As I wrote last week, I recently turned forty and this has me re-evaluating things, like the meaning of life and the nature of good an evil. The Biblical god never made sense to sense to me as how can an omniscient being not foresee The Fall, or how can an omni-benevolent god send his creations to hell for finite crime, where they are tormented forever?
More importantly, how can this omnipotent being not snap its fingers and get rid of pain, illness, and evil?
The more I read the Bible, less sense it made to me, and I stopped believing altogether in my teens.
But now I’m thinking my conception of God may have been immature.
In college I was a physics major, and one of the things that crops up repeatedly is the concept of balance. Mass and energy are conserved in every chemical reaction or interaction. “What you start with is what you end with,” one of my chemistry professors told me. Thus, all chemical equations must be balanced. Also, the number of an atom’s protons and electrons must be equal, or they are unstable, i.e. radioactive. (Note: chemistry is physics on the atomic level).
Likewise, systems tend toward equilibrium, e.g. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, maybe God and Satan, then, are equal and opposite forces. And the reason there are so many religions is because they’re all describing the same thing, but in different dimensions.
What I mean by this is to a 4-dimensional being, we’d look flat, just like a 2-dimensional object looks flat to us. So perhaps then each religion is describing a different aspect to God and Satan. So, God and Satan are just the positive and negative aspects of energy.
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (e=mc^2) says energy and matter are equal to each other, and from thermodynamics we know energy can never be created or destroyed. So maybe this creative energy is God and maybe, just maybe as the Gnostic believed, God is inside us, and as the Buddhists believe we are all connected.
And maybe then Satan represents the negative destructive energy inside us all, the death drive as Freud called it, and maybe God and Satan are projections of the internal war we all fight between hope and despair, between our ego and shadow self, between love and hate. And religion then is a psychodrama humans created as a defense mechanism to reconcile these diametrically opposed urges in us.
Perhaps, then as Carl Jung posits, the way to find balance is by accepting the God and Satan inside us all.
Hey, long time no post. Ya’ll probably thought I abandoned this blog.
Nope.
Life just got in the way, as it tends to do. Between my day job and the tire fire that is our current timeline, I haven’t had the time or energy to do much of anything but eat, sleep, shit, work, repeat.
But last month, I turned forty and have come to some epiphanies.
First, I’m not a kid anymore, so I need to take better care of my physical and emotional health, especially after the lab results from my last doctor’s appointment. My blood sugar is high and if I don’t get it under control, it’ll tank my kidneys and other organs. So, beginning today, I’m eating healthier and will start hitting the gym too.
Second, I’m not as far along with my writing as I’d hoped I’d be, and if I’m being honest, it’s been weeks since I wrote a blog and months since I even thought about working on my WIP’s. So, I’ll write for at least 30 minutes every day. And I’ll set hard deadlines for completing my WIP’s. Third, I’ll resume therapy and work on my issues, because if I’m gonna be around for another forty years I want to be the best version of myself I can be.
Honestly, I didn’t expect to live this long; and now that I have, I don’t know what to do. Maybe therapy will help me figure out what I want to do with the rest of my life. I’ll probably always write, but as for my day job, I’m thinking about using my company’s tuition reimbursement program to get a degree in either communications or business management and apply for a better paying job.
But with the uncertainty of this year’s presidential election, I don’t know if I’ll even still be in the US come this time next year. It feels like we’re all waiting to exhale, wondering what will happen next, wondering if there’ll even be a USA after this election. It just feels like the whole world has gone insane and no one is doing anything about it because we’re all just trying to get by the best we can.
And I’m sick of it!
I don’t want to live another four years, let alone another forty, worrying if my rights as a person will be taken away, my existence politicized, based on which party is in power. This is no way to live: constantly on edge and stressed out, because no matter how much we turn out the vote, we’re always one election from the next Trump, always one election from it being the last election. All because America refuses to address its racist past and present.
I’ll still vote for Harris this November, but I’m not naïve enough to believe her election will fundamentally change anything (I learned my lesson with Obama).
The system is broken, and nothing will change until we fix it. So, yeah, vote blue no matter who, then once Trump and Trumpism is no longer a threat we need to do some self-reflecting as a nation.
As this is the beginning of a new year, I thought I’d try something different with this blog. So starting today, I’ll be posting a microblog of 200 to 500 words every day in addition to the standard Wednesday posts, which I’ve been neglecting to post for the last several months.
