Blog in review, March / April 2012

First, February knocked me out.  The whole month sucked, and you can probably guess why.



Then in March, I started getting pulled down -- first with bouts of depression, then I was busy with video games, girlfriends, and a new job.  And since then, let's face it, I haven't been that great at keeping to schedule. So, sorry about that.



I started March with a character generation chart, for those people who want an easy way to create characters.  WARNING: characters make develop minds of their own in short order.  To follow up on that, there is a more advanced version with the psychology of characters, with real psychology, if you don't consider that an oxymoron.

In April, I had an interview with Karina Fabian about her new book Live and Let Fly, which I also reviewed.



And, I made a quick study of Writer's Block.  And, to go along with it, I explained my current situation in getting published: it's situation normal.



In music, I posted a blog for Simple Gifts ... just go with it. It works.  And, if you don't know Loreena McKinnett ... have a sample, I can recommend her work.  We also had a return to the awesome Lindsay Stirling, and her tribute to Skyrim.



But what about the Catholic Writer's Guild conference? That was covered in March!  Well, that was so self contained, I did that as a separate entry.



Be well, all.

Catholic Conspiracies 3: Jesuits, OWS, and the Vandals Are Here.

Vatican

Ninja

Remod

(Draft)

Once upon a time, very long ago, I discussed how the Catholic Church seems to be the favorite of multi-generational bands of abject nutcases.  I then expanded the topic, discussing how many fruit loops were involved, and that was titled The Revenge of the Vatican Ninjas.

In this case, we're going to add a bit of local politics.  And by local, I mean New York.

Has anyone heard of Occupy Wall Street?

If you haven't, that's okay, they're rather annoying -- essentially a fun bunch of anarchists hanging out in Zuccotti park who were told that 1968 was a really fun time, that bathing is bad for you, and it's quite okay to defecate wherever you deem fit.  It's not so much a political movement as an unruly mob. They're mad as hell, they're not going to take it anymore, and they are rebels without a clue -- when someone says they hate Wall Street, and the bailouts of Wall Street, yet they don't protest anyone who was bailed out, this spells stupid to me.

They've attacked police officers, and they want the redistribution of wealth, but they whine when their stuff is stolen.  At the end of the day, while they may appear threatening, they are mostly harmless.  And if you read any of the links, you'll notice that I spend most of my time making fun of them.  Just don't tell my editors, they may think I'm having too much fun.

So, what does this have to do with Catholic conspiracies?

Well, recently, I did a search on twitter for "Jesuits."

Big, big mistake. 

Apparently, now, the Jesuits are a crypto-Jews / Nazi / Zionist organization, bent on establishing the New World Order via Occupy Wall Street .... And, of course, founded by the Illuminati. 

As my friend Jason says,

"It's the internet. I'm not surprised about anything I find on it anymore. I think it was created by Cthullu, not Al Gore. It's a bottomless pit that WILL stare back at you if you look at it too hard. In the dark. On a cold winter night. With eerie music playing in the background (Cthullu has a MP3 player)."

I have to ask, now -- what are you people smoking?  Or is it that the internet goes to the loudest spammers, who happen to be nutjobs with unlimited time on their hands.

Either way, it's always good to see that nothing ever changes.

The amusing part of the Occupy Wall Street movement as "crypto-Jewish Jesuit conspiracy" is twofold, really.  One, they've got an emerging anti-Semitic group in there, with makes the whole "evil Jewish Conspiracy" part kinda stupid .... er.  

On the other hand, their fellow occupiers have issues with breaking other people's toys.

How so?

I'll give you one guess.

Their international branch at "Occupy Rome," in addition to firebombing cars, has taken upon itself to smash up religious icons.

All I can think is: if this happened to a synagogue, would the Mossad have already killed everyone in this photo by now?

But, no, it's just the Catholics.  So, who cares?

Ann Margaret Lewis, posted this to her facebook page and asked "Why?"

And isn't it obvious?  Because Catholics are "evil, baby-raping priests," and most of these people are too busy worshiping their iPads . And they like to talk about how they should "eat the Rich"-- and the Catholics are wonderfully rich and powerful, aren't they? They have so many shiny things, after all.... And, somehow, the sarcasm isn't burning a hole in my keyboard.

