'F' is for fight: or editing a written work

A little post in response to what Nicki Elson forwarded on thoughts on editing for rock-star writers.

Editors have it tough, don't they? Editing a good work to make it better, then getting slammed by the writer for daring to destroy their creative work. How dare they!

And then the reviews come out that say exactly what the editor was saying, and the editor just has to sit there, read the reviews that say 'where was the editor?' and put a glum smile on their face and not even dare to whisper 'I told you so.'

Editors have it tough.

No. Editors have it TOUGHER.

Why? They give this constructive, thoughtful criticism, and the writer has a hissy-fit on them and flames out,  in a most spectacular fashion.

Writers can be rock-stars, if not in sales, then in egos.

Not that I (am) talking from personal experience.

But it's fine to say 'Woe is I!' as the editor for getting napalmed, but, pardon me, didn't you sign up for it? You know you are dealing with children (or if you didn't, then that delusion is soon lifted from your eyes), and you are dealing with something amazing and creative and ...

And you want it better. That's why you just spent sleepless nights pouring your heart out in these constructive comments.

The thing is, you know better, and the writer does not.

Tough.

The thing, also, is: the writer had the vision. You do not have the writer's vision. The writer does.

So you offer your suggestions, and cutting comments, and the writer says, 'No! Never!'

What do you do? You have the experience of the publishing process. The writer does not. You know the writer is going to get flamed.

All you can do is say, 'Look, Chris, you are going to get savaged here. It's too wordy. (or: it lacks dialog) or you go too deep too fast (or: you skip from a to z, you need to lead the reader more here, really) or whatever.'

You know this. And the writer still says 'no' and has the work published her way.

Let go. You did what you could. The writer didn't take your advice, because she was just so sure of herself and her writing.

Now the reviews come. Who grows? The writer does, or ... the writer does not, and that crap you needed cut out? You were right. And If the writer grew, she would see that in the reviews and improve her writing.

The hard way.

Wisdom is taking the advice from others (you) without the hard knocks of finding out for herself. So few people have wisdom, and so many people are just so attached to what they created, because why?

Because they created something. You know a lot of writers. You know a lot of creative people.

But the life of a writer, oftentimes, is a lonely one, and she's the only one who's ever done this from her family, and none of her friends nor coworkers ever have.

She created something, and you want to cut it all up into little bloody ribbons, AND have her happy about the damage you've just visited on her baby?

And ... wait. Did you just surprise your writer with a big red stain all over her manuscript, or did you, the second time you noticed this grammatical mistake or gaping plot-hole or excessively wordy description ...

Did you edit away, cutting, cutting, cutting throughout the nice, marking the same mistakes over and over and then present the remains to the author as one huge 'surprise' for the writer to swallow en mess (not en masse because to the writer, you just made a mess of things).

Or did you, the second time into page 10 of the manuscript, get on the phone or meet for coffee and say, 'Hey, Chris, I started editing your work. I liked it. The thing is, I keep noticing this, can we sit and talk about this before I go further?'

Editing doesn't need to be a solo work either. The editor can collaborate with the author, and maybe have less push-back and more buy-in with the big battles come.

Maybe.

And maybe some writers are big enough to realize that the editor is right, and that she is wrong, and could've written that passage or chapter ... or ending ... better.

Some writers are that good, eh, Nicki?

And maybe some editors collaborate, but to no avail, because the writer is being priggish.

Maybe.

If the writer saw it your way in the first place, she would've written it your way, not hers. She didn't. She wrote it her way.

Is this manuscript important enough for you to fight for, as the editor?

Yes? Well, then fight, and enjoy the fight, win or lose: you fought for what you believed.

No? Let it go, and let it be a learning experience for the nascent rock-star.

We all have to grow. Sometimes. Unless we're perfect, beautiful people already.

Then it's all good.

Is MSR Platonic?

I field this question occasionally.

"Hey, geophf, love your work [shameless self-plug], but is MSR platonic?"

Hm. Is MSR platonic?

Well, what, actually, is platonic love? Is it a love of mutual admiration entirely lacking in a sexual component? Is that what platonic love is?

Nope.

'Platonic' love, originally, was when Plato, and his students ... effed young boys, so they could keep their minds off the local girls, so they could think about philosophy. "Platonic" love wasn't. It never was. Platonic love was very, very carnal, and homosexual.

It's fascinating how that word, originally meaning something very clear and direct, has come to mean something nearly entirely the opposite: some vague, ambiguous, neutered, watered-down excuse to hide one's true feelings behind 'friendship' because either or both parties are too scared to show what they really feel because they might lose 'this.' 'This' being this frustrating masquerade of 'niceness' and 'sincerity' to cover over true feelings, but 'this' is all we have now, and we can't risk losing that for a real friendship or a real relationship, because I don't want to scare him or her away, because if I do that, then I'll really have nothing, instead of having this ambiguous nothing that I don't really have, anyway.

Hm. So, is MSR platonic? Oh, and by the way, how are your 'friendships' going for ya?

I always love answering that question by saying what platonic is, and then asking it right back to the asker.

MSR brings out a lot of feelings in the readers, particularly feelings of who they are as people. It's really 'interesting' to read reviewers' reactions, because it's always about how they are dealing with their own feelings and thoughts, even if they attack MSR by proxy or transference.

I like those reviews. A lot. "geophf, when are you going to get away from people dealing with their feelings already! I can't deal with mine, so I don't want to deal with other people dealing with theirs."

Great.

My best chapter, savaged by someone bored with all this touchy-feely stuff.

Or, "I'm tired of Bella whining! Rosalie should just off her. I can't deal with people being sick and when people get sick around me, I just want them to die."

Somebody actually wrote that. But that's okay, that's not really them expressing their real feelings. After all, "It's just fan fiction."

Keep believing that. Keep believing that what you say and what you think, even if it's just your thoughts and feelings about fan fiction, have no bearing on who you are and your life. Keep living that disassociated life that objectifies everything around you. Hitler didn't have bad people to do his bidding, no, he had people "just follow orders," so it "wasn't their fault."

"It's just fan fiction, so I can say anything I want about it because it doesn't matter. It's not me, it's just my views about a fictional situation that I would totally repeat because that's how I think."

Yeah. Keep believing that.

That's one type of reader, you know: the kind that lets others do the thinking for them. They typically don't like MSR, because it's "slow" and hard for them to "understand."

On the other hand, I like reading reviews where somebody got something that they could take away something I put into that chapter, my heart, that is, and carried it in their own. Because why? Because they opened their heart, maybe for the first time, looked inside, saw something there that they didn't see before, and, seeing it, left a better person.

Not because something I wrote. I'm simply a catalyst or a cipher. No, it's because they went up to the mirror and truly looked.

I'm glad I was there to see you look into your heart. Thank you for looking.

MSR ch 63: Show or Tell?

So, in chapter 63 ("Safe Side") of my story My Sister Rosalie (MSR) ...

Well, what the hell is going on in this chapter, anyway?

Rosalie has a (perennial) problem: Bella doesn't listen.

No, she just doesn't listen to what Rosalie is saying at all. Here's what Bella does: Rosalie says something, then Bella takes what Rosalie said, and says to herself, "How can I make what she said make me feel bad?"

This is classic Bella behavior, and you see it even, and particularly, here in this chapter.

So, Rosalie has talked and talked and talked for the last forty chapters, and Bella has taken everything Rosalie's said and pretty much beat herself up with every word.

Rosalie, of course, sees this, so what can she do?

Well, she tried direct experience by talking and acting out a little bit of a baseball game, but that so tremendously backfired that now Rosalie has a new rule for herself (that rule will be coming up in a chapter or few) regarding her now equal but still very captive ... well, what is Bella to Rosalie, anyway? Besides a 'hot bod' that gives her tingly sensations all over? Oh, mama!

