RFAK No. 12: Poison’s Kiss, by Breeana Shields

Poison’s Kiss, by Breeana Shields, 295 pages.

Confession: I did not have time to read this book before it was time to pick finalists for the Whitney Awards. In fact, it remained the only young adult fantasy finalist I hadn’t read.

And this book is going to get my vote as best young adult fantasy novel in 2017.

I know there are favorites in the category – Blood Rose Rebellion being the top contender, at least as I peruse social media. And I liked Rosalyn Eves’ story. But Poison’s Kiss . . .

Why is this my topper?

It’s a demonstration of the banality of evil.

For a very long time, you get the feeling there’s only one evil character in the book – Gopal, the creepy tender of Iyla and Miranda. And even his creepiness comes out in fits and starts, startling the reader with each reveal.

Then you come to realize that there are other evil characters, even if they don’t really consider themselves to be evil – because like Hitler’s Nazis (I’m borrowing the “banality of evil” phrase from Hannah Arendt’s book “The Banality of Evil”) these characters believe they’re acting in the best interest of the powers that be, not knowing, of course, that the powers they work for are the evil ones afoot.

Shields also successfully creates a rivalry – not a friendship, and you get the feeling it’ll never really be a friendship, even if these two characters were together for a thousand years – that balances on the perception of evil that each sees in the other. Miranda and Iyla will likely associate with each other for the rest of their lives, each believing the evil in their past and present is kinda the fault of the other.

Sheilds’ characters are what pop out in this novel. They’re complicated. Certainly not sugary. I’d like to hear more from them.

Making Prime Work Part V

NOTE: This is the start of a very intermittent series on this blog, wherein I review anything I may have watched, read, or otherwise gained from our Amazon Prime membership. This is partly to continue justifying the cost of Amazon Prime as it takes yet another leap, and to remind me what a wonderful cornucopia of media there is out there that I have yet to witness, or re-witness as the case may be.

Part One: Revenge. REVENGE! (Shhh!)



I remember, vaguely, reading The Count of Monte Cristo in late junior high or early high school. I rather enjoyed the story (the Abbe Faria part, not necessarily the revenge part).

I also remember watching the Richard Chamberlain 1975 version of “The Count of Monte Cristo” as a classroom reward after we finished reading the book. I remember it as my introduction to the Hollywood tradition of monkeying with storylines.

Caderousse isn’t a tailor, but a sailor who crosses Edmond Dantes as a thief.

And I guess that’s about it, aside from a lot of characters and situations who are just left out of the story.

They tightened the story. Which was a good thing. As the story really needed tightening. (I tried to read the original, unexpurgated version. In French. It needed some tightening.)

Rewatching it now is an education. Partly an education on bad acting – de Villefort and his pretend fisticuffing-turned-buffonery in court stands out. And then there’s Donald Pleasance. Always a delight. And clearly when I watched this the first time, I had no idea who Tony Curtis is.

Then there’s Richard Chamberlain counting down his successful revenges. Corny.

Also, he shoots at modern playing cards in the run-up to the duel with Albert Mondego. And they had a sword fight ON THE TABLE. How awesome is that? Old school. But awesome.

The story of the futility of revenge still shines through.

Because he gets his revenge. He counts down his One. Two. Three. Four. And Mercedes leaves. For Marseilles, home of her misery. Where he loses Mercedes – the Countess Mondego – all over again. Sniff.

Part Two: An Historian Writing a Made-Up History

I approached the documentary “The Real Middle Earth” with a bit of trepidation, particularly after reading a bunch of one-star reviews of it at Amazon. However, the documentary is better than what these reviewers claim.

Part of the documentary’s charm – and its shame – is that typical British “HEY THIS IS A FANTASY” treatment of the material: Spoopy creeping clouds, the whiz-bang of the special effects meant to offset the clunky practical effects, spring-sproing music (marimbas, xylophones, glockenspiel, etc.) just like what you see and hear typically in treatments of Terry Pratchett’s stories*, viz:



Of course, there’s a lot of speculation when it comes to real places inspiring places in The Lord of the Rings, and of the effects Tolkien’s experiences during World War I had on the novels. But it’s hard to imagine these places and experiences not having an influence.

If I can criticize something, it’s the continued re-use of the same images during the World War I segment of the documentary. Surely there were many more pictures to draw from than the less than half dozen the use over and over. Also, about half the documentary is spent wandering about the geographic possibilities of The Shire, kinda leaving the majority of Middle Earth out.