And, sure enough, someone said just that, responding with two recent stories.**   And by recent, I mean they happened the week before.  The words are "innocent until proven guilty ... unless he's Catholic," aren't they? But, it's nice to see anyone can justify a hate crime is the target is "right."

But, thus far, Occupy Wall Street has endorsements from the Nazi party of America, the Communist party, and David Duke.

Between this and the above "evil Jesuit plot," it seems that a faceless, aimless rabble makes for a great Rorschach test for ideologists of any stripe.  "Oh look, there's a group of angry protesters, they must hate who I hate," or "they embody everything I despise."

Vatican Ninja Chibi.

"Grr. Arrgh"

While it is quite entertaining to watch a group of people go slowly insane, it's time these guys ought to come up with a coherent message. Hell, the Tea Party's wants could be summed up as "We hate big government, we want fewer taxes, less spending and no Obamacare."

With the OWS, we have the Nazis, the Klan, the Communists, "we hate Jews / big business / brand names / we're wearing brand names/ we hate bailouts but won't protest those who got bailouts ...."  

Oh, yeah, and they're an evil Jesuit conspiracy.....

Can I have my Vatican Ninjas now?

**The footnotes are below the break.

Twitter Trolls: Writing in the Electronic Age

Should you want to become a writer, you're going to have to live with the Internet. You're already on the net, since you're reading this, but if you're just a casual user, get ready for culture shock. There are nut jobs all over the Internet. Normal, reasonable people, added to the Internet, seem to become quite psychotic. And I don't mean a little nuts -- because that can be any Friday afternoon after a busy week and you're stuck in rush hour -- I mean frothing at the mouth rabid, violently deranged.

If you want to go into writing, the Internet will be your friend. And your worst enemy. Probably at the same time. You will need it to sell your book. Interviews, book tours, podcasts, guest blogs, book reviews, all of it, are done online. It will be a valuable tool. Statistics seem to indicate that casual viewers of your material will not comment, one way or another. I have posted some stories from the blog for A Pius Man on another website, and have been rewarded with some glowing reviews of my work. One story got me three reviews in a matter of hours -- but only after nearly two thousand people had already read the story.

On this blog, some of the more viewed blog posts have come with people who have seriously, seriously hated me and everything I said. See the Lent post, if you don't believe me.

But, people are complicated: You could, for example, look at Matt's website. Matthew Funtime, artist for all of the good artwork on this blog, is an atheist. And I don't mean the casual "I don't believe in God, thanks, bye" sort of atheist. He's a bit of a die hard. And, if you look at his posts on religion, you might think he falls into the above rubric. He really doesn't. Unlike some people, who are reasonable until you lodge a disagreement, Matt seems to be in full Keith-Olberman-without-his-medication-mode to start with. However, if you lodge a simple, civil disagreement, he will politely disagree with you, and have a conversation.

Matt is a sane, reasonable person if you are a sane, reasonable person.

There are some that aren't so sane....



Long-time readers will remember that I dislike politics because the moment I have a label put on me, I have other people telling me what I think. I can't finish a sentence, or explain my long, thought-out, nuanced position, political philosophy.

Apparently, that's not even limited to politics anymore. Apparently, it's called the entire Internet

For example, there is a twitter exchange I had with one entity who made a casual mention about the Westboro Baptist Church -- that if they really hated gays, they should be outside the Vatican....

Now, after last week, you know my position on that particular cliche: it's overdone, overblown, and somewhat stupid. I figured I could take a swipe at him, or casually correct what he was saying. I could also call him out on the insult to gay people -- he was using the term "fag," and not referring to a cigarette or a piece of wood -- but he probably wouldn't get it.

So, as a lead in, I gave him a little counter attack, which was:

APiusManNovel JohnK
@GASmithIV Actually, if they wanted pedophiles, that's what the teacher's unions are for.

Yes, it's provocative. I wanted a reaction. When he asked for clarification, ("Are you saying that public school teachers are pedophiles?") I gave him

@GASmithIV Public school teachers had over 300K vics in the 90s, vs 10K for priests (1950-2002). So, yes.