And Bella's little shriek and blush-turn-away so did not affect Rosalie. At all. Mmhm.

But I digress.

So Rosalie can't tell Bella about things, because Bella just turns whatever Rosalie says into the self-blame game, and she can't demonstrate on Bella directly, because Bella then goes into a panic attack.

So Rosalie shows on herself.

Okay, but what is Rosalie showing? If she were just going for answering Bella's question exactly, it would be very simple: A-B-C, 1-2-3, and you're done, have a nice day.

Rosalie isn't answering Bella's question at all ... or, if she is, it's just an incidental part of what she's aiming for.

What is Rosalie aiming for?

Bella's happiness (as hard as it is to see here in this chapter).

That's what Rosalie is always aiming for.

'Why?' you ask.

My answer: 'shut up.'

The thing about happiness is this: if you're living a lie or in a lie, you really can't be happy, because you're deluding yourself and taking actions in and for that lie that just contribute to that, not to reality, and so not toward your own happiness. For example, you ask for directions to the gas station, and the person on the country road lies to you, you're going the wrong way, blithely unaware of it, until reality hits hard, and now you have an incredibly long walk before you even get to a telephone. If you had been told the truth, you would've gotten your gas and been on your merry way.

See?

Bella is living a lie. According to Rosalie: everyone is living a lie.

Rosalie's seen the lie, she's seen it in how Bella behaves around Edward and how Bella's behaved around herself. She's seen it in her tryst with Edward, in her courtship with Royce, and in her parents, both the living ones and in Carlisle and Esme.

Rosalie wants to give Bella the whole deal. Not just the: 'Okay, kid, here's how you blow off steam so you can go through your day, being a part of the system that grinds you and everybody down,' but the: 'here is the system. Here is what it's telling you what you are.'

So, what's the system?

Oh, just look around you.

Okay, so that'll be the lie (with Rosalie's eventual explanation coming up).

What is Rosalie doing right here, right now?

Well, she's reenacting. What's she's reenacting is up to you. Here's a couple of possible scenarios.

1. Edward and Rosalie are lovers, as Carlisle and Esme so hoped. Happily ever after (kinda). Yay!
2. Rosalie's life is saved. Royce is out of the picture, and Edward comes to check up on Rosalie and restore some of her confidence that was shattered by Royce and his companions that she is desirable and that sex can be good and so holy fuck fun. But be with her, as in, 'Rosalie, you're shallow and cruel and heartless, I see that all in your mind [remember, Edward sees what he wants to in your thoughts, he could care less about what your vanity tells you that you're actually a nice person, because to him, you're not; ... nobody is] [except Carlisle and Esme], will you marry me because my pity fuck means I love you? ... not! Oh, and don't hold your breath standing by the telephone, because I'm so not calling you tomorrow.'

This chapter was very hard to publish, because it's just that. Just Edward fucking Rosalie, and Bella suffering through her fantasy of 'what it all means' which she gets so incredibly wrong that Rosalie is out-of-her-mind furious seeing Bella fall apart instead seeing the lie in every single moment of their trysting.

So this chapter was very damaging, and so now the damage control has to follow.

Ever notice that you have to apply a lot more effort into fixing something that's broken, instead of what you could've done, that is: make sure the thing didn't break in the first place.

Rosalie shows Bella through direct experience, because talking about 'hey, this is how you masturbate,' will only leave Bella embarrassed and confused, and since Bella is that way already, a talk would only make matters worse.  So Rosalie goes for show, not tell, to teach Bella about the ways of the world and its lies.

Rosalie? teach Bella about happiness? And broken, raped Rosalie teaching Bella about sexuality?

Rosalie may not be the best teacher in the world.

Just sayin'

On criticism and analyses

So, I've publish ch 56 and 57 of MSR since my last posting.

Some questions have come up by my readers in their reviews, and I've answered the reviewers directly, but I've come to find that sometimes people have the same or similar question, and answering it to one person does not allay the general concern.

So, I've decided for now, to offer some analysis on the chapters I publish as questions arise, and to publish my thoughts on ... well, these thoughts.

Hubris, I know. It treads the line of "I wrote it, so this is how I think you should read it." It does tread that line. You, as the reader, have the right to read, or not to read, what you read in what I write, and it may very well be a failing of conveyance on my part, and not of understanding or comprehension on yours.

So, there's the danger of hubris, but there's also the danger of safety, for me, in writing analyses. And the safety (the danger of safety) is two-fold. I'm making a statement of analysis, and who are you, as the reader, to gainsay what almighty I have stated. That's one danger. I've a very strong personality, and it's easy for me to say 'thus and so,' and it may be difficult for you to state an equally valid position that you have that I'm entirely blind to.

The other danger of safety is this: it's all so easy for me to glory in what I wrote and, on top of that, it's so easy to analyze that, instead of what I should be doing: writing that next chapter, and daring to publish it. Analysis, as an art, is consumptive. It's safe to say 'this writing is this style' or 'that style,' as the consumer: you are critiquing what is there. But if I as the writer, settle into the mode of a critic, then I'm not producing. It's safe to critique, because what is there has gone through that horrifying process of creation, then molded into something readable, and then the author has submitted that work for publication. All the hard work was done in the past, and the critic has the easy job of picking apart something that was oh-so-painfully put together.

This is not to say I do not appreciate every review. Because I do. Every one of them I have received (and I have also received some vitriolic ones). This diatribe is directed at myself, not at you: you are brave to write a review, as, on average, one in every thousand of my readers actually write a review, and most the reviews, I find to my delight and surprise, are substantive.

No, this post is a reminder to myself. I'm posting an analysis on what I wrote, AND my job, as a writer, is not to self-analyze my own work, Mr. Narcissist, but to write, and to write, and to write.

Let me tell you a secret. I hate writing. Every chapter I've written since chapter 12 and on, I've cried, sometimes in bits, over days and weeks, sometimes, continuously, over a stretch of hours at a time. I hate that. I wish, I so wish, that I were the reader of MSR, enjoying, pondering, anticipating each chapter, instead of being the writer, having all in my head already, and dreading each second I take thinking about putting words to paper, and then publishing those words, each one of them not quite what I wanted to be or to say, but there they are, now published, as I wait for the reviews that don't come, and for the reviews that I fear that will.

That doesn't matter. God gave me the gift of writing. And He won't asked whether I liked it or not. He'll ask what I did with that gift, and He'll ask me 'why' when I didn't.

So, analyses to follow.

And, yes, when I have the courage and fortitude to say 'yes' to the words, writing to follow, too.

Roman à Clef

Hey, geophf, that new story of yours, "Her Transformation" ... it seems like filler, marking time, what's its purpose?

Hm, 'purpose' ... stories with a 'purpose' are called 'roman à clef.' ... is my writing like that? Ever?

Maybe it is, if purpose is to ask: 'what is this thing? this existence? and why am I here it in?'

Isn't that the fundamental question we ask ourselves?

Isn't Esmé asking herself this? Isn't Rosalie, as she suffers this agony, asking herself: 'why me?'

What if the answer isn't one that we like? What do we do with that? Give up?

As for this piece filling the time line ... well, yes, it is.

Don't all stories 'fill [some] time'? Like msr?

This story fills three days ... and then one year in eternity. "You Kept Me Waiting" fills thirty years. "Twilight" fills a couple of years. "Sense and Sensibility" fills a year or so. "Antigone" and "Medea" fill a day. "One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" fills ... well, one day.

The Torah fills three thousand years, plus or minus a few billion. The New Add On (Testament) starring our most famous son ("He Was One Of Us" after all) fills in another three hundred.

And the कामसूत्र (Kamasutra) fills a night. Night after night.

