all somehow have Southern accents.) With respect to a graphic novel, my artist stepdaughter has expressed no further interest in illustrating it. What's most likely is that I will shop it out for more "conventional" publishing, but that won't be until I've completed it. All three books.

So, we'll just keep on keepin' on, and see where it leads us.

Making progress again

Since I last wrote about 10 days ago, several things have been accomplished. First off, I worked through the block I was experiencing in the story. We brainstormed the second half of the story, and came up with an ending. Woohoo!

Then I bought a domain name for the work: A Far Sun. I also put up a temporary home page, but it's pretty ugly. Even though the orange color is relevant, it's too much. I do like the logo I came up with, though.

Thirdly, I repositioned the start of Act II. Now it falls exactly where it should, based on the point I reached--that point being the halfway point of the story. I had about 250 pages, or so, and Act II is now starting about page 112. So, if Act II is to be about 220 pages long, I am just about the midpoint.

I am now busy writing the second half of the story, about page 273 or so. If you're keeping track, that's about 67,000 words. The plot is definitely thickening, though we've only just heard about the real bad guys in the story. My biggest challenge will be to make them big enough and bad enough to warrant the label.

We'll see.

Writer's difficulties

I am now past 55,000 words in the story "A Far Sun". I'm not entirely sure what I should call the work, since it's more than just an outline or a synopsis. Perhaps it's more appropriate as a first draft for a novel, since the length I'm envisioning seems to put it at about novel length. I do still plan to publish it as an online graphic novel. A web comic. But I'm being encouraged to make it into a more conventional work.

I am up to the part in the story where Adam and Jane (and some others) leave the sun-skin village (oh right! I haven't even mentioned the sun-skins, have I?) on a journey to find the old library. There they hope to discover what the disease is, so they might have a chance to develop a cure. Vain hope, maybe, but perhaps not so vain. (Sun-skins? Disease? Village?)

The difficulties I'm having are the result of having to write a particularly difficult passage in the story. First a newborn baby dies from the disease (a major element of conflict in the story, since Adam almost dies from it). Then there are complications from another birth, where another mother-to-be dies from placenta previa, but Jane is there to perform an emergency C-section and save the baby. She has difficulties believing she didn't actually murder the poor woman.

In order to write passages involving strong emotions of my characters, I have to be willing to "get down to their level" and actually feel some of the same emotions. I'm not an actor, but I'm pretty sure this is what many of the best actors do. It lends an air of credibility to the work, because the emotions are genuine. This process greatly sensitizes me to my feelings--sort of puts my heart on my sleeve. As a consequence, I notice everything and everyone around me much more acutely.

I have also observed that once I have good, strong characters, writing about them almost becomes a matter of simply recording their reactions to the situations they find themselves in. It's strange, but that's how it feels to me. Dialog and action seem to write themselves, so the task becomes simply editing the writing so it flows and that I don't leave out anything important. Also that I don't include anything unneeded.

So now I'm suffering a post-emotional letdown. It's like being depressed, or maybe simply being drained. Yes, it takes the air out of things, so to speak. Maybe if I had a strong idea for the next scene I could write my way out of, but so far nothing has jumped out at me. Sure, I know where the story is going and what's going to happen, I just haven't planned the next few events.

Actually that's not true. I have everything planned. There are some bad guys who will be making their appearance in the story, and they will provide a different sort of conflict for my heroes to take on. This may be about the midpoint, or perhaps just past it. The spring celebration event just concluded actually feels like a beginning, of sorts. Of course it was immediately followed by two deaths, so the story is not really trending upward. Yeah, the spring thing signaled a couple of important changes. Both Adam and Jane found and/or cemented relationships with their "significant others", and then they decided they needed to make a journey away from the village to get more answers. This would be the second time they have come to realize that you can't go forward if you stay in one place.

Well, let's see if I can get back to work ...

A Far Sun: Synopsis/Treatment, part 10

This is the last post, here. It brings us to the end of Act I, and on advice from my chief editorial collaborator (my wife), I will not be continuing to blog this story. But fingers have not been idle, and I am past 45,000 words (149 pages) so the story is anything but dead. The end of this post was on page 39, just to put it into perspective.