@GASmithIV Teachers: http://tinyurl.com/y3423mc Priests: http://tinyurl.com/32oq9q

That was the total extent of it. Notice, if you would, that the numbers given only refer to numbers of victims. Nothing else. Yes, there are bad teachers, but there are still bad priests. The most I could make of "an argument" is that the priesthood isn't the only institution with a corruption problem.  The numbers in the report on teachers (cited last week) was that there were over 300,000 complaints registered against public school teachers over the course of more than a decade, and only 1% were investigated, or given any credence.  And that one in ten children go through the public school system and get abused at some point. From 1950-2002, there were only over ten thousand people who made accusations, and only 3% of those accused (the accused were about 4% of the overall priests during that time period) were convicted of anything. For a correction rate, 3% of 4% isn't bad. If you go by The New York Times, that boils down to only 100 bad apples over half a century.

Granted, 100 bad apples that should suffer horrors that would make GITMO detainees want to be water boarded, but still, for a corruption record, it's not that bad.

Now, I figured that, when this fellow read through the footnotes, the most he would do was correct me that the report cited above doesn't paint all teachers with a brush of child abuse -- a perfectly valid correction, one I would have easily accepted. We would smile, nod, and depart with an agreement. The sole premise: the Catholic priesthood might not be the most evil entity on the planet.

Then, in a reply peppered with foul language, this particular person on twitter said that was only because the Catholic Church hid everything. Muahahahaha .... okay, there was no evil laughter, but it would have been preferable to what he did say.

So, I blinked a few times. Wait a second. I cited a perfectly valid John Jay University study that examined the situation with science, psychology, statistical breakdowns and a full, nuanced report. John Jay U, an institution that deals heavily in criminal justice and related professions. It is a secular, impartial authority. You have to get up pretty early to pull the wool over their eyes. Since most Bishops don't get up until 8am, that discounted most Catholic clergy.

Hoping to prompt this fellow into reading the darn report, I decided to go the sarcastic approach, and underline the part I was certain he missed.

@GASmithIV Yes, because John Jay is in the pocket of the Catholic Church. #brilliant

Okay. Certainly, that would get him to read everything I had just sent him, right?

Not really. From the violence of his response, you would think that I had insulted every beloved relative he had. It took up three twitter replies, and the language was certainly R-rated.

The only salient point was that his reply was a little deranged. He wouldn't debate me on twitter, etc, etc, and there was a whole bunch of violence thrown in.

I went for the assumption of Godwin's law. He went postal, he lost. I told him so.

He proceeded to go even more postal. He suggested that I be hung from a lamp post, with every priest ever born, all of my twitter followers, and my little dog too.

I only had two answers for him.

@GASmithIV So, you approve of public school teachers as pedophiles? Good to know it's not the action you hate, just the priests.


@GASmithIV U do realize the only implication was that there r other groups with corruption issues? U jumped straight 2 lynching. Good job.
19 May via web

Yes, it was a little childish stab at the end, but after the homophobic, Catholic-phobic, and generally delusional replies, I figured I was owed the jab.

Now, for those of you who are wondering: "Why did John only post his own replies?"  Good question. The answer is that I have no idea.  As I write this (Sunday, May 22, 2011 -- if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done), all of the various and sundry comments made by GASmithIV have evaporated into the digital realm, yet all of my replies are still on my twitter feed. I have no idea why this is, or how, just that it is.

Unfortunately, there is a part of this story missing because it's my fault. Someone tried to get cute with me, and posted on my blog about the numbers I posted on Twitter. The moron read the numbers of victims as the numbers of the accused. He also told me not to debate him, because he was right, and I was stupid. So there.

Since he obviously didn't read anything I had posted, and he posted the comment in my Neil Gaiman post, I deleted it -- I mean, heck, he could have posted it in the appropriate slot in the cliche post. But he couldn't be bothered looking for that one. In retrospect, I should have saved the comment, but it didn't occur to me to write this post until after I deleted it

It was interesting. Without making any argument at all, I was subjected to a whole slew of death threats, ranting, raving, and general carrying on cranky.

So, welcome to the Internet. Lessons you should learn:

1. Don't feed the trolls.

2. No matter what your argument, people will disagree with you violently. Possibly because they have nothing better to do.

3. If you don't have an argument, people will fill in the blanks just so they can disagree with you violently. In all likelihood, because they want to be angry.

