I hear from a colleague (for I did not watch the Academy Awards) that Hurt Locker and not Avatar won Best Picture of 2009.  For someone who places little stock in these awards, I find I’m surprisingly jubilant.  My ambivalence about Avatar has been well expressed on a previous blog posting, but I’ve had enough people take exception to my criticism that I feel compelled to explain a bit more.

Avatar was not bad.  Technically, it was fantastic, though I found it a more logical step up from LOTR than an unanticipated one-movie revolution of film.  Narratively, it wasn’t distinctive in any way other than its complete predictability of premise, character, plot, and just about everything but the look of the film.  The celebration it has garnered I find sad, because it is indicative of the substantial appetite there is for style without much substance.  What bothers me the most is that style can readily be used in service of substance, as could well have been the case with Avatar.  Here are a few specifics that bothered me about the film as well as an idea of what would have made it more interesting, which may help you better understand my opinion of the film.

1) Alien Love: Two complete different species experience attraction and romance so predictably that Jake and Neytiri develop an intimate relationship in a very familiar, human way.  Not only is this a boring approach, it isn’t particularly genuine.  The Na’vi are descended from felines and have carbon filaments strengthening their bones.  Their passions would likely be expressed, at least at times, far less tenderly than human intimacy.  Even the Klingons had more complexity with their snarling and biting and amorous adventures into dominance.  A lot could have been done with the complexities of inter-species romance, so big opportunity missed.  Every love story is about individuals, which means that they are at some level alien to one other.  By taking advantage of the significant differences between two individuals of literally different species, an interesting commentary could have been made on the nature of romance and love.   

2) Angelic Science: There are some quirks about Sigourney Weaver’s character that make her more interesting than any other character in the film, but even that is window dressing.  Weaver’s Dr. Augustine is driven by curiosity just hard enough to never compromise anything in the film.  Science is as pure as the Na’Vi faith, this perfect oneness with everything.  What a crock.  Science as a method is pretty trustworthy and impartial, but as a practice it’s cutthroat.  It’s intertwined with economics and prestige and the substantial fallibility of humans, and people who are driven to be the best in their fields aren’t ever self-sacrificing altruists.  Dr. Augustine would have been much more interesting if she was shown to be benefiting materially in some way from her study of the Na’Vi.  Would this make her evil?  Of course not.  Would it have made her a genuine scientist?  Certainly.  Real scientists confront tough calls frequently, crises of ethics and competition, and seeing how Augustine handled such situations would have helped the film immensely.  Instead, science serves as the perfect mechanism to verify the perfect system inherent to Pandora, and as any storyteller should know, few things are as boring as perfect.  Which brings me to the next point…

3) The Circle of Life!  Works well for an animated Disney show meant primarily for kids; for adults of a more examining nature, not so much.  The assumption that unadapted nature is the perfect environment for a sentient species is illogical.  The very emergence of sentience is tied to the ability to manipulate.  If I am aware of my my self then I critique my self, and as I separate my self from other things, I make use of them as best I can.  A sentient species will—even must—prioritize itself over other life by the simple fact of direct experience.  The simplistic conservationist message of the film was so trite as to be painful.  Now, if the Na’Vi’s god truly had not taken sides and let them all die, that would have been an authentic presentation.  Not a great film, but at least authentic.  What would have been far more interesting is a presentation of an evolved Na’Vi culture, better off in some ways and harmed in others, after interaction with humans.  If there’s a single great truth about nature, it’s change or die.  If the Na’Vi had been forced to adapt to the new situation, changing their culture in some way irrevocably, that would have been interesting to see.  Instead, we get a message not quite complex enough to deserve an Elton John song.

4) Evil, Stupid, and Cowardly Business:  The suit behind all the nastiness on Pandora is possibly the most irritating and one dimensional character in Avatar.  Believe it or not, even lowlifes usually don’t see themselves as lowlifes.  Most of them even have good points, such as sound understanding of market forces or even the yearnings and appetites of their market.  Some have even heard of a concept called “business ethics.”  They may not always follow these, but it does play a role in their decision making.  Ribisi’s character would have been so much more interesting if he’d genuinely represented the corporate world: human, perhaps even likable, but driven to do something that really bothers him.  He could have been charming, truly invested in finding a peaceful solution and bothered by their inability to do so—and he still could have ordered the attack on the Na’Vi.  That’s what makes excessive capitalism frightening: it can recognize other values, such as diversity, ethics, or interpersonal relationships, and consciousness relegate them to lesser value than profit.   It would have been even more interesting if the Na’Vi had genuinely benefited from the “Sky People,” making the corporation a great yet dangerous catalyst forcing the Na’Vi to decide how much of their own future would stay in their hands.  Instead, it was like Wal-mart with missile turrets bristling from every store.  Yeah, most realistic.