Click for part 9

Sometime later we come upon Adam and Jane picking their way through the rubble-strewn interior of what is most obviously the university library. Arrayed around them in semi-ordered rows are stacks, most only halfway filled with moldy, musty books. The roof of the library, about three stories overhead, is mostly intact, but in places there are holes letting in shafts of midday light. The holes have also let in the weather, which has deposited ubiquitous piles of damp, rotting leafy matter in every corner and on top nearly every study carrel and library desk.

Jane comments, "Ugh. It smells like mildew in here."

"It's all these rotting books." He sweeps his hand up, showing her the holes in the roof. "These holes let in the wind and the rain. Enough moisture and you get a gooey, moldy mess." He sniffs, but doesn't like what he smells, either. "I had hoped for better than this."

Click for moreJane asks, "What are we looking for, anyway?" She has walked some meters away to investigate what looks like a thoroughly rusted and demolished computer terminal. "Computer terminal, here." She walks around it. "Used to be, anyway."

"Yeah," he says. "Not very promising, to say the least."

Jane walks on, veering to go around a couple of three meter high book stacks. Adam, meanwhile, is trying to get a look at the contents of the head librarian's desk drawer. It's locked, maybe, but he pulls the drawer front off with a moldy 'snap'. The drawer is empty.

"Uh, Adam," says Jane from just out of sight, "I think you better see this."

As Adam approaches, Jane is standing at the edge of what would best be described as the remains of a campsite. There are old chairs arranged in a rough circle, and books have been piled between the chairs to make apparent seats. In the center of the circle is a large, ash-filled and scorched area. The ashes are most apparent in the center of the circle. Remnants of the things burned suggest it was mostly books they burned. And by 'they' we mean the former owners of the two rotted skeletons we find lying next to each other in front of Adam and Jane.

Jane is first to speak. "These are human skeletons."

Adam gingerly walks around the long-dead pair to view them from the opposite side. "Yeah. See their clothing?" He walks back around to where Jane is crouching, inspecting the remains. "They both had red hair, too."

Jane carefully inspects the closest skeleton. She picks at an ulna bone, then what must be a femur, under it. "This one was female." Since Jane is a trained biologist, this is her area of expertise. Certainly she knows more about anatomy than Adam, the physicist.

He doesn't even ask how she knows. She knows. But he does ask, "Can you tell how long they've been dead?"

"By the look of the clothing--see, it's almost gone--and the state of decomposition--nearly total--I'd say a really long time."

"Would you say it's been three hundred years?"

"Hard to say, but yeah, could be."

Adam steps around the bodies to the fire pit. "What would you say about this?" he says, pointing to the blackened, ash-filled "pit" in the center of the encampment.

"I dunno," she stands. "It doesn't look like it's been sitting there abandoned for three hundred years, does it?"

"No, it doesn't." He points. "See these ashes? If this fire pit was old, these ashes would be all mashed down and compressed. Like these others, here." He points to ashes around the edges. "The rain would have soaked them and all but obliterated things."

"So, you think this place has been visited, recently."

"I do."

Jane walks around the circle in the opposite direction Adam has gone. "Ah, here we are."

"What?"

"Bones. Animal bones."

"So?"

She sounds rather triumphant. "I was looking for evidence this place has been used by humans."

"And?"

"These bones are recent." Jane stoops to point out the small pile of tiny bones. "This was no animal that picked over these remains. These bones are recent, and I would say these animals were cooked, too." She turns over a small skeleton. "They were. See? These leg bones are blackened on the ends. No question about it."

Adam supplies the obvious answer to her unstated question. "There are humans here."

Jane stands, and the air seems charged with discovery. "Seems that way. Is this the answer you were looking for?"

"Not quite," he says, turning away from the campfire, "But it does tell me we're not alone." He glances at Jane, then flips his head in a 'follow me' gesture. "C'mon girl. Let's go find these people."

Jane's face: hopeful and determined, provides all the answer he needs.