So, what is the purpose of a story? What's its point? Hm. Well, instead of asking: "Is this real? Is this literal? Is this true? What's its point?" as modern Christian Bible scholars do, perhaps ask this: "What does this mean for me?" "What do I take away from this?"

What does it mean to be a new mother? What does it mean to be a newborn, still so hurting from the old life? What does it mean to love unconditionally, even if the beloved is a tough case? How about on the receiving end? What does it mean to be beloved, so strongly you can't stand it, because you're dealing with your own stuff, and you don't want anybody else, who loves you with all her heart (and why? just because) to see you at your weakest, ... that is, when you most need love?

Ever been there? If you never have, do you want to risk that kind of love? Knowing there's going to be hurt, too?

Esmé is her name: (unconditional) love. This is Rosalie's transformation, but this is Esmé's story. Why? Because nobody ever cares about Esmé.

I do. She is a person, with a story to tell: I am giving her that venue.

And the thing of it is: although nobody cares about Esmé, she, herself, cares about, and cares for, well, ... everybody.

One of those people is Rosalie, and, perhaps, one way Esmé showed her care for Rosalie is not abandoning her, even during the most difficult period in Rosalie's existence.

Funny how every part of Rosalie's existence is her most difficult part.

Hm. There's a lesson in that for Rosalie somewhere, I'm sure.

Vampire Peaches

There is a story where Emmett is caught biting peaches. Not to eat them, but to see if they become vampire peaches.

Ha-ha, yuck-yuck-yuck, Emmett so stupid funny! *sigh*

But the thing of it is, Emmett is funny, but he's not stupid. And peaches cannot become vampires (or, put another way, the vampiric nature of peaches is to be stone ... vampires are the walking representation of King Midas, after all: everything they touch dies).

But what about animals.

Hm. You're a vampire, wouldn't you love to have a pet kitty or fido ... forever? Where, if a car hits them, the car gets wrecked, not they?

Sweet! And you can do everything to it that people do to it: you know, go hunting, pat it, experiment on it by injecting it with chemicals, just like pharmaceuticals and cosmetic companies do! And the cool thing is, your pet won't develop cancer and die after you feed it five pounds of saccharine. Bonus!

No down side to having vampire pets at all, right?

Hm.

But here's the thing. When fido is hungry, fido has to wait for you.

A vampire dog wait for you? Why would it? It's thirsty, so it's going on a hunt. Now.

Then it bites a wolf, or a mountain lion, ... because it can, and then, can it kill its victim? No. So now you have a vampire mountain lion on the loose in the woods.

Anybody see 28 Days Later? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller?

Hm. And then that happens: a pandemic. And who comes to clean it up?

That's why we have the Volturi, ladies and gentlemen, because some fool vampire's brain goes snap or gets a fool idea into their mind and the little experiment goes right out of their control.

So, vampire pets? or vampire animal experimentation? Bad, bad idea.

And Carlisle's already thought of this. He's probably thought of this at his very first hunt: "Hey, I was turned by being bitten, I wonder if this stag can be turned, too."

Carlisle stayed there and made damn sure that stag's heart was stopped and it was not getting up again, then he buried the shredded remains deeply.

And when Carlisle visited the Volturi centuries ago? And took Aro on a hunt? To show Aro that there are alternatives? That bit of evangelization didn't go so well for Carlisle, but Aro probably saw right away the ramifications, and probably gave Carlisle a little warning lecture, to boot: "Now, Carlisle, I don't care what silly pursuits tickle your fancy, but if this gets out of hand ..."

A vampire animal gets on the loose, and the Volturi come, and they have all the justification they need to wipe out every abstaining vampire in the world.

So, you hate the Cullens and the Denali coven? Make yourself a vampire wolf.

After it turns, and shreds you to bits, and goes on a rampage, the Volturi will exact your revenge.

But don't think the Cullens are not onto this. They read the newspapers, and, as they've shown, they can mobilize a force strong enough to deal with any problem in the world ... including the Volturi. They read about your experimentation, they are coming to have some words with you. Last I checked the Volturi are sending a delegation to the Amazon to have a "chat" with a certain vampire doctor who likes to create half-breeds. You can bet the Cullens may send their own little envoy, too.

And that's the thing. You become a vampire, then you must think of the long-term (and eternal) consequences of every one of your actions, and the things you do locally have a possibly global impact, just as things happening in other parts of the world may have a direct impact on you.

So, do you think that becoming a vampire makes your life easier? That you can indulge whimsy?

Think again.

By becoming a vampire, all your tiny temporal problems are now eternal and far-reaching.

Vampire peaches. Vampire kittens.

Ha-ha. So funny. So cute.

Or not.

"Love Never Dies"? Well, yeah ...

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've come out pretty strongly on some views. Edward, Bella, Rosalie, James, Alice, even, Emmett, even, Esme, even.

Hope.

Why?

Well, because "Now is all we have," and it may just be fan-fiction, but you're reading it or you're writing it. What are you reading? And what are you writing?

Or has been my case, what am I not writing?

Did you know Plato espoused censorship? Even book-burning and execution of authors who put forward dangerous ideas? He had a rival philosopher put to death. Did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because, even as I do not agree with his conclusions, I do agree with his concern, because you become who you associate with and what you read.

You become what you think about all the time.

So, do you use the characters in your stories? Well, then, it's a very easy step to use people to achieve your ends in actual life. And that's why I appear so vitriolic when I'm defending the characters or their use in a story. Why is Edward a playah? Or Bella a clumsy, clueless (stupid) girl, or Alice a shopaholic, or James a story-wrecker?

They aren't. Unless you treat them that way. They have depth, just as the people around you do. Your boss or your teacher is a person, too. Just like you. And deserves to be treated with the dignity they have innately. Just like you.

Respect. Or: "R.e.s.p.e.c.t." as I've heard sung.

So, now I'm going to address love in this entry. And Love.

So you're reading a story or you're writing a story, and it's called Twilight and Edward leaves Bella. But you know it's going to be okay, because there are two more books in the series and this is Edward and this is Bella ... so you know it has to be okay, right? Because "Love conquers all" and "Love never fails," right?

So you're reading a story or you're writing a story, and you have your Edward leave your Bella, because you know they're going to get back together, because they have to, right? Because this is Edward and Bella after all, right?

Stop. Please stop.

Yeah: "Love never fails." But that's capital-L "Love." But what happens for us here in the real world? What happens when A leaves B? What is the success rates of LDRs? ("Long Distance Relationships").

Isn't it a wonderful story when you hear of an LDR that worked out? You know what those stories are called? "Fairy tales." I've been through college, and I've had friends who worked, worked hard, at their LDRs. The success ratio of those efforts?

Near zero.

And those are LDRs where both parties worked hard to maintain their connection. What happens when A says to B, "I have to leave you [for your own good]"?

In the real world? I believe the phrase "It's all over but the singing." And that's why, in Twilight, Bella worked so hard, so desperately, to stop Edward from leaving, and when he left, that's why she descended into a depression so deep there were doctors in the house bandying the word "catatonia."

Because she knew. She knew it was game over, because in the real world, it is game over, and the counter example you come up with (if you can come up with even one) only highlights the incredible oddity of an LDR that worked, because, in reality, they don't work.

So, you wish to read or to write something romantic? Then, please, don't read nor write, a piece where the Edward leaves the Bella ... because coming back?

Bella: "Oh, Edward, so nice to see you again after all these months. Have you met my new boyfriend Jacob?"

And it's not because Bella is the playah. No. Because wouldn't it be even sadder to hear:

Bella: "Oh, Edward, I've missed you so much all these months. I put my life on hold and was hospitalized and tried suicide a few times but now you're back everything's okay, right?"

What's Edward's answer to the stalker-crazy girl?

Twilight took the opposite approach to this scenario: Bella goes to rescue Edward. But what happens in reality? There's no rescuing. There's no going back. You go to college, she goes to college. You marry. She marries. And maybe you think about her once every few years.

