A Different Take on the Apu Controversy.

Maybe you've read about this but in case you haven't, here's a brief synopsis and a link if you want to read further:

The character of Apu on the long-running "The Simpsons" has been singled out as a particularly offensive stereotype thanks to a documentary by comedian Hari Kondabolu called "The Problem with Apu." The film's producer Adi Shankar started  contest to get scripts sent to him that would somehow "improve" the character while still maintaining his place in the Simpsons pantheon. The producers of the series have decided to forego all that and simply drop the popular character from the series, likely minus any fanfare or undue focus.

I have my own views on the whole controversy but I'm not an idiot and won't be discussing them in print. Whether I agree with the documentary's assessment or not, it can be used against me some time in the future. Instead, I have chosen to focus on what I believe is the reason for the response the "Simpsons" producers have chosen.

There has been a problem brewing in the creative world since the Internet went from being an underground rarity to a full-blown accepted part of daily human existence. People have become more involved in their various interests and causes, ridiculously so in many cases, and with that involvement has come an undeserved sense of proprietorship. Somehow real-time interaction has led many to believe they somehow own these franchises they claim to love. This is especially true of Generation X with its constant "You killed my childhood" whining and Millenials who feel the entire entertainment industry is one giant roleplaying game. The moment creation became content, the nature of the field was altered possibly forever.

Konabolu and Shankar are both in their thirties. They have come of age in a time when online slacktivism has been used to accomplish ends both positive and questionable. They know full well the power behind an online movement, even one as seemingly benign as an attempt to "rescue" a character from the perception of negative stereotyping. A contest thrown by someone uninvolved in the series to collect an acceptable script sends a simple and powerful message: We are going to politely yet aggressively make the change we want to see in your product. It is, at its core, a brilliant piece of diplomatic maneuvering and the response of the show's producers was the only one that could have circumvented it.

"The Simpsons" has stood as a monumental achievement of pop culture longevity for three decades. Even for those of us who haven't watched regularly for years, it's obvious they have done something right. And if social attitudes towards one of their characters have changed, one assums they're perfectly capable of dealing with it themselves. By allowing an outsider no matter how well-intentioned to push his way in, they would be sacrificing whatever autonomy they've enjoyed. The same autonomy that has allowed them to outlast any other animated series in history (so far.)

From a writer's perspective, it's a smart move. Everybody knows the show will be going off the air soon. They've made their mark and they want to continue to do so with the time they have left without some guy whose desire it is to hitch onto their accomplishments trying to influence "content." So while it may seem like a compromise, this move is actually the opposite. I applaud the decision not for its end result or even for that fact that the issue hasn't been resolved, but because creators have stood up to a softer, shrewd form of censorship and said no.

10 of the Oddest Story Rejection Reasons I've Ever Received. (Updated with a correction)

This is a post I've been contemplating writing for a few years now and I feel I've finally reached a point where I can do it the right way, namely without employing unwarranted insults or naming names. The younger, less confident me might have indulged in both just out of spite but I've reached the conclusion that people be different than one another and no amount of pointing out how ridiculous you find their points of view will change a thing about most of them.

Whenever an editor takes the time to provide personal feedback, it's a good thing. It's also rare. Most rejections consist of "Sadly it wasn't for us," which is not at all helpful. But when someone is taking in hundreds of submissions per month, it's understandable. And I have received some very helpful feedback in the form of rejection letters. These are not the helpful ones.

However, at the risk of incurring undue wrath or burning bridges, I'm going to keep my reasons general without mentioning the particular stories (several of which wound up published elsewhere) or their precise themes. Keep in mind these are in no particular order and they are mostly paraphrased:

• "Your story about revenge from beyond the grave is too angry for my anthology about revenge from beyond the grave."
• "We didn't believe your character could be so desirable to so many employers because she is a customer service rep so the story didn't work for us."
• "Your story about the Old West has a truck in it because it goes back and forth between past and present so it's not really about the Old West even though 80% of the story takes place there."
• "There's too much showing and, presumably, not enough telling in your story."
•  "This story might offend people who like to read because it presents a book store in a negative light."
• "I misinterpreted your homage as fan fiction which we don't publish."
• "Your realistic horror story was too dark and disturbing and might make readers uncomfortable."
• "Readers can't be expected to go back and forth in a short story despite the literal volumes of stories published that make them do exactly that."
• "All the editors LOVED LOVED LOVED this story, so of course we don't be publishing it."
• "The voice of the narrator is well done and fits the eerie setting perfectly.  The suspense carried me along, and your writing is exceptional and even though those would be reason enough, I am one of those people who judges every story by whether or not it has an ending that floors me so it's a no from me."