4. Don't go looking for attention from morons unless you know they will be morons in advance and you're ready for them. For example: when I had a twitter conversation with the Phelps spawn, I knew they would be morons in advance, and I spent most of my time laughing at them. I concluded they had no sense of humor. At all.

5. When they tell you not to debate you, laugh at them. A lot. Perhaps maniacally.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Terrorists are stupid.

Yes, the title is exaggerated, but you're reading, aren't you?



I must say, though, for the most part, terrorists are not the brightest lights in the night sky.



Think about it. I can plan a better terrorist attack than any of these bozos. So could you.



For example....You want terror? Screw blowing up the World Trade Center—over fifty thousand people worked there, and the WTC could have upwards of 100,000 visitors per day (the magic notebook sees all and retains all). Infect all of them with the bio-weapon of your choice. A little smallpox, for example, maybe plague in the HVAC system. Have it running all day, and you infect both employees and tourists. They, in turn, infect people while going to lunch, on the subway, the ferry, their families, and when tourists go home, they bring it back with them. Being a smart terrorist, you tell the states friendly to you that they should really restrict travel to and from New York, and possibly all of America, period.



By the time the penny drops at the CDC, most of New York City now needs to be quarantined. The economy starts drying up, slowly. Tourism is dead. Fifty thousand jobs in the two buildings are lost, assuming that the employees are not all simply dead.



And I'm not even thinking hard.



Ironically, despite the Wyle E. Coyote explosive in Times Square, the attack itself was the right idea from their point of view. If terrorists want to inspire terror, then small, but frequent, attacks are the way to go. People are scared, frightened, uncertain about what may come around the next corner.



However, a word to al-Qaeda, et al, upon looking at the Time Square incident: when you're acquiring explosives, avoid the ones marked ACME....



As I was saying—thus far, when terrorists can't come up with ideas that I can in my spare time, they should probably reconsider their career goals.



And they are not necessarily uneducated. Osama bin Laden, last I checked, had a degree in engineering—and if I'm mistaken, his family is fill with engineers so he should have some idea. Mohammed Atta, one of the 9-11 pilots, had an upper middle class education in Egypt.



Though it does make me wonder why, thus far, a lot of the terrorists coming our way seemed to have come out of the Wyle E. Coyote school of home explosives.



The Underwear Bomber whose bomb caught fire without going off.



The Times Square bomber, with a Rube Goldberg timer.



The best answer I can come up with is that we're getting all the cannon fodder, who seem as bright as cannonballs. Not to mention that they have few experienced fighters—when you encourage martyrdom in your ranks, you have few people around who can share hard won combat experience. It didn't work well for the kamikaze, I can tell you that.



If I were going to do a terrorist attack....



Before someone freaks out about giving them ideas, the media looked at the Time Square bomb and pointed out EXACTLY what was wrong with it. I'm not coming up with anything new.



As I was saying...



Let's look at Grand Central Station: use a biological weapon in the building. From there, it starts infecting the east coast with the plague of your choice. Or, suicide bombers in the terminal during rush hour would also be effective.



Look at Grant Central for a moment. No security checks in the main portion of the building. No metal detectors, x-rays, nothing. Even I could make an anti-personnel bomb and bring it inside. Bio weapons and suicide bombers would both leave the station itself virtually intact, and the building would eventually be reopened. But in the meantime, traffic would be shot to hell, and once it's reopened... well, would YOU want to go there? The damage would be done. The terminal would be seen by millions of people as a plague-infected site by the ignorant, or it would be seen as a monument of death. It would be a lingering, lasting monument to an attack that would cost hundreds [suicide bomber] if not thousands, or millions of lives [bio weapon].



Traffic would be crippled, either by a lack of people coming in, or by the level of security now required to fully scan everyone coming on or off a train, into or out of the station. It would be a NIGHTMARE, worse than blowing up the 59th street bridge.... then a smart terrorist would blow that up. They've already tried for the Brooklyn Bridge.



But why haven't they? I can make mustard gas, or a bomb, from my kitchen cabinet. My mother is a medical technologist, and she can make a bio weapon in the kitchen. Is it so impossible for al-Qaeda to find five guys to get an associates degree for medical technology, or chemistry? Anyone can come in through the Mexican-US border, so why hasn't a bio weapon attack happened?