*I’m not saying this kind of treatment is bad, per se – compared to the schlock American cinema produces (which tends to focus on grit, gore, and the banality of good v. evil). I am saying it’s clearly British.

Eagle Project Update

If all goes well Sunday with district approval of Isaac’s Eagle project, we could be doing said project the first Saturday of July.

Our only glitch may be getting volunteers to come help. His Scoutmaster has a family reunion that weekend, and it is the weekend following the Fourth of July, so many Scout families may not be around to help. As it is, I’ll have to go to Treasure Mountain Scout Camp to retrieve Isaac – and likely his brother and sister – to help with the project, unless I can coax Michelle into coming home Friday night rather than Saturday afternoon. I might be able to wing that.

And you know what? I don’t think Isaac cares whether or not many of the members of his Scout troop come or not. We just want to get the project done. He’s got an odd relationship with Scouting. He loves Scout Camp and hanging out with the boys in the context that he’s kind a cool being on camp staff, but when it comes to doing things with his own troop, he gets frustrated since they’re working with younger Scouts on stuff that he’s already finished. I can’t help that, and I wish I could get across to him that he could be a role model and a help to the younger Scouts in his troop. Also part of it might be that he’s disappointed that I wasn’t Scoutmaster for his tenure in the troop; he only got to be with me for a year, not the two years he anticipated.

Best news about this is that we know the other Scout, who has to complete sanding and peeling of the benches before Isaac and crew can stain them, is on the same approval track that we are – we both ended up meeting with the folks from Camp Cumorah Tuesday night for a little signature party. That Scout will do his project on July 5 – we’ll head up on the 7th.

So that means I gotta make a Home Depot run to get some tools and supplies. We’ll provide the tools – the camp will provide the stain, which is great, since the stain is pretty spendy. And I don’t mind buying the tools. We learned doing Liam’s Eagle project a few years ago that the local hardware stores get inundated with requests for donations from Eagle Scout candidates, so it’s not even worth asking for donations. That goes for the mom and pop shops (we do have a few) and the national chains. But I’ve already got some turpentine and spending a little money on gloves and rollers and such won’t break the bank, and it’ll meet the No. 1 goal of the project: Getting it done.

The only real variable we’re working with here is wondering whether the eight gallons of stain the camp has will be enough to do the benches. It all depends on how much stain the benches soak up as we work. I guess we’ll paint until we run out of benches or stain, and then see where we stand if the stain runs out first. Hopefully these pine benches aren’t as thirsty as my cedar fence is in the back yard.

Depending on how quickly the follow-up paperwork goes, Isaac could get his Eagle before he turns 14 in August – something he’d like to do, just for the bragging rights of getting his Eagle while he’s at Scout Camp to be showered with adoration from his fans there. And it would mean Mom and Dad no longer have to be pushing to get a project completed. We’ll see how it goes.

[Insert Good Headline Here]

Good headlines are like any other kind of writing -- you have to write thousands of them to get the good ones to come out.

And what do I mean by a "good" headline?

That all comes down to what headlines are for.

Headlines are hooks. They're the first bit of information you toss out to your readers. They're the first bit of information your readers judge to decide if they want to read the rest of the story.

Here are a few rules I follow (mostly unconsciously now) when I write a headline:

1. Be as specific as you can in the space you're allowed
2. Don't use journalism jargon
3. Use wordplay or puns, with two caveats:
       a. Don't force them
       b. Use sparingly
4. Bring your readers into your story
5. Not every headline you write is going to be great.

The most important rule to remember is No. 5. But the others help a lot.

Here are a few examples of what I mean:

1. Be as specific as you can in the space you're allowed

Headlines used to mean economy of words, particularly in newspapers. That real estate has loosened up over time with the advent of the Internet. Still, you don't want to go on forever in a headline (readers are impatient, and going on forever is what the story is for).

Here's a great specific headline (courtesy of the [Boise] Idaho Statesman:

This headline packs a lot of information in only 12 words. We get the who: Drivers. We get there where: Interstate 84. We get the what: Lane closures. And we get the why: Contributed to crash that killed 4.

Combined with the picture, this combination is one that I'll bet a lot of people read (also because it follows one of the oldest journalism rules in the book: If it bleeds, it leads.) The headline puts the reader into the story, and many were probably thinking, "Yeah, I drove I-84 before this accident, and the lane closures sure didn't make a lot of sense."