Maybe.

This is the reality of this world. This is the reality of this life.

And my concern, my grave concern, when I read stories like New Moon and the many, many fan-fiction pieces (that I no longer read) that follow in the footsteps of New Moon is that this "fairy tale" — this lie — is spreading to you, my dear readers and writers, and your character is being formed around this lie.

Because "Love never fails" but that's because Love is cultivated all day, every day. The moment love, or Love, is withdrawn or taken for granted or ignored, it begins to wither and ends up dead.

And "Edward left Bella, but that's okay, because 'Love conquers all'" is not okay. But if you read that or if you write that, you are poisoning yourself and others with this dangerous romantic notion that you can treat your beloved like this and it all works out.

Real romanticism?

Edward stays. Edward stays and works on himself, becoming worthy of Bella's love. And Bella stays, and, instead of thinking of herself as a nothing, works on herself to be worthy of Edward's adoration. And each helps each other in their work of being worthy of each other's love.

That's a real story. A real fairy tale with a real happy ending achieved each and every day, in fact. Because that, in the real world, is so rare to find these days in the Western World (both the Old World and the New). But unlike the fairy tale of 'A leaves B and they live happily ever after after A comes back', the possible tale of 'A stays with B' can accomplished by a you and by a me.

And as for the romanticism of that? Of "Edward stays with Bella"?

Boring? No.

"Chop wood, carry water" may not have the exciting ring to it of "Bella almost died jumping off a cliff today" but the curse of the Buddha is also a blessing. Novelty and excitement, contrarily, dull the senses and numb the mind. It is when you are doing something like holding your lover's hand for the twenty-fifth time, or the hundredth time or the time beyond counting that you notice, more, the softness of it, of her, and the kindness in her eyes.

It's the hundredth argument, where, somehow, miraculously, you manage to say "I'm sorry" and you reach a rapprochement that you say to yourself. "Wow. This is love. She loves me, and I love her, and we love each other."

And boring to read? No. Boring to write? No. Boring to live? No.

If you think so, perhaps you haven't experienced working on a relationship after the "first bloom fades"? Then let me tell you, a relationship "over the long haul" weathers storms from without and within. There are fireworks in a long-term relationship ... the fiery kind of fireworks (both kinds exciting).

But I can't say that I've experienced a relationship where the "first bloom fades," because, for me, my personal relationship? I still see her with the eyes of when I first saw her, nearly twenty years ago, and I see the changes she's made over those years, too. I have the advantages of both worlds: I'm seeing her, again, for the first time, and have the benefit of her wisdom over these years we've been together.

Boring? Quite the opposite, in fact.

Challenging, though? Yes. How can you write Bella and Edward holding hands for the one hundredth time and make it feel like it's the very first time going into Forks High School?

The same question can be asked by them. "How can I hold Bella's hand for the hundredth time, and still have it meaningful to her and to me?"

It is a real challenge. Just like love is. And Love. Because, yes, "Love conquers all" but that means there's a fight to win. That means it's a struggle.

And isn't that interesting to read and to write? The struggle through adversity, and then the victory, and the victory is sweet.

And after the victory, the next struggle, because things are always changing ... it just depends on which direction: growing or dying. And you and your beloved or you and what you read or what you write choose that direction, every day.

Love is a delicate, fragile thing. It needs constant cultivation. It doesn't need to be sabotaged by A leaving B, either because they are compelled by outside forces or by their own choice.

Because I've seen what happens when that happens, personally. But, sometimes, I've seen what happens when A stays, and I like reading that story, I like writing that story ... I like living that story.

p.s. St. Valentine, Martyr for the Faith, pray for us.

James, the story-wrecker

"James, the story-wrecker"

aka "Don't Ask Me to Read Your Fan Fiction, II"

aka "You can have it both ways, but that hurts"

Okay, this isn't about James, the vampire, per se, but about the plot element I've read in story after story and I've simply gotten sick of it, and I am now so fuming at you, my dear authoress, when you ask me to "please read my story, because it has something to say, but only if you want to, but I really wish that you would because ..."

Okay, look, let me explain something to you. Okay, so, you've read my caveat scriptor, and you can spell your name and you know the difference between 'lay' and 'lie' and 'defiantly' and 'definitely.' So you know how to spell ... heck, you even use the semi-colon appropriately.

Good for you.

So let's take it to the next level: writing a story that worth reading by not writing a story not worth reading.

See, Stephenie Meyer wrote this vampire story, and you may like it or you may not, but now you are writing a vampire story with her characters.

That's great. I am, too. Howdy. Nice ta meetcha.

Good so far. Yes. And your Bella has met your Edward and everything's wonderful.

Great.

But now they are in a relationship, so, instead of developing that relationship, you panic. Because what's to write about if the characters can now kiss?

What indeed?

Well, let's throw some action in there, eh? You know, mix it up a bit to take the readers' eyes off the fact that I'm stuck story- and character-development-wise with a good ole fight scene and a revenge quest.

I know, you crow, let's introduce James into the mix.

*sigh*

That my dear authoress is a very, very bad move, for two reasons. What two reasons? you ask the geophfster.

I'm glad you asked.

1. The first and foremost reason that this is bad is that if I wanted to read Twilight again, I would read Twilight again. The reason why I was reading your story (but am now longer reading your story, if you didn't get the hint) was because your piece of fan-fiction was supposed to be saying something to me about the Twilight characters in your story.
   
   Your story? Right? Meaning: something you have to say about the characters that Steph didn't say. So, what does that mean? That means if you have something unique to say about the Twilight characters, then either your story is canonical or it is not (the fan fiction term is AU: alternate universe). If your story is canonical in the plot, then you are telling it from Alice's POV in Lunière or from Edward's in Midnight Sun or ... something!
   
   So in that case James is present on the baseball field, but I'm probably not reading that story.



2. If it's not a canonical story, then its an AU story, and then guess what? The same events are not happening because Alice gets hit by a truck or ... something! Do you know what that means? It means ... Oh! my Goodness! ... you can write your own story! ... with your own plot developments! ... you can even ... dare I say? ... take the time to develop your story, your characters and their relationships. You know? You don't have to write an actioner if you are writing a relationship piece.
   
   When you introduce James, the story-wrecker, the action guy in a relationship fic, you know what you've just done? You've just wrecked your own story. Just like Bonne Foi was wrecked by James. Just like Twilight was wrecked.

Did you notice that Twilight is actually two stories? It's one story pre-James-wreckage and it's ... well, it's not a story after that at all anymore, now, is it? It's an actioner. It's a thriller.

Bring out Michael Jackson for an ensemble dance during the cat and mouse chase scenes.

That might've actually improved the story ...

You don't have to wreck your own story just because Steph chose to wreck hers. You really don't.

When I read James appearing out of nowhere in a story, I stop reading that story. I don't care if it has over 10,000 reviews, like Bonne Foi will.

But now that you've wrecked your story with James, you have to go ahead whole hog with wrecking your story, don't you? So now you have your Edward abandon your Bella, because, well, Steph did that. Even if your Edward isn't actually Edward, but is Alice or Rosalie or somebody like that.

Look. Edward left Bella because Edward is Edward. But anybody else leaving Bella?

They wouldn't.

Bella:	"Don't leave me, X!"
X:	"Nah, I'm going to leave you, even though I love you, because I'm a proxy Edward."

So now your character is OOC themselves and IC Edward? And you want me to read a story about your Alice or Rosalie or Jasper or whomever being Edward, even though I hate his behaviors to my bones and marrow, why again?

Look. You aren't Steph. You are writing your story. You aren't writing hers. She wrote a multi-million seller. Go, Steph. I'm proud of her.

But make me proud of you. Find your own voice and write your own story, please.