5) The Great Satan (the American military): This one makes me genuinely angry.  I find the assertion that soldiers are evil to be extremely offensive.  Most soldiers, including American soldiers, don’t demonize their opponents.  Their training is designed specifically to prevent that.  Soldiers are trained to focus on what they do, and to do it as perfectly as possible under the worst of conditions.  The enemy is a variable that you do not allow enough influence to dictate the outcome of engagement.  You don’t have to belittle or hate someone to fight them, even to kill them.  That’s one of the fascinating things about soldiers and war.  Col. Quaritch is every stereotype of the evil military commander.  He is a conscienceless killer, doesn’t know or respect his enemy, and is driven by no particular affection or defense of anything in which he’s invested.  He’s violent for the sake of violence.  At the very least they could have shown his viciousness arising from camaraderie with his men, which is true of almost every single combat vet I’ve ever met.  The dynamics of war are fascinating in their difficulty.  Soldiers are both people and weapons, and those aspects frequently fight against each other.  That’s what PTSD is, the human portion lashing out at things the weapon disregards as being no longer consequential.  Col. Quaritch isn’t human, just weapon.  If that happened in real life, and I expect it can, the result is a type of monstrous victim, someone who has had the humanity literally bleed and burned out of him.  There is no husk of a human soul in Avatar’s archvillain; he’s no person, just function.  That, ultimately, is the common fatal flaw throughout nearly every section of this movie: every character has a why for their existence, but almost never is there a why behind their why.  It is a film full of sparkly things, which, unfortunately, includes every character in the movie.

As I promised, Miss Austen and the nightly heavens collide to produce a work of mystical and prognosticatory powers! 

I don’t know why I did this other than that it seemed fun and, to my knowledge, has not been done before (likely for good reason).  My sincerest gratitude to ForeverTeal who, through a coincidence of fortune that shall not further be expounded upon, played a role in the creation of… whatever this is. 

(Let’s make a game of it.  I won’t tell you which person represents which sign, but I’ll describe them really well and give the birthdate ranges that correspond.  See if you can figure out which character typifies which sign.  If you need some help, go to the site that gave me this crazy idea: PBS’s Masterpiece Theater gallery of Austen’s male characters.)

The Zodiac of Manly Men of Jane Austen

Frederick Tilney, Northanger Abbey, March 21st – April 20th: The Frederick Tilney is of an aggressive, cavalier nature yet remains somewhat insular.  He is impulsive, running whichever direction—or after whichever skirt—most entices him, though often this pursuit is more for the sake of the chase than the prize.  From the virtuous to the degenerate, all Frederick Tilneys are dynamos.  The best marshals his pioneering spirit and lust for adventure t0 blaze trails for society to follow; the worst burn paths through any society unfortunate enough to seek to contain him.  Subtlety is never his strength, nor is patience, or undo burden of empathy.  While pro-activity and risk are his hallmarks, a wise Frederick Tilney will temper his perpetual motion so as to not always charge regardless of the level of resistance or consequence to himself or others.

Colonel Christopher Brandon, Sense and Sensibility, April 21st – May 21st: The Christopher Brandon is stolid, dependable, and can be as unchanging and impervious as stone.  His devotion to purpose and fulfillment of his promises, to self and others, is all but certain regardless of circumstance.  This unwavering center makes him a leader who cannot be swayed from his aims, which may lead to seemingly impossible triumphs or catastrophes of such scope as to boggle logic.  When his character is tempered by devotion to others or social principles he becomes a staunch defender and advocate for others; when the opposite, he embodies the extremes of self-centeredness, and is dictatorial and self-gratifying to the point of totalitarianism.  A wise Col. Brandon will endure the foibles of others as he does chaos of situation without succumbing to fury.