I want these drabbles, as I’m calling them, to be more conversational and not have a fixed topic so I can explore whatever’s on my mind that day. Without further ado, I’ll get into today’s drabble.
A few months back I posted chapters of my debut novel Palingenesis, its sequel, and another novel I’m working on to a website geared toward my target audience. And while the comments have been helpful, I’ve noticed myself obsessing over the number of views and comments each chapter got.
As writers, we often don’t know if a project will succeed or fail till many months or years after we start, and often we seek validation from others as an ego boost.
However I’ve realized some things while revising my current WIP.
First, that I live for those moments when I get lost in my own stories and forget I’m the one writing it.
Second, I don’t need validation for my work;as long as I’m proud of it that’s enough.
Third, that while it would be nice to become famous and wealthy from my books, if that never happens I’ll still write because it gives me joy.
Despite what we’ve been conditioned to believe, not everything should be turned into a side hustle. Some things should be done for fun.
So while I’ll still promote my work and self publish it, I’m okay with not ever make any money from it as long as it continues bringing me joy.
I realize this isn’t everyone’s mindset, and I’m not knocking you,but I’m done chasing likes and views. I don’t have the time or energy to do so anymore and would rather focus my efforts on, ya know, writing and other things that bring me joy.
Well, that’s it for today’s drabble. Happy New Year!
This couldn’t have oversold itself more if it tried.
Since Halloween was coming up, I thought I’d check out this collection horror stories. However, to my horror many of the stories in this collection weren’t horror stories, and those that were, I found boringly tame.
Of the bunch I found, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein my favorite. My biggest complaint is that most of this collection consisted of short stories and poems by Edgar Allan Poe, whose work I discovered I loathed. The other issue with this collection is it lacks any works by modern works or writers of color.
Overall, I was sorely disappointed in this audiobook set that touted itself as the ultimate horror collection. Don’t waste your money on this. I give The Ultimate Horror Collection 2.0 out of 5.0 stars.
An interesting premise marred by subpar writing and stale tropes
Witch vs Witch by A C Merkel is a female/female paranormal romance centering on witches Farrah and Sirena who fall instantly in love at first sight only to later discover they are on opposite sides an apocalyptic battle.
I wanted to love this story , but it was sorely lack in plot, characterization, and the prose.
First, due to this being a novella, there wasn’t enough time to develop the plot beyond save Adrick, save Sirena, save the world. And because of this the relationship between Sirena and Farrah wasn’t developed at all. They literally go from strangers to hooking up and being being madly in love with each other after only seeing each other three times.
Moreover, the world building was lackluster and not fleshed out at all, and the story dragged towards the end.
This was made worse by the utter lack of variety in syntax or any detailed descriptions.
And when I finally got to the end it was beyond cheesy.
While this was a quick read, I only finished it because it was so short. Otherwise, I would have DNF’d it were it 300-plus pages.
Honestly, this read more like a first or second draft than a finished manuscript and could use a ton of editing/rewriting.
While I did enjoy Farrah’s sense of humor and thought her plant magic was a cool concept; it, like the novella in general, lacked in execution.
Overall, I didn’t like this novella much and only give it 3 out of 5 stars.
Maybe this story will resonate with you but it’s a pass for me. Rent it or sang it when it’s on sale.
Lush prose, engaging characters, but did not live up to the hype.
A Court of Thorns and Roses (A Court of Thorns and Roses #1) by Sarah J Maas is a fantasy romance novel that follows 19-year-old Feyre, the youngest daughter of a wealthy family turned destitute, who accidentally kills a fearie while out hunting one day. She is then whisked away to the Spring Fearie Court, where she must adapt or perish.
While I enjoyed this book, it wasn’t without issues.
First, the beginning is very slow and info dumpy and I was tempted to DNF because of the glacial pace.
Second, the court intrigue, or the lack there of. I expected Game of Thrones level backstabbing and plotting, but there was barely any intrigue, court or otherwise. And what there was, I found underwhelming.
That said, I will read the next in the series with hopes the court intrigue intensifies.
I give A Court of Thorns and Roses 4.0 out of 5.0. If you go into it without super-high expectations, and you’ll love it.
Everyone is familiar with common euphemisms such as law enforcement officers, administrative assistants, and sanitation engineers. To further clarity and reduce offense, I have proposed a new series of such terms. Look them over and share your thoughts.