It's easy to say “Because they're stupid.” In those cases of allowing cannon fodder to fire cannons, yes.



However, it's mostly because they're fairly undisciplined. Sure, al-Qaeda has training camps, but have have you seen some of the video footage from them? They come into rooms in a perfect shooting posture... for a firing range. Do a quick glance at Youtube with any footage of Jack Bauer (of 24 fame) moving through a room with a gun—gun is close in, both arms are tucked, feet in what look like a combat stance for MMA. This is called a Weaver Stance. Now look at the after terrorist training video, and note how they square their feet, and hold their guns out at arm's length, practically locking their elbows. Get some good recoil, they could break their arms.



It's not even an “ethnic” problem. Most terrorists are similar. The IRA for example. They've blow up the wrong targets, caught more people in the crossfire than some Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinians are AIMING for the civilians.



Then there was the Japanese Red Army unit brought in to Israel to aid the Palestinians-- they got cut down in the airport because they didn't know the Israelis had security! Yes, and somewhere along the line, SOMEONE thought it was a good idea for Japanese communist terrorists to invade the Middle East. Maybe they thought everyone would think they were tourists...



And one day, I suspect, we will see an attempted nuclear strike on America. They may even make it happen.



Why do I say that would be stupid?



Because they'd be dead.



Mecca, Medina, gone. Saudi Arabia, gone. Oil fields? Saudi Arabia's population is mostly on the shoreline, away from the oil. Syria? Israel can have them, if they want them. Iran will either disarm, or be destroyed. And God help anyone who gives them a nuke in the first place. The party will be over. War on terror would be finished. And would the world protest?



“The world” would probably be the one doing the nuking. Because they know that using a nuke is crossing the line.



The UN would complain, as would all the usual suspects, but would they really do anything? Nope, why would they? Environmental disasters? Not really, the Middle east is a large sandlot, and the populations that aren't nuked can be transplanted [although the winds won't be able to carry the radiation that far east, and remember that OUR nukes come with very little fallout].



Aren't I being callous about this? A nuclear strike would be on either NY or DC, and the Secretary of agriculture would be the head of the country.



Well, if DC, we have elections, and the bureaucracy is really hard to destroy, not to mention the amount of bunkers floating around the politicians. The Pakistani bomb requires a warhead the size of a volleyball, and MAY destroy midtown Manhattan [US warheads are the size of a bottle of Pepsi and can vaporize the 5 boroughs], and I live in Queens, so I should be relatively safe, because I intend to run like hell after the initial explosion, or at least head East, away from the fallout. Or I'll be dead, and I won't have to worry much about it, now would I?



However, would it really come to that? It might. But given the performance thus far, I am reminded of an old joke ....



Q: How can you tell a Soviet nuclear submariners apart from the other members of the fleet?



A: Because they glow in the dark.



If terrorists were smart about attacking the United States, they'd do it. They'd be sending people across the Mexican border daily for the sole purpose of heading directly to a target. Any target.



My father, a professor in Philosophy, came up with the idea of blowing up the New Orleans dams as a terrorist attack in 2000. Now it's a little late for that. Apparently, a family of academics dickering around with this as a mental exercise can come up with a better plan than bin Laden himself.



Ah, but “What about 9-11?”



The only reason they could get away with 9/11 is that the hostage playbook said be calm, you'll be ransomed for later, just play nice with the hostage takers. Not to mention that planes involved in 9-11 came out of Boston. As comedian Carlos Mencia has noted, before 9-11, someone flying Southwest airlines said he would rush the cockpit. When the plane landed, this guy had already been stomped to death.



Not to Osama: please, fly Southwest.



After 9/11, the playbook was rewritten. Even the passengers of Flight 93 knew better. Sneaker-Bomber Boy was nearly torn apart by the passengers around him, so we know the rules have changed. I want to see some terrorists pull box cutters on board a plane coming out of La Guardia and see how long they last.



The terrorist threat to this country remains, but there are days I think it's just a threat. Looking at the genius exhibited thus far by those to have tried to attack the mainland, I'm just glad that either they're stupid, or we're lucky.



Unfortunately, sometimes idiots can get lucky.

The Mind of the Maker... or: Characters can get away from you...and they will.