George Wickham, Pride and Prejudice, May 22nd - June 21st: The George Wickham is engaging, lively, and the life of any party, from the most intellectual soiree to nights of crude language and cards.  His intellect and charisma are frequently matched with a skill at oratory, which makes him both a gifted storyteller and liar.  Truly skilled at mobilizing and manipulating people, he is nonetheless not well fitted for leadership roles as they require a level of dedication and fixation that is alien to him.  His great variety of interests and appetites sometimes combine with his enthusiasms and vigor to create a perpetual adolescent.  This craven being possesses the appearance of wide ability while actually lacking all depth but a sinister, manipulative core.  A wise George Wickham will delight himself by fostering an interest in others rather than consuming them in moments of impulse, even when they sometimes lack his persistent energy.

Henry Tilney, Northanger Abbey, June 22nd – July 22nd: The Henry Tilney is both caring and prone to appreciate the fantastic, but beneath lies a constancy and strong and stable foundation.  In many ways possessed of a variable personality, there is nonetheless an undercurrent of deeply rooted conviction of some sort in him, whether in morality, or law, or power.  The unpredictability that sometimes typifies his life arises from his instinctive and creative expressions of this underlying foundation.  While his breaking the orthodox can make him a fantastic problem solver, he makes a poor leader as he tends to act in ways that are difficult or even impossible for others to understand and emulate.  When poorly seasoned, this combination of creativity and bedrock conviction results in the despising of others, resulting in schizophrenic paranoia, obsessiveness, and control issues.  A wise Henry Tilney will keep as his guiding principle the notion of balance between his confident center and his quick, adaptable intellect with which he engages the world. 

Fitzwilliam Darcy, Pride and Prejudice, July 23rd – August 22nd: The Fitzwilliam Darcy is a mover of men, an exercise in constant and constructive movement.  No other type is so possessed of the confidence, charisma, adaptability, and determination to inspire obedience and even adoration in others.   He is leadership personified, and leads others even when traveling to destinations he would like to avoid himself.  The Mr. Darcy is the span against which other men are measured, both by themselves and by him.  While frequently charitable in his consideration of others, his good graces are always dependent upon conduct that fits his personal code.  No man can be as narcissistic, domineering, and intractable as a Mr. Darcy whose confidence tips to assurance of infallibility.  A wise Mr. Darcy will remember that even the greatest gifts are often best used in moderation, otherwise those he seeks to sweep into his wake will break themselves against him instead.

William Collins, Pride and Prejudice, August 23rd – September 23rd: The William Collins is a doer of deeds rather than a master of words or performance.  His method is almost mechanical: particular, precise, extremely intelligent, and acutely conscious of both practicality andtheory.  His goal-oriented nature is paired with a humility and even aversion to celebrity that makes him a fine independent worker or coordinator of others and a reluctant leader.  This fixation upon method and result can, when exaggerated, become an extreme judgmentalism that results in constant criticism of others.  The standard becomes the expectation, and any deviation from such is not only a sign of imperfect performance but genuine incapability and dishonest intent.  To avoid such didactic judgment of the entire world, a wise Mr. Collins will not examine possible future problems before they have come, assume the worst about a deviation from the expected before seeing a result, or claim to have established a lone perfected method of achieving any end.

Charles Bingley, Pride and Prejudice, September 24th – October 23rd: The Charles Bingley is imminently likable, most significantly because of the common and easy affection and regard he feels—and shows—for others.  He is a peacemaker, well equipped to use his charm and romantic sensibilities to diffuse tension and avoid conflict, for diplomacy rather than leadership.  His extreme optimism makes him a man of significant endurance, able to shake off circumstances that would cripple others.  However, if his idealistic nature is allowed too free a rein, he may become unmoored, moved by impulse and improper exercise of momentary passions.  A Charles Bingley lost to innate romance is a constant victim and victimizer, a slave to gratifications without understanding of consequence.  His life is likely to be spent constructively diffusing conflict or destructively avoiding it at all costs.  A wise Mr. Bingley will consider the counsel of others yet make his own decisions, seek for the good while admitting the bad, and establish a level of principle where even he will not compromise.

Henry Crawford, Mansfield Park, October 24th – November 22nd: The Henry Crawford is more a force than a man, a configuration of a number of different virtues—intellect, passion, spirituality, sensuality—whose total is always a rare potency: power of feeling, or speech, or action, of attraction, of virtue or vice, or even all at once.  He is a being of extreme emotions, both positive and negative, that can sometimes be hidden but never dismissed.  His every action is intense, an outgrowth of strong purpose and expression of self.  If he becomes a leader he does so almost unconsciously, as it is difficult for him to place much investment outside himself and his own exploration of self.  More frequently possessed of genius and ravenous curiosity than all others, his life is marked by grand events and actions that can be both supernally beneficial or demonically destructive.  A Mr. Crawford whose great gifts and potency combine in unfettered self-service becomes an inferno capable of consuming all and everything he comes across.  To avoid this fate as human vortex, a wise Mr. Crawford will realize that the scope of his life will be measured by his influence on those around him, not his utter remaking of them, and that power allows for great reciprocity rather than just domination.