Every single reason listed above is genuine. I did not pull a fiction writer and fabricate any of them. With time, most of them wound up being funny to me and as with any field, some are indicative of a general incompetence on the part of those doing the evaluating. If you're an aspiring writer reading this post and feeling in any way discouraged, perhaps this next part will make you feel better: Each of the reasons listed above pertains to a different story, meaning there were ten stories. Eight of those stories were published elsewhere. It takes persistence and faith in one's self to take these types of things in stride and keep submitting. Then you too will one day have ridiculous stories to tell~

Correction: The editor who sent me "There's too much showing and, presumably, not enough telling in your story" as a reason replied to my email apologizing for what turned out to be a typo. So, thank God at least that one was an error.)

"Halloween 2018" A Review.

.

John Carpenter's original two "Halloween" movies were my first immersion into genuine non-supernatural horror. I can't remember if I read the novelization of the first movie first or after seeing the film, but the story stuck with me in ways other inferior movies such as "Friday the 13th" and its endless supply of decreasingly coherent sequels did not. "Halloween" had a single mastermind behind its concept and execution, from story to casting to direction to even the music. It is auteur horror at its finest.

The sequel, co-written by Carpenter, continued the story by setting it on the same night and providing new revelations about Michael Meyers and Laurie Stroud that the director has admitted not being overly pleased with. Carpenter is notoriously candid and, I think, hard on himself. The second movie may have lacked the uniqueness of its predecessor but it was a solid follow-up, especially thanks to the expanding of Donald Pleasance's character Loomis.

This latest film has decided to dump the events of the second film and its subsequent non-Carpenter produced sequels, some of which weren't bad. In this direct sequel to the original, Michael Meyers was apparently captured after Dr. Loomis shot him and has spent forty years in a mental institution typically silent and seemingly unresponsive. When a pair of podcasting "journalists" show up to try and interview him, it is only when he sees his iconic William Shatner mask that he shows even the slightest glimmer of a reaction.

Sadly, Donald Pleasance passed away in the mid-Nineties, so the weight once again fall on the shoulders of Jamie Lee Curtis just as it did in "Halloween H20," the first attempt to make a direct follow-up to the original. That film reeked of crass commercialism. Its sequel was such a ridiculous farce that even Carpenter has expressed befuddlement at its existence. So, how does this new one fare?

Better, for sure. For one thing, there's an obvious and genuine love for the source material on the parts of the filmmakers, an infectious enthusiasm that makes even the less successful elements of the film more palatable.

The story is solid. Laurie Stroud never got over the attempt on her life or the deaths of her friends. Since the events of the second movie never took place, she has become a rather tragic, sad character similar in almost every way to Sarah Connor in the second "Terminator" film. Laurie has spent decades learning how to fortify her home and protect herself for what she considers the inevitability of Michael's return. Her relationship with her daughter is strained and her granddaughter just wishes she would move on in life.

Curtis portrays the present-day Laurie Stroud brilliantly, somehow reminding us of the innocent girl in the original while creating a whole new character. Wil Patton is also great as the police officer who stopped Loomis from killing Michael all those years ago. There's even a new doctor who was Loomis' student but his take on Michael Meyers is very different from his mentor's. In fact, he's involved in a plot twist that shouldn't work. But it does. In fact, most of the movie works.

The minor quibbles I have are mostly technical. For instance, the cringe-worthy teen dialogue/characters really show how well Carpenter wrote the scene where Laurie and her friends are walking home from school in the first film. There's also a scene where Laurie and Michael are going to face each other that stretches on to the point where the supposed "scare" is more a relief that the plot is once again in motion. There are also some rather clumsy references to the other films, including Laurie referring to Michael as "The Shape" and the attempt to recapture the creepiness of Michael's original escape from the mental institution. There's also the ditching of plot points from "Halloween II" that really fleshed out the story. But those facts didn't diminish my enjoyment.

The gore is a bit much but that's too be expected. I usually find excessive gore to be cheap and lazy, an easy way to horrify without actually creating true horror. And while the filmmakers do tow the line, they never cross it.