No, don't make me proud of you.

Make you proud of you.

Are you writing your own story? Well, then, for Heaven's sake: write your own story!

I give you permission. You have your own story to tell. Tell that story.

Epilogue

So does that mean you can't use James, then?

No, it doesn't mean that. It means that your Bella has to meet James with the Cullens because Steph's did? No, it doesn't mean that either.

Huh? you ask.

Okay, example, then. And plot spoiler. James shows up in my story. And Victoria. And Laurent. Well, actually just James. But where? Where people meet vampires: in the city in a secluded alley. And does Bella meet him? No, Rosalie's other girl meets him. And with vampire protection? No, because vampires avoid each other. And what does James do? James does what any vampire does.

Dinner time.

Sure you can introduce James, but put him in a realistic place (yes, 'realistic place' ... I said that about vampires) and have him act realistically. James going on the hunt against a coven of seven vampires?

James is over three hundred years old. He values his fun, yes, but he values his existence.

"Hm. Bella smells temping, but against seven vamps? This other person in the next state will probably taste just as nice, I wager."

And your vamp lover leaving Bella for her safety with a vampire hunting her?

Only Edward is that stupid, please don't dumb your character down that much, because should you choose that, then here is one reader not reading about stupid characters stupidly ignoring their more than seventy years of experience to make stupid choices.

After all, if I wish to do that, I can reread Twilight. I was reading your piece because I thought I was learning what you have to say about the characters.

You can't do that if you are fitting plot elements of Steph's story into yours pel mel ... and to what end? Your story is better than Steph's. Or it was until James the story-wrecker showed up, sans reasonable justification, god-like out of nowhere, yes: deus ex machina. I don't read contrivances. You want me to read your piece, then don't write contrivances, and don't write Steph's story.

Write yours.

Acronyms

AU:	Alternate Universe
IC:	In Character
OOC:	Out of Character
POV:	Point of View

Bella: Pride and Prejudice

"Boy, geophf," you say, "reading the latest, that Bella surely is ... well, frankly, stupid!"

I would beg to differ with your assessment (translation from Austen-speak: "Um, no").

"But," you insist: "How could she guess so wrongly as to why Rosalie would be wanting to teach her sign language?"

Okay, so, here's the thing. Reflect on her prior thoughts when she considered the presence of the American Sign Language book ... what was she thinking then?

Her thoughts precursored her thoughts now: "Rosalie is/will teach me this so she won't have to speak to me again."

That was her prejudice, or, as we say now: her preconceived notion.

Now, try this. Have somebody pick at you until you are thoroughly ticked off about it and about them. Become furious.

Bella's pride was offended, because Rosalie was criticizing her with compliments.

Now try to think straight.

You cannot, right? Because you're angry. It's called "a loss of perspective."

Bella's prejudice lead her to believe a certain thing ... she is very intuitive, after all, and what does that mean? It means she jumps to conclusions. And her pride was offended, that means she's very likely to stick by her guns, right or wrong, come Hell or high water.

Sounds a lot like Elizabeth Bennett as Mr. Darcy rattles off all her (and her family's) faults, and then ask her to consider something.

She surely "considers" something, all right! That Mr. Darcy got an earful!

Now, people are quick to criticize Bella in this chapter, including, particularly, Rosalie (which does not help matters any). Put yourself into Bella's shoes. The next time you are so furious you can't even see the person you are "talking" with, because all you see is red, ... well, I dare you to do what you accuse Bella of not doing: think about what you are saying.

Is your argument sound or ad hominem? Are you "thinking straight"? Or have you "lost perspective"?

That Bella Swan is just so "eat up with pride" and just so often jumps to conclusions, the wrong ones. Doesn't she!

Hm, yes, she does. But she's not reading the story. She's living it. So, you, living your stories: you have it all mapped out, now, do you?

Bella Swan has a mote in her eye.

But she's trying, sometimes, to look in the mirror.

Give her that, at least, please.

And before you cast a stone, recollect when you were seventeen. You knew everything there was to know then?

If you say you did, then you're not casting a stone at Bella. Doesn't feel like such a good idea now, because, of course, you know it is kind of like throwing the stone at the mirror, right?

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction

Really.

I'm serious.

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction. Because if I read it, I'll review it.

If I review it, you will hate me. Forever. And all your fans will hate me. Forever.

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction if you don't know the names Strunk and White better than you know your own.

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction if you haven't charted the plot of your story from its inception all the way to its conclusion.

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction if your characters aren't real. If they don't have something to say to me, then I will surely have something to say to you about that.

In fact, don't ask me to read your fan fiction until you have read my beta profile and read every entry here under the writing category, and know that your fan fiction can survive those meat grinders intact and whole. Oh, you say you have? Then you won't mind me quizzing you a bit, then, will you?

Don't ask me to read your fan fiction. Because your fan fiction is your baby, and I am King Solomon, and I will rip that child, that means everything to you, right in half.

You are writing. You love writing. You want some positive, affirming comments about something that you love doing. Or you think you are strong. You think you can take constructive criticism.

Yeah? I bet you do. I bet you do ... like so many other who said they would be professional and courteous and open to suggestions and told me that "but my story is different! Read it, geophf. Please! It'd mean so much to me!"

I have this message for you, my dear, particularly: don't ask me to read your fan fiction.

Really.

"If I have the time ..."

I've gotten this three times in the last month.

"Oh, I was skimming your story, and I was wondering if it'd be a waste of time for me to read."

"Oh, I was skimming your story, and I'll read it maybe someday when I have the time."

"Oh, I read your story (all 300 pages of it) and I'll leave one review on it, when you come out with a new chapter, if I have the time."

Read those statements above, and turn to somebody, face-to-face, and say that to them about something important to them.

"I'll watch your first ballet recital, if I have the time."

"I'll buy you a Christmas present, if I have the time."

"I'd come to dinner, but the game's on. I don't have time for family time."

The sad thing is: people do say that now, all the time, don't they?

They're talking on their cell phone while they're "with" you.

They're working on their computer while they're "talking" with you.

They're ... I don't know ... they're making excuses to cop out of plans with you, because, frankly, the TV's more important to them than you are.

What ever happened to respect? What ever happened to treating people as persons, not as things? Did it never happen at all before, and I was misled? Was I raised wrongly by my parents to try to give the people I'm with my attention?

So you wrote to me and said you would read and review my stories "if you had the time."

You're busy; I'm busy; we're all busy. How nice. And it IS nice that you're willing to make the effort to comment on my stories.

But "if I have the time"?

You may not have the time. You may have a family with two daughters. You may have work deadlines. You may have other friends you like more. You may have to watch an average of 8 hours of TV or 'net-slumming. You may have all of these things, and more.

But saying that to somebody? "I love you, and I'd tell you, if I had the time." "I'd do that report, boss, or professor, if I have the time." "I'll leave a review on your story, if I have the time."

The good intention is destroyed by the equivocation. If you have the time, do the good thing. If you don't have the time, don't do the good thing.

But time is prioritization, and saying "if I have the time" translates directly into "you are on my priority list, somewhere below watching TV, or whatever."

When I talk with somebody, when I talk with you, I give you my full attention. My whole time. I MAKE the time to talk with you. Out of the many readers I've had today, out of the many markings of favourites and PM and story alerts and sometimes reviews, ... and the rest of my life.

I do not "if I have the time" anybody. When I'm with you, I'm with you.

Please, don't "if I have the time" somebody. "Everybody does it" these days, because everybody treats everybody else as things, not as persons. But I've worked with people who have taken time out of their busy-busy schedules, I'm talking Captains and Admirals, who have more meeting time scheduled every day than they have hours in the day. When they do that? When somebody makes time for you, how does that feel?