John Thorpe, Northanger Abbey, November 23rd – December 21st: The John Thorpe is an eager embracer of life and all that comes with it.  While often bright and capable of deep thought and wit, he is  rarely obsessive about the complexities of life or prone to fixate on perplexities.  His is an appreciative nature which finds a wealth of interesting, beautiful, and enjoyable delights wherever he goes.  He is direct and honest in his communication, which often inspires trust in others but rarely leads to his developing a following as his affection for freedom and independence is too great.  While his good nature and spontaneity often make others feel comfortable in his presence, if overindulged he may become erratic, foolish, and forever swept along by the frivolous.  A wise Mr. Thorpe will anchor his effervescent nature with strong principles and temper his enthusiasm for the new with his experience.

Edmund Bertram, Mansfield Park, December 22nd - Januray 20th: The Edmund Bertram is a diligent realist, able to overcome a variety of challenges because of his discipline, pragmatism, and strong goal orientation.  Where other men would shirk from truth or become flippant at the difficulties of life, he is buoyed up by a cautious but innate good nature.  He has the rare ability to see genuine humor in even difficult circumstances.  While not particularly adept at inspiring others, he is often liked and imminently trusted for his firm understanding and patience with others.  As both an ambitious and cautious man, he is more likely to reach profound goals than many others by being methodical and consistant in his efforts.  His strong center of gravity does risk consuming him, however, wrapping him up in the difficulties of reality more tightly than his inherent humor can balance.  This pessimist can reach the very deepest depressive depths, which results in near suicidal fatalism and utter incapacity of the charitable.  To escape such a fate a wise Edmund Bertram will stay conscious of the light side of things and be generous when judging the efforts of others, and will not allow the vicissitudes of life to appear to him as inescapably systematic.

George Knightley, Emma, Januray 21st – February 19th: The George Knightley is a perpetual seeker of truth, a man driven both to explore the natures of those around him and of his own mind and soul.  He makes the very best and truest of friends and is more able than any other to return good for evil so long as one gives honest effort at camaraderie.   Capable and wise in the ways of the world, mind, heart, he is a source of excellent counsel and sound judgment.  His intellect is such that he sometimes sees superior possibilities earlier than others, but is patient enough to steer them in these directions even if they make mistakes.  This combines with his natural generosity to make him a fine administrator or counselor, though his leadership is usually not of a supreme nature.  His capacity and comfort in society belie an underlying independence, a lonesome quality that he never quite abandons.  This hidden core is rarely communicated, and if hidden too deeply and allowed to grow to unhealthy proportions can turn his gentle nature harsh.  Patience becomes frequent irritation, kindness becomes callousness, peacemaking gives way to constant opposition, all as his secret inner orientation override his faith in anything other than himself.  A wise George Knightley will keep his personal/social balance steady by always seeking to participate constructively in the spheres in which he walks rather than observing while detached.

Edward Ferrars, Sense and Sensibility, February 20th – March 20th: The Edward Ferrars is the most gentle, kind, and willingly adaptive of all men.  No other has the same persistent ability to rise above the baseness around him to treat people with civility and respect regardless of situation.  He is also extremely empathetic, so much so that others may feel he is gifted with supernatural understandings and awareness of the thoughts and concerns of others.  While unlikely to galvanize or lead others frequently, he is very likely to preserve associations and groups by inspiring unity and understanding during times of great conflict.  While maliciousness is all but impossible for him, his otherworldly nature can reach the excessive, removing him from reality all together.  Thus unhinged he becomes incapable of facing problems, refuses to communicate with anyone, and becomes easily taken advantage of and manipulated.  A wise Edward Ferrars will balance his great heart and soul by strengthening his mind, and remember that helping others is not possible while denying the tragic realities of human experience.

Just updated my calendar, so all these events that I’m taking part in are included there if you’re interested and want a reminder.

First off, tonight I’ll be talking to Rick Walton’s BYU class on children’s publishing again. The class is about breaking into the business, and having one book out for roughly nine months I’m sure qualifies me. I really enjoyed the last time I visited the class, and expect to do so again tonight.