I do think a sequel would be a bad idea but since this movie broke box office records for a female-led horror movie's opening weekend (who the hell keeps these stats???) it's obvious they will ruin a great conclusion with another film.

Still, while this one is the only one, it's a great follow-up.

An Anthology That Had Slipped off my RADAR.

I always knew there was at least one story (not including the ones from a certain magazine whose publisher unceremoniously removed all trace of the work of several authors for reasons unknown) that wasn't included on my author page. A conversation with a co-worker at the new library where I have accepted a supervisor position jogged my memory and here it is...or was. Whatever.

OUCH!

The anthology in which my short story, "The Last Big Gamble" appears certainly garnered a mostly negative reaction from this reader! I guess I got off easy since she never mentioned me or my story because yikes!

It happens, of course. Tastes are subjective and since this particular reader identifies herself as a Las Vegas resident, accuracy and authenticity are important to her when writers represent her city. Some of the criticisms she has of the anthology in general are definitely worth paying attention to, particularly where she wrote, "After completing the collection, I couldn't help but wonder why these other authors didn't think of using Vegas history to create a cool story like this author did, instead of creating half-assed barely-about-Vegas stories."

I understand that reaction all too well. Stories set in Detroit and other parts of Michigan often feel like they were written about the East Coast using dialogue no one in my home-state would utter. But sometimes the concept and plot are good enough that that isn't a deciding factor for me. This reviewer clearly doesn't feel that way. For her, authenticity seems to be paramount and that is a perfectly valid reaction. 

However, I did intentionally make vague allusions to how Vegas got its start without providing a blatant history lesson. My story takes place in a post-vacation destination reality where people barely remember what it was like before. Something is alive in the desert and is feeding off their hope. If a story about tragic people desperately trying to break even with the odds stacked against them isn't about Vegas, then perhaps that city has a lot of work to do on its reputation with the rest of the world. 

I am glad the reviewer found two stories she enjoyed, however, whether or not mine was one she even noticed. Can't please everyone. 

"It's not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they needed, they wouldn't be the audience.  They would be the artists."

-Alan Moore

A Couple Positive Moments.

And there are those moments when you nearly forgot you sent a story in for consideration and you receive the following email:

Christopher,

"The Last Book on the Shelf" has made our second read list, so we're going to hold on to it for a while longer if you don't mind. We'll keep you updated and let you know the final results by November 1.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to read it.


Also, there's the warm feeling that goes along with a positive working relationship where you feel comfortable sending an email inquiring about an anthology that had already closed for submissions just to see if they might be willing to take a look at a story I think they might like. Basically, I was being Opposite Me, not assuming I knew the answer. This was their reply:

Normally, we wouldn't. But because we've worked together before I'm happen to pass it on so it gets a read. Send it through when you can (but don't take too long as we're close to being finished...


Sometimes it's the small things that make my day, especially when that day was not a good one.

The Dreaded Author Interview Questionnaire.

Every so often, a publisher in whose anthology my work is set to appear gets the idea that introducing the world to the likes of me is a positive thing. It certainly makes sense. Readers like to know who the authors are and how their minds work when it comes to their craft. It also increases the author's web presence and (potentially) places the publisher in the position of having brought the author to the world's attention either before or during a rise to some prominence. At least, that's the optimistic view.

Some authors feel pressured to not come off sounding like morons when they answer theirs. I don't worry about that; my concern is sounding pretentious and full of myself. I'm not a filmmaker, so that particular trait wouldn't be very becoming. In order to counter that, I tend to use humor in my responses except where seriousness gets my point across. The interviewers seem to enjoy it.

It's been a while since I've filled one out, but the time has come again thanks to B Cubed Press, which was already kind enough to create a page for me based on one published work with them. The questions are refreshingly unique and mildly intimidating so let's see what I can accomplish this time!

(Obviously I'll post a link when it's available)

TEMPORARILY CLOSED FOR LIFE-CHANGING EVENTS.

I haven't updated this blog in two weeks because of some changes that recently took place in my life, most notably in the job world. Having taken on a supervisory position, I am finding myself with less time to post lately. This might be a good thing, considering the issues taking place in the U.S. right now. It's probably best that I refrain from sharing my views.

However, I do have a short story coming out soon and other things to write about. I'm sure there will be time once I'm all settled in. So, thanks for your patience, those of you who actually read this thing.

I'll be Bach.