2. Don't use journalism jargon

I see journalism jargon in mostly newspaper reporters, though all of us are guilty of it from time to time. What do I mean? Things like this:

"Washington Girds for Battle Over Kennedy's Replacement"

Let me ask you a question: When you prepare for something, do you use the word "gird"? Ever use that word when you speak?

I don't. Unless I'm trying to be ironic.

Journalists always have people girding for battle. They always have police throwing a cordon around a crime scene. And it's almost always the Pontiff -- not the Pope -- who comes for a visit.

Better headline, same story:

No journalism speak. And I'll bet this headline got a lot more people riled up than what the Gray Lady presented on the same day.

Note: I'm not endorsing any kind of politics here. Doesn't matter if you don't like the NY Post, or the NY Times. This is about headlines. And truth be told, some of the best headlines I've ever read have been in the likes of The National Enquirer or the Weekly World News.)

3. Use wordplay or puns, with two caveats:
       a. Don't force them
       b. Use sparingly

Writing a headline like this is a once in a lifetime opportunity:

If you have the opportunity to write a headline like this and you don't take it, I probably won't like you as a person.

That being said, if EVERY HEADLINE you write is like this, your readers and your editors are going to be all:

Puns and wordplay help a good headline become a great one, but if you use puns and wordplay in every headline, you're going to dilute the effect. And some of the headlines you come up with will be mediocre puns at best.

So strike light lightning when you can. But don't overdo it.

4. Bring your readers into your story

We've seen a hint of this in an earlier part of the discussion. But let's continue here.

First, there's this:

Here's your typical Who What When Where headline, and it gets the job done. But the words harassed and threatened are pretty commonplace. Harassed how? And threatened to what degree? We have to read the story to find out. And with everyone across the nation either covering this story or using Associated Press copy of this story, a good headline can help one writer's story stand out.

Sometimes digging deeper into the story itself -- or even reading the story that's presented -- offers much better possibilities.

Consider this quote from the LA Times' story itself:

Now imagine the story with this headline:

But with better typography and kerning (I'm not a graphic artist).

By looking into the story, we find a headline that is more specific and draws our readers into the story that generic words like harassed and threatened just don't have the power to do.

One more look at this story in particular. Which headline here is better? And why?

5. Not every headline you write is going to be great.

This is at the same time the hardest and the easiest rule to follow. Hard, because we want everything we touch to be worthy to hang in the Louvre. Easy because if you're like me, you'll end up for years writing, as Dave Barry puts it, "boring stories on municipal government." There are only so many clever headlines you can write about local improvement districts, what diameter of sewer pipe the city should buy, and how well the local bowling league is doing.

And it sounds like most of you have hopes that take you beyond local journalism. But the same rule applies, just on a bigger scale.

Scan any national news outlet and for the most part, you're going to see run-of-the-mill, pedestrian headlines. Oh, a few will stand out. But the vast majority of them are just going to be there, doing the job, but punching out at 5 pm and going home to have a beer.

So don't stress about every headline, because not every headline is destined for greatness.

Making Prime Work Part IV

NOTE: This is the start of a very intermittent series on this blog, wherein I review anything I may have watched, read, or otherwise gained from our Amazon Prime membership. This is partly to continue justifying the cost of Amazon Prime as it takes yet another leap, and to remind me what a wonderful cornucopia of media there is out there that I have yet to witness, or re-witness as the case may be.

Part One: A Film Set in America Yet Featuring Comically Impossible Italian Cars

I’m not a big fan of the zombie/vampire film genre. There’s only so much you can do with a story about hiding out from the baddies. Particularly when the baddies are of the slow, mumbling, gonna get you when I actually get around to it variety.

And I’ll admit when I saw "The Last Man on Earth" was based on the book “I Am Legend” as the opening credits spooled, I was surprised the book was that old (given its recent treatment in the Will Smith vehicle of the same name).

And eh. I could live without this film.

Though it was fun to see all these comical Italian vehicles in a film that’s supposed to be set in the United States, or so I assume when “his excellency the governor” appears on TV to say his state too has been declared a disaster area.



Vincent Price seemed ill-fitted to the role. His character needed the cocky assurance of Charlton Heston a la The Omega Man, another film based on this book. Yet Price’s vulnerability, brought about by the inevitable laughter over memories begetting tears over the same memories, is undeniable.

And where did the organized group of vampire-killers get their matching outfits?