Next up, I’ll be taking part in a pair of events next week. The first will be a visit to East Sandy Elementary school on Thursday, March 4th. I’ll do an assembly for 3rd-6th grades at 1:30 p.m. Should be fun, as always.

The next day, Friday, March 5th, I’ll be presenting at UELMA’s Spring Conference (the Utah Educational Library Media Association), which is being held at Mountain View High School (665 West Center Street, Orem, UT). I’m slated to present at noon (as is James Dashner, who somehow always seems to follow me around. I will need to think of a particularly biting joke about him to use in my presentation to teach him a lesson). The presentation is called Goosebumps, Great Expectations? Tomato, Tomaeto, Potato, Potaeto…: Why the only poor story is a story not read. I’ve put together what should be a really fun workshop on archetypes in narrative, why they exist, and how they undergird the importance of libraries as a place where children can develop narrative literacy without the impositions on reading that come from other areas of their lives. We’ll talk about archetypal theory and see it in action in a wide variety of texts, learn who fills the Darth Vader role in Pride and Prejudice, and stuff like that. Any school librarians considering me for a visit to their school are encouraged to attend the breakout session. It will give you a good idea of what I have to offer as a teacher and presenter.

Finally, a pair of events on May 15th. In the morning I’ll be conducting a two-hour workshop on characterization and triple-duty writing (come to the workshop to see what that is) for the League of Utah Writers’ Spring Workshop. I’ll be holding the workshop from 9 – 11:00 in the morning. The event is free for League members, though I promise the experience will be worthwhile even if you have to pay. (Joining the League for $24 a year is cheaper, and well worth it for any local writer.) I’ll give more information about venue and other contributors when I learn more.

After the workshop, I’m driving to Provo to take part in the Provo Library’s Annual Provo Children’s Book Festival. I believe that I will be reading from Green Dragon Codex in the afternoon, but I’m not sure when. Of course, I’ll let you know as soon as I do. This is a great—and FREE—event, so anyone interested in children’s literature really should be there. The list of participants is just fantastic. When you start with names like Brandon Mull and Shannon Hale and don’t go down much at all from there, you know it’s going to be a quality experience. Also, those who know me are aware that I don’t do many readings, especially of my work for children. (Though I’m not too shabby at it, if you’re worried about that.) If you want to hear me read from GDC, this may be your only chance in the near future.

Finally, I try to announce other writing events in my local area when I hear about them (and when I remember to pass along the message). I’m not participating in this one this year, but the 2010 Teen Writers Conference is being held on Saturday, June 5th, at Weber State University. This is a really cool conference focused on encouraging teenage writers between the ages of 13 to 19. Josi Kilpack is kind of the driving force behind this conference, and she and other organizers have lined up a fantastic list of presenters and instructors, many of whom are good friends I respect a lot. If you’re a teen who writes or is interested in writing, or if you know such a person, please let them know about this event. It’s really a great opportunity for professional level instruction very early in a person’s development as a writer.

Thursday’s signing/workshop went off just fine, with the workshop, not surprisingly, being more fine than the signing. I have a lot of experience teaching and I really enjoy it, especially in workshop format where there’s a lot of exchange back and forth. But no complaints about the event as a whole. Sold some books for B&N; met some nice people there, including their fine CRM Michelle Sargent, whom I’d only spoken with on the phone previously; saw lots of friends and made a few new ones. The workshop was on characterization as the key to multi-fuction story, and those in attendance were enthusiastic and wonderful participants. We had a number of great discussions, including an interesting adventure into how to categorize plot vs character driven stories, and whether we even should.

For those who weren’t there (and didn’t have important meetings, other events to attend, or car trouble, and I know of instances of all three of these that kept people away), shame on you.  Here’s a sample of what you missed: the secret of what 3 things actually make story, which it seems to me writers had better know; when and why sunshine isn’t always sunny even if it’s bright; why the crime and punishment in Dostoyevsky’s novel has little to do with the murder in the story; opinions on R.A. Salvatore’s melee combat play-by-play; the notion of emotive “flags”; the confirmation of Neil Gaiman’s theory that airports aren’t distinct places at all but rather a generic type of place common to many actual places (read American Gods for more on this); and much interchange on smells, the value of nasty ones, and how much to include in our stories (I say the more and the worse the better). 

My one real regret is that I forgot to use my chaste marriage metaphor.  Well, that’ll give all of you who missed Thursday a reason to come in the future, won’t it.