1. calorically challenged: As opposed to “fat,” “overweight,” and “obese” which carry negative connotations — especially for the latter, which sounds like a disease — this term reflects the reality that most people struggle with their weight due to issues with their caloric intake versus output.
2. coitus technician: “Prostitute” and “hooker” are such dirty words and belies the expertise and craftsmanship that’s involved in sex work. Also, because prostitution is legal in Nevada, this term reflects they are professionals like any other working person.
3. sexual explorer: “Slut” is a troublesome word because of the double standard attached to its use and the shaming that goes along with it. However, sexual explorer conjures up images of sophistication, liberated sexuality, and fun.
4. augmented reality specialist: Unlike “actor,” this term is gender neutral and describes the modern state of acting as more computer generated content replaces the need for people.
5. truth dilation and contraction management: While it’s often joked politicians are professional liars, especially in the post “alternative facts” era, this term better describes their behavior. All campaigns are about crafting a narrative for the candidate by exaggerating the positives and suppressing the negatives.
6. an aesthetically acquired taste: This is a much better term than “ugly” or “homely” and reflects that beauty is subjective and there’s someone out there who will like you for you.
7. financially marginalized: This term is much better than “poor” and encompasses the full spectrum of our economic strata.
8. job insecure: This doesn’t have the baggage of “unemployed” and sounds more pleasing to the ear. It’s also reflective of the often uncertain job landscape.
9. Technophobic: Much better than “Luddite” or “troglodyte” and accurately describes the fear many people have of embracing new technology.
10. non-melanated: This has none of the contentious history of “white,” is better descriptively, and centers BIPOC.
Over the last several years, violence against The LGBTQ community has been on the rise in America and abroad. Conservative groups such as A Million Moms, Moms For Liberty, The Proud Boys, and others have engaged in sustained efforts to disrupt and ban events like Drag Story Time and family-friendly drag shows.
Conservative groups and have also tried banning books containing LGBTQ+ characters or content under the tired and false claim that the LGBTQ+ community is trying to groom children and reading about/seeing queer people will “make kids gay.” And when local communities push back against these efforts, instead of conceding to the will of the people, these groups double down, increasingly showing up armed.
When libraries refuse to remove LGBTQ+ books or cancel Drag Story Time, they often face criticism from these groups and others, up to and including efforts to defund said libraries, as in Jamestown Township, a small community in the western part of Michigan, my home state.
But these groups haven’t acted alone. Politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert have repeatedly said and tweeted anti LGBTQ+ things. And on the local level, politicians and council members have sought to limit or outright ban Drag Story Time and any book with LGBTQ+ content, claiming they violate obscenity and decency laws.
But they aren’t alone. The media gets in on this gay hate agenda too.
Conservative commenters like Tucker Carlson have gone on air spewing anti-trans lies about how liberals what sex ed taught to kindergarteners or want to take away parents’ rights regarding whether their trans children take hormone blockers or get gender confirmation surgery.
And when people like JK Rowling and Helena Bonham Carter or other celebrities say, do, or post transphobic things or boost anti-trans comments and voices, reporters often don’t point out the misinformation and lies.
Instead, they frame the story as a debate.
The problem with this is it gives legitimacy to this gay hate agenda. When it comes to human rights—yes, trans rights are human rights—there is no debate when one side believes the other side shouldn’t exist.
All of this hate hurled toward the trans and queer communities reached a critical point last November when an assailant entered Club Q; the only LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs, CO; armed with an AR-15 and opened fire, killing five and injuring twenty-five.
And more recently police arrested a man in Florida for threatening to kill 100 LGBTQ+ students at Florida State University. He claimed, “It was a joke.”
Running through all this is a unifying thread, the belief in the so-called gay agenda; that the LGBTQ+ community here and elsewhere want to “turn people queer,” by indoctrinating children, and grooming them for sexual assault.
This is false.
Studies show 80-90% of all known child sex offenders are cis males. Child sex abuse statistics also show that almost one-third of children are assaulted by a family member. For children under the age of six, 50% of the abusers are someone in the family. For victims aged 12 to 17 the percentage drops to 23%. Stats also point to no tangible link between homosexuality and pedophilia, despite some assertions (Darkness to Light).
So no, random LGBTQ+ folks aren’t the ones you need to look out for. It’s your friends and family. The simple fact is Carlson et al. are fear mongering and pushing their gay hate agenda.