Part Two: These Days, Anyone Can Make A Documentary

First of all, I was right. That is Elliot Gould narrating "The Soyuz Conspiracy".

That’s been the only thing I’ve liked about it.

Well, there was the background used for one of the experts interviewed for the film: a touristy book on Russia, some nesting dolls, and a big map clearly labeled, Batmanesque, “Former Soviet Union” tacked to the wall behind him.

While the story told is compelling, everything else about this film feels amateurish, from the schlocky graphics to the “put more Russian stuff in the background” set dressing.

There’s little about this film that feels new – maybe it was in 2000. Looking at it now, it’s hard to tell what the “new footage” the documentary touts is, as most of what we’re seeing is film of Soviet parades.

And in describing the death of cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, bada boom, it feels like Gould goes off-script. Or maybe he stayed on a terribly-written script.

In any shape or form, this documentary feels slipshod, just like an early Soyuz.

Damnation Memoriae

We live in an inconvenient world.

It’s not perfect. Far from it. And while we lurch back and forth on the march to perfection, sometimes getting better, often getting worse, we make mistakes.

That’s inconvenient.

So to compensate, often we overcompensate.

That’s a mistake.

For example:

After months of deliberation, the organization behind a prestigious book award has decided to remove the name of author Laura Ingalls Wilder because of her portrayal of Native Americans. The Association for Library Service to Children gives out the "Laura Ingalls Wilder Award" yearly to authors hose work has made a lasting impact on the world of children's literature. The honor will now be known as the Children's Literature Legacy Award.

Now, I’m about to make a silly comparison.

Silly, because the ALSC says it’s silly on its face. And for what it’s worth, I believe what they say:
"Changing the name of the award, or ending the award and establishing a new award, does not prohibit access to Wilder's works or suppress discussion about them. Neither option asks or demands that anyone stop reading Wilder's books, talking about them, or making them available to children. These recommendations do not amount to censorship, nor do they undermine intellectual freedom."
Yet, since I get that poem quoted at me when I dare suggest that comparing the current situation on the US border to the Holocaust is a bit of an overcompensation, I’m going to go there.

Memory holes.

George Orwell describes memory holes in his novel 1984 thusly:

“In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.”

So I will concede I’m wrong (a little bit) on the border issue. Because of the slippery soap on the slippery slope.

In compromise, can we say that renaming this award is a bit like the first step to shoving books we don’t like into a memory hole?

Now, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ve never read anything by Laura Ingalls Wilder. I didn’t even watch the TV show based on her books all that much. Maybe in passing when that prissy girl whose parents owned the store was on the screen, because she wasn’t as saccharine as the others. But not much beyond that.

Here’s something else to consider: Are we going to begin scrutinizing everything for stuff that’s bad? I mean, *you* can still read it, but the enlightened folks won’t because they know it’s bad. So scratch Tom Wolfe’s “The Right Stuff” because astronaut Alan Shepherd? He’s all sorts of racist with his Jose Jimenez impersonation. And he got his comeuppance. That’s all in the book. And the movie.

There’s this to consider: Who decides what is offensive?

I’ve read some books I cannot recommend because of reasons. Portrait of the Artist as A Young Man? Terrible. Yet if I I decided to denigrate the book or its author in some way for reasons, I’d get a snootful.

Whose reasons weigh more? And whose hands are on the scale?

Pick up that scrap of paper. Don’t read it. Just lift the grate and toss it in the hole.

Eagle Project!

Finally, after having phone numbers in his possession for many months, Isaac called them. He now has a good Eagle Scout project lined up at Camp Cumorah, up in the foothills east of town. Providing we can get the requisite approvals, the project will be done soon.

What is he doing? He’s going to stain 40 benches at a new amphitheater at the camp. Another Scout is going to sand and peel the benches, so we have to wait until he’s done. And the camp is kinda anxious to have all this done before their family reunion season starts up mid-July. So technically we could be doing this project next week, if the other Scout is on the ball.

Making the call and then driving up to Camp Cumorah this weekend was penance for both of us, since a misunderstanding between Michelle and I led to Isaac not going with his Scout troop on their “scout camp” campout this week. (I don’t know what the big deal is, as the only actual event he was going to participate in was their swimming in Jackson on their first day; the rest of the time he was going to be in camp with Michelle, underfoot and babbling. But it’s not mine to guess.)