It’s all arranged: I will now be giving a free two-hour workshop on characterization in tandem with my book signing in Sandy on September 3rd.   For those who don’t know, the event is being held at the Sandy Barnes and Noble (10180 S. State) from 6:00 – 9:00 (ending one hour later than was originally planned). Here’s the way the evening will work.  From 6:00 to 7:00 I’ll spend time signing Green Dragon Codex, answering questions, and chatting with people.  Then at 7:00 the workshop will begin, and it will end around 9:00.  (Though I don’t mind staying later to work with people, unless the B&N people grow irritated with us and kick us out.)

The workshop will be on characterization and how to make our writing do triple-duty work, meaning how to make every page engrossing by avoiding blocks of anything—especially exposition, but any other single element of narrative delivered in large chunks is dangerous, too.  The workshop will be on ways to make every page we write serve multiple purposes at once, thus making the story more interesting.  I’ve only done this workshop one time before and was very dissatisfied with it (at World Horror Con earlier this year).  Feedback was very positive, but I only had one hour for the workshop then and that simply wasn’t enough.  This workshop takes a lot of interaction and hands on exchange between writers and myself, and writers and other writers.  So I’m really looking forward to getting a chance to do the workshop with as much time as I need to do it justice. 

I hope to see plenty of people there.  It isn’t often that an intensive event like this is offered for free (I wish I could do that more often), so if you can possibly make it, do.  Also, please tell friends and other writers who you think may be interested.  I promise, the content we’ll cover will be well worth the time.

How many times can one say “okay” in a two-hour span without sounding a complete idiot? I hope the answer hits three figures because I’m frightfully certain I topped 99 two nights ago at my SCBWI presentation. I think I’ve given that workshop a few too many times; what other excuse is there for ending every other sentence with “okay”?

So I’m exaggerating. Somewhat. A bit. Still, it was mighty odd to be up there speaking and realize my tongue kept slipping lose that same word. As a writer, I expect variety to be the spice of speech just as it is of life. A coatful of “okays” punctuating my workshop was not what I had in mind. I don’t usually “okay” more than is okay, do I? I don’t think so. Maybe it comes of a somewhat skittish crowd. Sheesh, you ask one picture book author to decide which of her protagonist’s parents she’d kill if she really had to and nobody wants to volunteer from then on. We didn’t actually do it. We just killed off a teddy bear, and only in a metaphorical sense. No cause whatsoever for recalcitrance, particularly not enough to necessitate my constant prodding with “okay?”

Note to self: Do not scare people if you can possibly help it.

Other than my blathering that word a billion times, the evening went off well. People seemed to get something from the workshop, I saw a few friends not seen in a while, and talked to a few new friends afterward. They did not hold my curious repetition against me, which is both generous and makes me wonder if I imagined all those “okays” in the first place. But if I didn’t say them, how did I hear them? Someone must have been speaking.

Do you ever feel that being alone is only a hypothetical concept?

Who said that?

*****

Good news.  It looks like I’ll be signing at the King’s English on June 6th after all.  I contacted my editor Nina and she very kindly received permission for me to sign some books three whole days before the official release of Green Dragon Codex on the 9th.  This means that my first public signing–EVER–will be on June 6th from 2:00-4:00 p.m. at the King’s English bookstore (1511 S. 1500 E.) in Salt Lake.

In commemoration, I’ll date every book I sign so that the purchasers have documented proof their signed copy was from that first event.  Hopefully it will make the afternoon a little more special–and raise the eventual Ebay price considerably.  In fact, I think this would be a fine new investment strategy.  Forget keeping all that cash in 401 ks, investment property, or, heaven forbid, saving it.  Come buy a bunch of my books!  I’m sure your financial adviser will confirm the wisdom of this strategy.  

If she doesn’t, come anyway. 

*****

Finally, my CONduit schedule has been finalized.  Here it is:

Friday @ 1:00 p.m.—I will be presenting a one hour workshop on characterization as story.  We’ll address the three narrative actions and how to do all three simultaneously (triple-duty writing) creates the best story.

Friday @ 2:00 p.m.—I will be on a panel that covers how to write evil overlords. 

Saturday @ 11:00 a.m.—I will be on a panel addressing how real should historical or speculative fiction really be. 

While those are my events, I’ll be sticking around Friday and Saturday.  Come up to talk to me, ask questions, and the like.  Hope to see some of you there.