Doesn't it feel nice when an authoress, like, for example, Jocelyn Torrent, replies to your reviews? (You do leave her reviews of the chapters that meant something to you, don't you? You do know how much substantive reviews mean to her, don't you?) She has more than twice the reviews in one story than I have total. And she responds to every single one. AND all her PMs. I know. So does Lion in the Land. So do I. So do more than a few others, as well.

Many, many, many do not. That is not your problem. That is their (serious) problem. Your problem is how you are treating this person you are writing to or this person in front of you right now, and you cannot justify your callousness, no matter what anybody else says or does.

"Everybody does it" is the weakest, lamest cop-out of an excuse to justify what you know to be a wrong doing. A slight. Besides: do you wish to be like "everybody"? That is a faceless "nobody" in the crowd? Or do you wish to be you, and be treated with kindness and individual attention?

As we few writers do when we respond to your review, even though it's the 283rd review for this story we've received. Even if it's the 711th.

Those of us who do this, well: we MAKE the time for you, AND we write these wonderful, in some cases, award-winning stories that have captured your attention and fired your imagination.

"But I was just saying that, I wasn't being mean, I was just explaining myself." Yes, I know you weren't being mean. I know this. But how much thought did you put into those words, because every word you say means something.

I am a person. You wrote to me, or you talked with me. Please treat me as a person. I prioritize things, not people. Please don't prioritize me below things: I don't like feeling less than a thing. I don't know anybody who does.

You may review what you've read of my story that had meaning to you (and you've read my story and nothing has moved you at all?). You may not. But please don't so blithely dismiss me or my work with "time." You read it. Perhaps all 300 pages of it (so far), so you've had time to do that, but you didn't have time to select the "review chapter" link?

Maybe not (I cannot believe that). But telling me? "I read one of your stories, but I didn't review any of the 52 chapters. Maybe I will after you do more work (because a card deck of chapters isn't enough) ... if I have the time."

Please don't do this. Please don't imply this.

Because time is all we have, and there's only a limited amount we're given, and we don't get it back, so make your time you have precious. For yourself, and for others.

Epilogue

Writing this post, I've come to the sudden realization of the following. Others have complained that MSR is taking it's sweet time, going hardly anywhere at all.

Why?

Because Rosalie is doing something that hardly anyone does. She is taking time with Bella. Instead of saying: "You are like this, so I will treat you like this" (and Rosalie does do a lot of that in MSR, I grant you), she is taking these days to find out who Bella really is ... you know? The apologia for this piece? She is finding out who Bella really is and treating her as that person, not as the person she wants Bella to be.

Now, Rosalie is very unhappy with the real Bella, the person who she is. But she does work with that person, and not (always) dismiss her out of hand.

Unlike how Edward treats Bella in the canon, perhaps?

Is this why MSR is so frustrating for so many? Is it because they wish Bella and Rosalie just to move on and treat each other as ... what? ... and ignore each other's and their own faults and failings ... and consequently ignore each other's and their own strengths and humanness?

Hm. If you're frustrated, and you want Bella and Rosalie to get on with it ("What 'it'?" I ask. And you answer: "Oh, the obvious, you dummy!" And my answer is: "What obvious?"), then I wonder. Do you treat your friends and family like this?

Do they treat you like this ... and you allow it?

It may be your best friend that you've know from first grade, but she's still a person. It may be your daughter or mother, but she's still a person.

It may be your dad, but he still needs your love.

"If I have the time ..." to treat another person as a person?

You do.

Mirror, Mirror on your Life (MSR, again)

"Gosh, geophf, MSR just goes over and over the same thing, over and over again! It just ... well, to tell the G-d's honest truth, pretty aimless!"

À propos de rein, I love it when people tell me they are telling me the G-d's honest truth. Does that mean they are lying to me at all other times?

Let me ask you: what kind of fic is MSR?

What kind of fic is an in every way ordinary girl's life? I mean, for real.

An every day, ordinary girl does what, day-in and day-out. Wake up. Potty. Go to school. Eat lunch. Potty. More school. Go home. Supper. Homework. Brush teeth. Bed.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

"But, geophf, I don't wanna read about boring. I wanna read about vamps!"

Boring. Hm. Well, okay.

The "Mirror, Mirror" chapter is day two of Bella's imprisonment. On day two of anything, is one blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge? No, on day two of anything, one is adjusting to life at school or on the job.

And Bella's life, now? Boring? Having just nearly died, what? Four times in the last twenty-four hours?

Um.

Now, let me argue from your side, if I may.

"GOD! Bella's period is taking FOREVER! AND I JUST WANT TO SCREAM AT HER AND GOD! AND ..."

Okay, Rosalie, settle down there, GF!

Rosalie hasn't been able to say a peep for this whole time AND IT IS DRIVING YOU AND IT IS DRIVING HER CRA-a-a-a-a-a-ZY! Remember that scream in the forest at "The Promise"? Remember it?

In a chapter or few, Rosalie will begin to be able to talk again.

And Bella, finally, will get her wish, eh? FINALLY, they'll be able to have a conversation, right?

What kinds of conversations have they had when Rosalie could talk?

Hm.

Fireworks ahead.

But please do note. MSR is NOT Twilight. Vampire baseball is right out. And if it is in (which it's not), there's not going to be a plot-derailing James that's going to show up, because that's being handled by a very different plotty plot line (yay! geophf admits there's going to be plot development eventually), off-scene entirely from MSR (read future chapters of 13ways for the entire Laurent, James, Victoria debacle).

MSR is NOT "Terminator 27: the reunified destructinization!" MSR is much more like "Out of Africa." MSR is chick-flicky, and not chick-flicky like "Thema and Louise" but chick-flicky, like, well ... MSR.

Sigh.

geophf, writer of chick-flicky fan-fiction.

So, if you're looking for Edward to come crashing into the party tomorrow ... well, there's Bonne Foi (it even stars plot-derailing James). But fireworks do happen in MSR. Why? Because it does star vampires. But the last set of fireworks was at "A Swim," right? And the next set is at "Lillian, Arise!" (sort of), and the following set is at ... well, it depends. Is Bella's escape fireworks, or the visit of unexpected company to the cabin fireworks? or ...

Talk-talk-talk. That's what MSR is. Along with vampires, and near death experiences. And misunderstandings. And UST.

You know: "Pride and Prejudice and Vampires." Hey, somebody ought to write a book like that!

(YES, I KNOW! Okay? I already KNOW!)

But you already know all this about MSR right?

MSR has zero sex appeal on ffn. It's not an AH AU ExB smutfest (previously mentioned). It's a slice-of-(un)life story. You know? The everyday ennui and horror of life. The everyday hope of it.

It doesn't gloss over the dull and dreary and dreadful details of the person standing right next to you all day every day. But it also doesn't gloss over the nobility of that self-same person.

Be that person an inept cowgirl, or a stunning socialite of a vampire.

Repetitious? Yes. Does your life have a plot advancement every two days? If yes, then, have a cookie and why are you reading boring old MSR, when you're going skydiving today, and yachting tomorrow?

I think boring old MSR is so very much more exciting than Bella ever dreamed her life would be, even though that includes a regular trip to the potty.

I think boring old life itself, you know, the one most people live? Is way more exciting than ever anyone would have ever thought it would be, if only they opened their eyes to look up from their desk to see the rain storm outside, or the person right beside them.

MSR doesn't do that. Both Bella and Rosalie absolutely refuse to see the other person as she is, instead they try to see the other person as how they think the other person should be.

But MSR tries.

It takes an awfully lot of tries even to begin to see the other person as something other that an echo of 'it' - the way I want them to be. And its so hard, maybe even too hard, for most people even to try to do that. I mean: it's boring and unrewarding work, to see the other person as a person, and not an it that I can just use and then discard, so I can move onto the next adventure.