Textbook Hypocrisy
First, learning about, reading and seeing LGBTQ+ people doesn’t sexualize children any more than learning about straight folks does. And the hypocrisy of A Million Moms et al. with this is appalling. They have no issue with depictions of straight couples in 99.999% of the media, but let there be a same-sex couple or a same-sex kiss on screen and they lose their minds.
Yet these are some of the same people who have no problem with things like child beauty pageants, or insinuating kindergarteners are in romantic relationships with each other, if said couple is straight. They are also the ones who often complain about having the gay agenda shoved down their throats, yet have no issues pushing their views on others re: religion, which brings me to my next point.
These people try to mask their bigotry behind religion, yet they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. I’m reminded of the scene from West Wing where President Bartlet and conservative commenter Dr. Jenna Jacobs get into an argument about homosexuality and the Bible. President Bartlet points out all the other laws in Leviticus and elsewhere that Christians like Dr. Jacobs ignore while zeroing in on Lev 18:22 to further their gay hate agenda.
Such laws prohibit wearing clothes of blended fabrics; eating shellfish, pork, or any animal with cloven feet; or marking your body (Lev 19:19, Lev 1:1-47, Lev 19:28). The Bible also establishes the criteria for who you can enslave and for how long, such as selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7).
The excuse given for this is that Jesus changed things with his death and resurrection. However, Jesus is quoting multiple times throughout the News Testament saying Old Testament Law still applies (Matthew 5:17-20).
Yet, they completely ignore everything Jesus said about helping the stranger and, the least among you, not pushing your religion on others, the beatitudes, and being overly pious for show (Matthew 5-7).
But even if their interpretation of The Bible is right, it doesn’t matter.
Because The US and most other Western countries are in fact secular nations, so no religion can force their views on non-believers.
We Are a Secular Nation
“…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”—The First Amendment.
The entire point of the 1st Amendment was to prohibit the government from telling its citizens what they could say, what they could write, who they associate with, and who and how they could worship. Thus, Madison et al. added the establishment clause, and why Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptists Association that:
“…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
And it’s this fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st amendment regarding religion and free speech that is at the core of the gay hate agenda. They believe their interpretation of their religion should take precedence.
No.
You have a right to your views, but you don’t have a right to force them on others. If you don’t want your children to read books with gay or trans characters, go to Drag Story Time, or a family-friendly drag shows, then don’t take them. But you don’t get to take that choice away from others, especially when these stories give many kids the representation they desperately need.
Representation Matters
Whether it’s politicians pushing bills to ban trans youth from using the bathroom that comports with their gender identity, or draconian laws that would ban trans athletes from participating in sports and subject them and others to inspections of their genitalia from adult strangers if someone suspects them of being trans, to the above efforts to ban books with LGBTQ+ content; at every turn, the adults claiming to care about the welfare of children are the same one demonizing them if they aren’t cis and heterosexual.
So many LGBTQ+ kids feel unseen and not worthy of love, respect, and dignity because their communities send them the message, they are wrong, confused, don’t know they’re LGBTQ+; and even if they do, their lives don’t matter.
Therefore, healthy, three-dimensional depictions of queer folks are important. Not just for queer kids and teens, but for everyone else.
Facts and Figures
Studies have shown reading books increases empathy and emotional intelligence, and that reading about characters from marginalized communities increases empathy toward those communities.
Studies have also shown seeing positive depictions of LGBTQ+ people helps kids come to terms with their gender identity and sexuality sooner. This is the reason there appears to me more LGBTQ+ people now. Because they feel more comfortable coming out and doing it sooner because it’s less stigmatized now. And not because the queer community is “turning people gay.”
“Most children between ages 18 and 24 months can recognize and label gender groups. They may identify others as girls, women or feminine. Or they may label others as boys, men or masculine. Most also label their own gender by the time they reach age 3.
However, society tends to have a narrow view of gender. As a result, some children learn to behave in ways that may not reflect their gender identity. At age 5 or 6, most children are rigid about gender and preferences. These feelings tend to become more flexible with age.”
“In a 2020 study of transgender adults, 73% of transgender women and 78% of transgender men reported that they first experienced gender dysphoria by age seven.”