It has been mentioned a few times that the reader should trust no one while reading A Pius Man.

Obviously, there are some reactions that go somewhere along the lines of “What the hell....?  What do you mean we shouldn't trust anyone?  Who's the main character?”

Christopher Reich once noted that, in a thriller, the reader should always be prepared for anyone to “get it in the neck” at any possible moment, from any possible angle—including behind you.

I started writing in 1998, before there was a television show called 24, where the only one you trust is Jack Bauer. Back then, there was an author named Jeffery Deaver, whose writing style led you to trust everyone... and then stabs you in the back so firmly, the knife blade jams there. Sometimes the killer that Deaver shows you isn't the killer you have to be wary of; usually the shadowy looking figure who lurks in the background and mysteriously disappears turns out to be something different from what you expect (a victim, a cop, an ally that no one knew they had).

It's actually a tradition that goes back to murder mysteries. Agatha Christie has had as murderer: the detective, the narrator, the sidekick, a corpse, and everyone; in “And Then There Were None,” I don't think was really was a main character. There are “police procedurals” where the murderer is someone who was never introduced in the novel, and the last page is filing a warrant for his arrest.

I didn't intend to go to either extreme when I first started—and I don't think the "trust no one" paranoia lasts TOO long. Obviously, there will be people readers can trust during the book... eventually. By page 50 or so, every reader will probably make a decision on who to focus on as “the hero(ine).” And every reader will decide when and who in the story they think is the hero.

It's easy to look at Papal Security Commander Giovanni Figlia and decide that he's a great lead: he's got a wife, two children, a long, established career. And then to look at the “security consultant” Sean Ryan and decide that this guy's nuts: a mercenary who talks about the people he kills with no sign of remorse, puts body counts on his resume, and seems to like what he does far too much. What one does with a Pope that's to the right of Attila the Hun probably depends on one's political leanings.

Funny enough, when I started writing the novel, I simply wanted it clear that trusting someone implicitly was not a good idea. The more characters who slipped their way into the book, the more paranoid it started to seem. Writing Sean Ryan from the point of view of someone who knew nothing about him made him look like a future mass murderer. Seeing a priest with SEAL-level training seems sinister when the reader doesn't know where he got it from. The more they showed to the reader, the more each of them looked like they could be great suspect material.

In the first draft, the whole book started to spiral out of control due to that.

Yes, you read that right, my characters nearly took the book away from me.

There are some authors who have described writing as either schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. If an author does the job well, the characters you read should feel real to you. In some cases, that's because the author has so well fleshed out the character, the character is alive, and can often make moves that surprise the author. Author Dorothy Lee Sayers wrote an entire book on the subject, using insight as a writer to look at creating worlds from the viewpoint of God—if you ever thought that writers were megalomaniacs, well...in their own little worlds, they are god.

I can only hope that any actual deity finds life far less frustrating than trying to tame characters.

In the original draft, when it was one book and not a trilogy, I had started with a plan of: dead body → conspiracy → stopping conspirators. Simple, straightforward, and very basic.

Enter characters who don't know their place.

My villain had a very well thought out plan. In fact, it was so well thought out, nearly everything the protagonists did only served as speed bumps. Unlike some villains I had used in previous manuscripts, this guy would simply not be a good little psychopath and stay down. I did everything but drop a house on this guy—and in one manuscript, I imploded a building with him in it—but he kept finding ways around it. I considered having someone kill him up close and personal, but every fight I came up with ended in a draw.

So, I let the story play out so I could see what it took to stop this guy.... 200,000 words later, I found out.

The story became: dead body → conspiracy → stopping conspirators' gunmen → fallout → conspiracy contingency plan A → stop that plan → fallout → contingency plan continues with slight modification → help, we're going to die → let's go down fighting → fallout.

So, because of one highly obnoxious character, instead of having a simple novel that was completely contained in Rome, A Pius Man becomes a world-spanning trilogy that all starts because one man found something he shouldn't have, and ends with a recreation of Thermopylae, with claymore mines..

The next time you see a line noting the paranoia in the book, you can at least understand where it comes from. It comes from the same place as an antagonist who just won't die no matter how hard I try to ram a stake through his heart. It comes from fairly strong characters who are, in some cases, slightly more crazy than the author.