This is the curse of the Buddha, you know. That unrelenting search for happiness beyond the next hill. You know what the redemption is, however? Finding happiness, right here, right now, in the small, little, ever repeated, everyday grind of life; the task at hand.

Not fun. Not exciting. Not adventurous.

But, when one finds satisfaction in it: peace and happiness.

Maybe even joy.

Maybe hope.

Is MSR self-satisfied? I don't think so. I think MSR is a very unsatisfied work. I think I put every ounce of quality I can into every chapter I publish.

But does that mean you have to like MSR? Nope, of course not, there are many excellent pieces on ffn. And do they agonize over the final things, like MSR does? Most don't. They're well-written and a rip-roaring read.

What do you come out of those stories with? What did you come into MSR expecting? But now that you are here ... is what that MSR is, in its quiddity and hæcceity of it, worth a continued read of it? Do other fan fiction pieces make you work at them? Sure! Some really great works do (medicine wheel) ... don't they, also, consider the final things?

Like 'hope' and 'friendship'? And 'I and Thou'? Or, more properly, 'Ich und du'?

What is MSR?

To most, it's boring; plotless.

What is it to you?

Oh, one more thing. Rosalie is — surprise! — a vampire, and Bella is just a plain old human. Still with me?

If you dislike the imbalance of their relationship, Bella likes it perhaps less so than you. But you know who hates it the most? Rosalie (cf RLT). Finding a "balanced" relationship? TRULY balanced, that is, right down to the marrow, not just on the surface? Hm. MAKING a truly balanced relationship where one is an invincible goddess (literally from Ancient Greek times: read Hymn to Aphrodite by Sappho and tell me that she's not describing a twivamp) and the other's a plain girl of no breeding nor bearing?

That, truly, is an adventure.

In my book, anyway.

"What Would Edward Do?"

So you do know the WWJD thing ("What Would Jesus Do?"), right?

Do not go to wwjd(dot)com unless you wish to be blinded by flash and garish colours!

Well, the Twilight community has their own credo: "WWED?"

Yes: "What Would Edward Do?"

This question was brought forcefully to mind when I took my family out for sup last night instead of working, as is my wont, and my cara spoza said something along the lines of "you are a good husband."

You don't know me, so you don't know how much thought and effort my dear one had to put to be able to say that statement sincerely. So, my initial reaction was to vehemently deny what she said, and, ... to provide counterexamples. Lots of counterexamples.

But then I thought: WWED? ("What Would Edward Do?")

That's easy. And canonical.

Edward would get up from the table, lead Bella into the forest, and abandon her there, after she told him she would die without him. So he threw her, literally, to the wolves so she could commit suicide because he thought he wasn't good enough.

WWRD? ("What Would [my] Rosalie Do?")

She would throw Bella face down into the snow, in February, then (nearly) throw a tree on her and that was the warming up stage, because let the shouting commence!

And, actually, that is a kindness, compared to Rosalie in the book series. For what did she do? Plan with Jasper the best way to murder the girl after Phenomenon.

WWJD? ("What Would Jesus Do?")

I was going to say I wasn't sure, but the answer's been given as well:

"Good Teacher [...]"
"Why do you call me good?" [...]

Mark 10:17-18

So, everybody, by their examples, are telling me that I should have snapped back. Heck, Rosalie tells us that even the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale (Scarlet Letter) did his fair share of breast-beating, "Oh, I'm not good; I'm not good!"

The thing of it is, none of the above folks were looking to make nice or to make friends or to keep friends (*ahem*: Edward?). None of them were talking to somebody they wanted to spend the rest of forever with, or so they think.

None of them were addressing their (current) wife. Or BFF. Or, in my case, both.

In most of the cases listed above, the (harsh) responder wanted the sayer to think what they were saying.

Definitely not the case here. My cara spoza was giving me a compliment. She knows my goods and my bads; she's measured them, and, for all that, and all that, she decided to say this. She did think about and know what she was saying.

And definitely not the case for you, too. I mean, maybe your BF or GF or spouse is saying something thoughtlessly, but do you really want to tear them a new one because they just called you kind or nice or said "I love you" and you're not ready to hear that because you don't deserve it, and you know it?

WWED?

Edward didn't deserve Bella's love, and he knew this, so what does he do? He up an leaves her, knowing she's a danger magnet, knowing there's danger out there, and no Mike Newton nor Jacob Black (in his current form) could possibly defend a girl with vampire scent all over her. And that's not even the point.

The point is this: she loves him, she needs him.

Edward should have manned up and said "thank you" and stayed and then grew to be the man (or vampire or whatever) that Bella saw him to be.

So WWID? ("What Would I Do?") I would do what I did do.

I said "thank you" and now I'm working on being the person my cara spoza sees me to be.

For her.

WWYD? ("What Would You Do?")

Maybe Edward would rethink his position, given the fallout of his actions was New Moon and Eclipse.

Bella's telling you she loves you, Edward ... WWYD?

Your spouse or your BF or GF or BFF is telling you something nice about you ... WWYD?

Wait. Who am I now?

My dear author(esse)s, you, particularly, are most likely doing something that you need to stop right now. You are engaging in a habit that is much worse than smoking or (depending on your views, more than social) drinking.

You are writing chapters from multiple first person perspectives ("Multiple POVs").

Why is multiple first person perspectives worse than smoking or drinking? Smoking rots your lungs; drinking rots your gut ... multiple POV story-writing rots your brain cells, and (perhaps worse) rots your readers' brains.

You have to stop doing this, and you must stop doing this right now.

My story RLT is told exclusively from Rosalie's point of view ("POV"). My story MSR is told exclusively from our girl's POV. It has since chapter 1, and it will until its conclusion. I do not ever switch POVs inside a story. To do so is deus ex machina, and it would take an author(ess) with much more skill than what I have to be able to pull it off.

Most stories on FFN and Twilighted have POV switching all over the place. Within chapters, between chapters ... everywhere. Ever notice anything about those stories? I'm not going to pull any punches here, ladies and (at least one) gentlemen (and do I ever?). They are, to the very last one, utter crap.

I will not ever do that to you in MSR. I did not do that in RLT. I will never do that. Ever

If you are reading MSR, then you are reading from the girl's POV. That is the one sure thing you can take away from my story. And, as you can see, the reader does need that anchor, because MSR is a confusing, messy ride for our protagonist. To switch POVs? What's the point?

There is no point, there never is any point to switching POVs other than the author(ess)'s complete lack of skill or laziness or both.

If you are switching POVs inside a chapter of your stories, I have one thing I beg of you: DON'T! You will instantly become a much better writer simply by eliminating that prop that so many amateurs lean on.

"But, geophf, I need to get into the heads of more than just the main character in my story and there's no getting around it," you cry. "How can I do that without Multiple POVs?"

Let me tell you about a particularly interesting device: it's called the third person perspective. It allows you, the author(ess), to do that, insofar as you don't use it to dip into the first person trope, skipping along from character to character. It's only been around for as long as the first novel has ever been published, centuries ago. You may wish to give that a try.

Think about it.

And that's the thing, isn't it? Most stories are not well-thought out. Most stories have no plan, other than the 'plan' of the author(ess) saying excitedly to h(er/im)self: "Ooh! I wonder what happens next?"

Yes, yes, I know: you are writing for the love of it. Yes, you are writing for fun. "Get a life, geophf! It's just fan-fiction."

So, if you are doing those things, then write something that people love, and write something that people "have fun" reading ("have fun" meaning "enjoy" ... meaning laugh or cry or learn or whatever).

"Oh," you rebut, "I can write from multiple POVs because Steph wrote from multiple POVs in BD!"

No, she didn't. BD is three books: the first book is from human Bella's POV, the second book is from Jacob's POV, and the third book is from vamp Bella's POV. Sorry, even Steph obeys this rule.