And according to research conducted by Gilbert Herdt, PhD, Executive Director of the National Centers on Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and Martha K. McClintock, PhD, David Lee Shillinglaw Distinguished Service Professor in Psychology at the University of Chicago, stated in their study “The Magical Age of 10,” published in the Dec. 2000 issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior:
“Accumulating studies from the United States over the past decade suggest that the development of sexual attraction may commence in middle childhood and achieve individual subjective recognition sometime around the age of 10. As these studies have shown, first same-sex attraction for males and females typically occurs at the mean age of 9.6 for boys and between the ages of 10 and 10.5 for girls.”
My point being is people often know their LGBTQ+ as kids and therefore queer representation is so important as they are going through these formative years to know they aren’t wrong, aren’t an abomination for who they love or what gender they identity or express themselves as.
I know this from a personal standpoint as I came of age in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, when being LGBTQ+ was much less accepted than it is now and there were few positive portrayals of queer people in the media and even fewer of Black queer folks like me. And because of this, I struggled with coming to terms with my sexuality and often thought of suicide.
And I know I’m not alone.
A 2022 national survey of 34,00 youth between 13 and 24 by The Trevor Project found:
45% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the last year
LGBTQ youth who felt high social support from their family reported attempting suicide at less than half the rate of those who felt low or moderate social support.
LGBTQ youth who found their school to be LGBTQ-affirming reported lower rates of attempting suicide.
LGBTQ youth who live in a community that is accepting of LGBTQ people reported significantly lower rates of attempting suicide than those who do not.
60% of LGBTQ youth who wanted mental health care in the past year were not able to get it.
Fewer than 1 in 3 transgender and nonbinary youth found their home to be gender-affirming.
14% of LGBTQ youth attempted suicide in the past year.
(Including nearly 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary youth and 1 in 10 cisgender youth.)
The stats don’t lie. When LGBTQ+ kids feel safe and supported, their mental health improves and they’re less likely to harm themselves.
The proponents of the gay hate agenda believe the opposite. They believe I and other LGBTQ+ people are trying to groom their kids, trying to brainwash them into mutilating their genitals as part of some grand gay conspiracy to destroy the nuclear family and Western Civilization. They want us to regress under the guise of protecting the children, because they and others like them believe being LGBTQ+ is inherently sexual.
Spoiler alert: it’s not.
In fact, the queer community includes members who fall on the asexual spectrum and th experience sexual attraction to varying degrees.
Conclusion
Being LGBTQ+ is no more inherently sexual than being straight. And that these people automatically associate being queer with sex says more about them than it does us.
But as I’ve said many times, before folks are queer adults, they’re queer kids. And they deserve to live their best lives free from people who claim to care about them while steadily doing everything in their power to make their lives worse.
Banning books and media with LGBTQ+ content and events like Drag Story Time isn’t going to suddenly make everyone straight and cis. It will only make more of the children you profess to care about harm themselves.
It also shows your stupidity and lack of humanity. No one can make you LGBTQ+, no more than you can turn a queer person straight. You either are or you aren’t. To believe otherwise is simply homophobia and transphobia.
Being a kid, especially an LGBTQ+ one, is hard enough without becoming the poster child for a movement that is antithetical to everything you are.
If you want to protect children, then don’t put outdated gender norms and roles on them. Let them be whoever they turn out to be. If you can’t do that, then you shouldn’t be a parent.
An interesting premise marred by one-dimensional characters, half-baked ideas, a lack of horror/suspense, and an ending that falls flat.
In John Saul’s Nathaniel, Janet Hill and her son Michael move to her husband’s farm town following his death.
Everyone is friendly, but Janet and Michael soon learn things aren’t as they seem. Michael begins hearing the voice of Nathaniel, a local boogeyman, and Janet learns the women in her husband’s family have a disturbing number of stillbirths that they blame Nathaniel for. Nathaniel then tells Michael his grandfather and Doctor Potter have been killing the babies.
Whether this is true, and if Nathaniel is real, drives the story. However, Saul stretches out these mysteries way too long and the ending doesn’t give a clear answer to either.
If this weren’t bad enough, the story moves at a glacial pace, doesn’t pick up until two-thirds in and lacks any sense of horror or suspense. I kept waiting for it to get scary and it never did.
I’ve read and enjoyed other books by John Saul, but this isn’t his best work. Nathaniel reads like a first or second draft. He doesn’t develop any of the characters at all and they are instantly forgettable.
As for the plot, what little there is, isn’t fleshed out.