We’ll meet with the unit advancement chair on Tuesday, and hopefully with the Camp Cumorah representatives either Tuesday or Wednesday so we can get signatures – then we have to meet with the Grand Teton Council guy who approves projects. Hopefully we can get in to him quickly. Good thing is he lives just up the street from us.

We’re hoping this turns out to be a good project. Logistically, it’s simpler than Liam’s was – he painted house numbers on curbs in part of an Ammon neighborhood for the fire department. We learned quite a bit from that one, namely not to do it again (but if we did, we sure know better how to handle things, and that would include laminating the templates so they didn’t fall apart on us so quickly.)

So far, the worst part of the thing was tracking down the folks at the different camps (there are two up there) who were in the know enough to tell us what they needed and, more importantly, be the ones we’d hit up to sign the paperwork). Here’s to hoping it goes smoothly.

Doleful Creatures in Poetry

Been working on this for a while now. It's better, but I'm still not satisfied with it.

After the light, after the darkness,
After the deep of the blue.
After the green, before their coming –
Before the storm clouds flew;

Come The Lady, come the dragon –
Come le loup garou.
Come the time of subtle voices,
To the garden say adieu.

Kept the hope remaining
Kept the songs of the heart
Kept the light a-shining
Though for a time we dwell apart.

Watch for the return of the Minder
Watch for the coming to start
Watch for love everlasting
Though for a time we dwell apart.

RFAK No. 11, The Dragon Orb, by Mike Shelton

The Dragon Orb, by Mike Shelton, 326 pages.

Some books are a slow burn – which is why I rarely stop reading a book, even if the beginning is a bit iffy.

That’s the case with Mike Shelton’s The Dragon Orb, a book that starts out with a klunk (with some wonky writing) but ends with a flourish of storytelling that made me glad I didn’t give up.

A few of the characters are a bit too perfect, but that’s okay.

The writing, especially at the beginning, is stilted, but that’s okay.

Why okay? Because the story pulled me through. As I read I began forming visions in my head of what the characters looked like, and began placing them in bits of geography I’ve visited as Shelton told his story. To me, that’s a sign of a good book.

I think part of the klunk came from the king-men and other vocabulary borrowed from the Book of Mormon. Not that it’s terrible the author did that, but the familiarity had my head hollering “B of M” every time it came up. Nevertheless, I got used to seeing such wording in the book, so that passed. To anyone not familiar with the borrowed vocabulary or concepts, there won’t be an issue.

Shelton’s characters are prefab, and we only get to see one of them grow as the story progresses. The rest are driven by the narrative and the (obvious) roles they’ll play in future novels. Shelton suffers the same characterization affliction I do – his characters pretty much sound the same.

The book might win the award for Least Likely Poisoning – I’m not sure anyone could successfully lunge up to someone and force them to drink out of a little glass bottle without the victim vigorously fighting back and succeeding. But I’m not a poisoning expert.

We are Men of Action

It’s hard to say whether this is what we’ve become, or if this particular beast has been slouching toward Bethlehem for a very, very long time.

We have lenses that magnify it.

Oh, there were lenses with the beast all along. But the Internet, that great social equalizer as long as you have a device and an Internet connection, that’s the lens of all lenses. It puts the theses-writers and pamphleteers to shame. Because now each and every one of us can spout off our nonsense and it doesn’t cost us a thing. Except time.

And boy do we have time. Clay Shirky talks about cognitive surplus. We’re cognitive surplussing left and right, and in all dimensions.



But that brings me to today’s comic strip: Truth to Power vs Lies to Weasels. Both have existed since the beast began lumbering, and to varying degrees, Truth wins and Lies wins.

The lenses we have today don’t increase the chance of either side winning. They just make both sides really, really loud.

And what’s important is to be right. And if you’re wrong what’s important is that somewhere, somehow, the person who is right did something wrong, and is thus wrong as well.



No matter this finger-pointing, virtue-signalling, or social justice warrior-ing doesn’t really fix the problem at hand – what’s important is to score those all-important points through the lenses everyone else builds their perceptions on.

Because perception is what counts these days. I look like I’m doing Something, so that’s enough.

What did you do in the war, daddy?

I was right on the Internet, son.

[Hero worshipping intensifies]

But doing  Something is important these days. Because to do nothing means You. Are. Hitler. Or at least one of his minions.

This is going to get quoted at you. A lot:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And it is powerful. It calls for action.

Action. Not “Something” that signals virtue or wags fingers or being right on the Internet.

Action.

Look for action in those who use it.

Action is hard to find.