Saul introduces ideas and plot points without fully developing them, and then drops them. Was Shadow, the stray dog Michael adopted, just a regular mutt, or was he supernatural? Did Michael wish Ames Hill, his grandfather, dead, or was it an ordinary heart attack? Was Nathaniel real, a ghost/demon, or a figment of Michael’s troubled mind? Did Ames Hill kill Janet’s husband and try to kill Michael, or were they accidents? Is Michael the new Nathaniel?
Your guess is as good as mine as Saul never tells the reader one way or another, which I found infuriating.
Overall, I didn’t enjoy this book and don’t recommend it. I give Nathaniel 2.0 out of 5.0 stars.
The second entry in Brian Clopper’s meta fantasy series finds Irving and zombie-turned-vampire Roon reaching Revision Ravine and learning more about Dean Harmstrike and the Questing Academy.
Let me start by saying I had low expectations going into this book as the first book failed to tie up many loose ends, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn’t have.
All the issues from the first book are present here and turned up to eleven. Irving and the other characters are never in any danger, as either Irving’s wish jacket or his author save the day.
Moreover, this book, like the first, failed to tell a self-contained story. Instead, what you get is an incomplete story and you come away feeling like you only got the second act of a book. The books don’t make sense narratively when separated as they are.
My other issue is with Irving himself; he’s the definition of mediocre and lacks any distinct personality and is little more than a plot device to experience the world. The other characters don’t fare much better. While Roon is slightly more developed than Irving, she’s still very generic. Knarl and his axe wife were so one note they were completely forgettable, and I felt the same about the denizens of Revision Ravine.
I could have forgiven all this had Clopper answered more questions than he raised in this book. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While we get a few more tidbits about Dean Harmstrike and the world of the Questing Academy, we’re left with far too many loose threads to justify slogging through the rest of the series.
I won’t bother with the other books in the series and will just look up the ending online. I give Irving Wishbutton and the Revision Ravine 2.0 out of 5.0 stars and don’t recommend it. Either look up the ending online or skip it altogether.
Irving Wishbutton and the Questing Academy is the first book in Brian Clopper’s meta fantasy series about the eponymous boy-hero and the anonymous writer drafting his book. The story alternates between the everyday life of the writer and his family, and Irving’s time at the Questing Academy.
I liked the concept of this book a lot and thought how Clopper depicted the often-mundane life of writers was spot on. I also loved the mystery about Dean Harmstrike and the other characters Irving encountered, especially cyborg Val and fairy Sarya. I equally loathed Gared, the arrogant pompous knight, and windbag villain Raggleswamp.
However, my major criticism of the book was how Irving was never in any danger as all his problems were fixed by the actions of his author. For example, Irving’s writer drafts a chapter where he gains a wish, that he then uses later in the Questing Academy plotline.
This happened repeatedly to the point I could predict how Irving would get out of tights spots and thus never feared for him. Not only did this rob the story of all narrative tension, but it made for boring reading, and I’d go as far as saying it bordered on Deus ex machina territory, in the sense the almighty hand of the author was always there to pull Irving out of danger.
I also didn’t like how the book ended on a massive cliff hanger, but that should have been expected given how often the “writer” in the story ended his chapters on cliffhangers.
I will say there were a lot of redundancies and clunky sentences throughout the book, and it could have stood a few more rounds of editing.
Overall, the book lacked polish and could have been executed better. I give Irving Wishbutton and the Questing Academy 3.0 out of 5.0 stars. I bought the next in the series, but I’m in no rush to read it.
I recommend you either rent this from your library or snag it when it’s on sale.
Set between the events of Cute Mutants Vol. 4 & 5, Weapon UwU Vol. 1 follows Lou, Maddy, Gladdy, Ye Shou, Katie, and Skye as they set out to kill Heart of a Flower, then his children. However, it did not live up to the hype of its subtitle: God Killers.
Lou and company killed Heart of a Flower with ease and then persuaded his children to either stand down or join their side. And at no point did I fear for the characters’ safety, as they were never in any real danger.
While it was nice to see the other Cute Mutants interacting with each other, sans Dylan and their inner circle, Whitby dedicated so much of this book to the middle-school-level soap opera of who liked who, complete with the obligatory love triangle.
This wouldn’t have been such an issue had the characters in question not been in their late teens/early twenties and the extermination of mutantkind weren’t looming over everything. It just felt to me like everyone was acting so immature given the grave situation they were facing.
I also thought this book was very repetitive: Weapon UwU would learn about strange events somewhere in the world, go investigate, meet one of Heart’s offspring, fight minor enemies, then turn said offspring to their side or find some nonlethal way to neutralize them.
Overall, this was just an okay book. It was nothing special, and I suggest you either rent it or buy it when it’s on sale. I give Weapon UwU Vol. 1 3.0 out of 5.0 stars.
With primary season 2022 in full swing here in America, I thought it’d be a good idea to analyze political ads and what lessons they can teach us about storytelling. For those out of the loop, Americans vote for candidates in Congress every six years and the House of representatives every two years.
However, unlike in other countries where campaign spending is capped, in America candidates can spend unlimited funds on ads thanks to Citizens United, in which the Supreme court ruled corporations are people, money is free speech, and thus corporations can donate unlimited money to campaigns, political action committees (PAC) and superPACS. The former of which can donate directly to candidates and coordinate with them, while the latter can’t (but often do anyway).
As a result, in every election cycle, candidates flood Americans with emails asking for donations and bombard us with political ads.
Know Your Audience
But these campaigns don’t throw crap at the wall and see what sticks; they do their research and tailor each ad to a specific demo with a singular message that often boils down to their opponent is bad for X reasons but I’m good for Y reasons. And in recent years with the advent of social media, campaigns have been able to target their ads with laser precision to reach their intended audience, as seen in the 2016 when the Trump campaign used Facebook data harvested from Cambridge Analytica to target democratic voters disillusioned with Hillary Clinton and get them to vote third party.
He also spoke to the feelings of disenfranchisement among older and working-class white people by harkening back to a simpler better time with his slogan, Make America Great Again, often shortened to MAGA.
We also saw this in both Obama’s campaigns where he levied social media to connect with younger voters. In both cases, their ads spoke to their audience, admittedly in vastly different ways.
But how?
By speaking to their base, the hard-core fans who will go beyond voting for them to canvassing, calling, and taking people to the polls to vote.
How does this apply to writing?
First, if you don’t find your base, your tribe, you may sell a few copies, but that’s where it stops. There will be little word of mouth, and few if any reviews. But by finding your base, you’ll have a crew of readers who will ride or die for you and your work and who won’t stop talking about you.
Second, if you don’t identify your base, any marketing and ads you do will fizzle out.
As I mentioned above, political campaigns may seem like they want everyone to vote for them, but they actually want higher voter turnout among their base than their opponents.’ This is because historically voter turnout has been low, especially in non-presidential elections, so while there may be more of them than you, it all boils down to getting out your base.
But how do you find your writing base?
You go where they go, frequent the websites they frequent, and connect with them. You find their likes and dislikes, their hobbies, their personalities, and their problems.
And you give them what they want/need.
Give Them What They Want
Political ads often prey upon people’s emotions, e.g. fear, anger, or uncertainty about the future. Again, going back to the Trump campaign’s 2016 run, they played on the fears and anger that white Americans and their values were being ignored and becoming irrelevant.
Likewise, in Lyndon B. Johnson’s famous daisy ad, which featured a little girl on a swing holding a daisy before it cuts to a picture of a mushroom cloud, only aired once. But the message was obvious: vote for Barry Goldwater and it’ll end with nuclear war with Russia.
In the infamous Willie Horton ad, which spawned a genre of attack ads based on racial fears, the 1984 George H. W. Bush campaign painted Dukakis as soft on crime by implying he would allow criminals like Horton on the loose to commit more crimes.
Horton, a Black man serving a life sentence for murder without prole, while on release on Massachusetts’ weekend furlong program, failed to return, and physically and sexually assaulted a white woman before a civilian later shot him.
And more recently, Hillary Clinton’s 3AM ad with a red ringing phone, implied, then candidate Obama was ill prepared to handle the rigors of being president.
These quintessential attack ads did one thing: made people vote for the target’s opponent because they will stop the nightmare scenario from happening. They also created a us vs. them mentality, and if people are one thing, it’s tribal.
But how does this apply to writing?
Easy.
We all Want to matter
People want to be entertained. But more than that, they want stories that speak to them as a person. They want to be seen, to know they and their struggles matter, that they too can save the day and get a happily ever after.
The secret to giving readers what they want is to not try to please everyone.
Instead, focus on one person, be that you or someone else, and write for them. Be specific and write from your experience. Write what scares you, what hurts, because if it resonates with you, it’ll resonate with others. Tell your truth, regardless of how ugly it may be or who may take offense, because your story demands to be told. Do this and you’ll find your audience and please them. But that’s not enough.
You must hook them and keep them hooked.
Hook The Audience Early
Because we live in a capitalist society, everything costs money, and political ads are no different. They, in fact, cost so much that they only have 30 seconds to hook audiences, keep them engaged, and tell their story.
Likewise, you only have a brief window to hook readers before they put your book down to do one of a hundred other things vying for their attention.
One of the best ways to hook readers is by starting with a bang. While literal or metaphorical, you want your protagonists to be doing something when your readers meet them. One good way to insure this is by starting right in the middle of the action, aka in medias res.
Another way to hook readers early is by starting as close to inciting incident as possible, so they don’t have to slog through world building or character development that can come later.
Additionally, you could start at the end, then jump to the beginning, as masterfully done by Tarantino in Pulp Fiction.
You could also start by posing a question to the audience, such as in mysteries, and the quest to answer this question drives readers forward.
A similar technique is to add subplots with their own questions and move from one to another, answering one question as another arises to keep readers engaged and guessing what happens next.
But perhaps the best way to keep readers hooked is by making them care for your characters. They don’t have to like them, but they must feel something for them, and you do this by making your characters true to life.
We all have that one friend who reminds us of pretentious Holden Caulfield, bookish Hermione, or egotistical Victor Frankenstein; pull from your knowledge base and give your characters quirks and ticks of those you know. Make them act and sound like real people, complete with flaws and questionable morals.
And once you’ve made readers care about your characters, send them on a journey that matters. Have them grow and change as the plot demands, not vice versa, and make them earn their endings.
But once the story ends, the actual work of getting reviews and further sales begins.
Repetition, Repetition, Repetition
One reason political ads are often highly effective is a combination of superb storytelling and repetitions. During campaign season, you can’t escape ads; they flood the airwaves, internet, your email, phone (robocalls and texts), even video games are no longer safe as candidates have taken to appearing in games like Animal Crossing: New Horizons, MLB Live 08, and Burn Out Paradise.
The point being, repetition is key to building and growing your reader base. Research has shown it can take seeing an ad 3 times or more before people buy a product, which means you must be your own hype man for marketing your book. Of course, don’t engage in spam or dishonesty to get sales, but plug your book and talk about your writing often sopeople know it’s out there.
Yes, this means marketing yourself and your book (I know. It sucks.).
Go All In
If you don’t believe in yourself and your book, no one else will. Put everything you have into it and promoting it. Engage in hash tag games and Facebook groups, reach out to bloggers and your local media, run ads, do what you must to get the word out.
Because no one will care as much about your book as you.
One thing we can learn from political ads is how to be evangelists for our books.
Don’t back be shy about saying how much you love your characters and their story, how excited you are for people to meet them, and how much you hope readers get what you’re trying to do.
This too, means having an elevator pitch on lock and ready to go when asked what your book’s about, and what your next project(s) are. It also means having some way to connect with readers, be it on social media or via a newsletter, and keeping them posted on your work and yourself.
You could have the best book in the world, but if no one knows about it, then what?
This goes triple if you’re a self-published/indie author. If need be, take a public speaking course if you’re not naturally extroverted, read a few books or watch a few videos on Amazon ads, social media marketing, and growing your followers.
Do whatever it takes to let people know how outstanding your book is.
Conclusion
If you’re American,whomever you vote for in the midterms, do it because you’ve investigated them and their platform. None of the above matters if there’s no substance behind the candidate and the book.
Write stories only you can and fuck the haters.
In closing, I want to leave you with this quote from Marianne Williamson I think is apropos:
“Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? Your playing small does not serve the world. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.”
Thank you for reading and let me know your thoughts in the comments. Also, share this post if it spoke to you, and you can sign up to my newsletter for updates on me and my work here.
However, it lacked in both the horror and queerness. Most of the stories only had a fantasy/paranormal element, and the queerness was rarely more than subtext. Also, many of the stories ended just as they were getting interesting, leaving you feeling cheated.
While there were a few stories I enjoyed, such as Attachments, by Justin F. Robinette, in which a ghost haunts his former lover who spurned him; and HUSAVGUD, by Bernardo Villella, in which a gay man must face his past to move ahead; most of the stories were forgettable.
Overall, I felt this anthology failed to deliver on both the horror and queer aspects and pulled a bait and switch. I give Queer As Hell 2.0 out of five stars and don’t recommend you read it.