"Oh," you try again, "your own story 13ways is told from multiple POVs! Hypocrite!"

No. 13ways is a collection of character studies. Each chapter is its own story; each chapter is told exclusively from one and only one character's perspective. Yes, taken together, they weave a story of the Denali coven, but each story has its own, oftentimes conflicting, perspective of what's going on in that family and why. This is intentional and spelled out in its apologia. This "multiply POVs" story, as you call it, uses this prop intentionally to make you think, to make you walk away from the story and say "Aha! That's why Irina is like that in BD!" Other stories that use multiple POVs? Read them (or save yourself the rotting braincells, and don't read them), what have you learned when you walk away from them?

You walk away from them wondering: "Ooh! I wonder if Edward and Bella will 'kiss'?" [or whoever and whoever]

And given this is Twilight fan-fiction, is there any wonderment at all in your wondering?

Yes, it's fun to wonder 'what happens next?' But Twilight, itself, goes deeper than just that or only that. Twilight builds a universe of believable, credible, deeply-researched characters in a realistic setting, and that edifice is entirely constructed, in the first four books, through the simple, sweet, insightful eyes of a seventeen year old plain old ordinary brown-brown girl.

Remember the wonder you experience as you read those books?

You can create that sense of wonder in the readers of your own stories.

So do that.

Royce got what's comin' to him

I get this occasionally from reviewers.

"Oh, Rosalie is this real [something], she deserved to be raped."
"Oh, Bella is so annoying, I hope Rosalie just up and kills her."
"Oh, Royce was a real [something else], he got what he deserved."

Um. May I respectfully disagree?

Let's just take Royce as an example, for, after all: he's pure evil, so there's nothing more to say.

Right?

As to Royce deserving what he got, or deserving more than what he got, well ...

I would never wish to have my daughters raped nor murdered, although some reviewers do wish this on my surrogate daughters Rosalie and Bella, but ...

Did he deserve what he got? Sure, and then some.

But, if we got what we deserved ... instead of mercy or kindness or clemency ... which we don't deserve ...?

And who was truly punished? Who was truly twisted by the meting out of justice upon Royce? Is a vindictive action a cleansing one or a damning one? Are revenge and jealousy and hatred admirable traits?

If a friend of yours had a child and she was hurt deeply by someone, would you feel that, when she tortured the boy for eight hours and then murdered him, that now it's all good? Justice served, Oklahoma!-style? (That musical had to be one of the most twisted things I have ever seen ... "Jud falls on his knife," indeed! Maybe he received more than a little help as he fell, perhaps?)

And the girl? With blood on her hands? She's happy now?

I don't know. I do hope there isn't a big-old score card, because I'd be in serious trouble.

It's easy ... too easy ... to say these things should be visited on other people, but before you wish ill on another, look in the mirror first, and then, second, check the score card ... not the tally by Royce's name, but the one by your own name.

Still casting that stone?

The Emmett Comment

I get this on occasion, and I believe it's a topic worth discussing.

Did Rosalie really say that? Did she really say that she would gladly sacrifice anything to regain her humanity ... even Emmett?

Yes.

Did she mean that?

Yes, of course.

Because why? Because she will never be able to make that trade. But if you said: "Okay Rosalie, kill these 100 children and burn Emmett and you get your humanity back," then will she do that?

Nope. In actuality, she would sacrifice her humanity for her Emmett. But she said the opposite ... why? People say things.

We all say things that are wrong, stupid, and, upon reflection, things we shouldn't have said and things we wish we didn't. Rosalie made this mistake. Have I ever made this mistake?

Oh, yes.

Have you?

Everybody casts this "She'd sacrifice Emmett" stone at Rosalie. But nobody ever analyzes her statement. Not only at face value, but at Venice value. One pound of flesh, please, Rosalie.

And nobody ever looks in the mirror when they cast that stone. Rosalie lives in a glass house. Well, well, well: looky there! Rosalie has feet of clay. Huh! Record every word you ever said, have every newspaper publish it ... read the newspapers 50 years from now. Oops! Did I really say that?!?

Are you still Holier than Rosalie?

I think Rosalie, in fact, is a whole Hale of a lot Holier than most people in the whole world, and, yes, she does have a mote in her eye, but the people casting stones? They have the frikken redwood forest-sized beams blinding them to their own fault.

"Oh, Rosalie's not perfect."

She sure isn't. My story portrays her sympathetically, but definitely (and defiantly) very much not perfect, but ...

A Rosalie's a Rosalie, for a' that.

Decline and Fall of our College Youth

... is Twilight, of course. That is, according to a report by Ron Charles in Sunday's Outlook section (March 8, 2009): "On Campus, Vampires Are Besting the Beats". The gist of the article is that a literary critic, Alice Echols, notes that the reading habits have shifted from the good old days of the beat generation to the bad old days of the Twilight generation.

Now, I was around during that time, and I don't recall them being particularly good nor recall the college youth being particularly different than today's college aged young whipper snappers, but let's leave the ad hominem argument of age aside (meaning, let's leave aside that the age of something determines its goodness or validity) and let's not examine what the ideal kids those days were reading.

Let's look at what kids these days are reading, which according to the article, backed up by sales figures, is Twilight.

Like the lead pipes and coliseums of ancient Rome, Twilight is being blamed for the fall of our great society. Because why? Because it happens to be the current big thing, and because Steph appears to be too sweet to strike back when stung by criticism (or, more often, by slurs or smear campaigns).

So, let's see the danger these books pose to us: the oblivious criticism is that the books are light, uninspired romantic fluff, that does not allow kids to explore their worlds, for, after all, the protagonist is a weak, swooning, codependent girl living in a fantasy world.

Right.

Or, perhaps not? How does Bella live?

Does she love the man she's with (which was one motto of the Beat generation)? Despite his failings? Accepting his goodness, as he does not?

Does he treat her with respect? With dignity? That is: as a person and an equal, and not an object? Does he, by his actions, show the men of those 22 million buyers of the Twilight books how to do the same for their true loves? So much so that when I lavish praise on my cara spoza she "complains" that I'm "getting all Edward" on her? — far from being an impossible ideal, as Edward has often been labeled, he's resetting the higher standard of behavior in courtly love!

Back to Bella: is she studious and attentive in school? So much so that she maintains a 4.0 average through personal crisis? Does she never criticize friends or enemies in school? Does she speak up when her friends are put down in the cafeteria?

How does she treat both her parents? Does she love her dad? So much so that she that she watches the TV with him? Does she love her mom? So much so that it comes out in every word as she describes her to Edward? So much so that she'll throw herself into a taxi cab, past two inescapable vampires, to trade her own life for that of her mother?

Does she fight for what's right? In every book, does she throw herself in front of the danger she believes she's created? Even though others willingly, forcefully, assume the protective rôle? Is she strong enough to stand up for herself? Marrying before the sex? Keeping the baby that's killing her? Even though everybody think she's out-to-lunch crazy-stupid for doing those things? Is she strong enough to stand up for what she believes in the face of everyone she loves telling her to do the opposite?

In short, isn't Bella truly the "every-woman"? As it were: a strong, independent woman. Bella's strong enough to be everything for everybody else (well, nobody's that strong, but Bella wins a trophy in my book for trying her hardest), and still have strength left over to be the person she is.

Is this the critique, then? That the Twilight books put forward a character, like Bella, that is not a good rôle for our youth? If that's the case, then here's one Twilight Dad saying: we need more Bellas in the world, not less.

If Twilight is spoiling our youth, then I say, if this be spoilage, read on!

10 Things I Hate about the Twilight Movie

10. I hate that every day I go to see the movie, I must see the movie again right away. I have a life, you know: I don't have 4 hours and 4 minutes to spare for each day I see this thing, for crying out loud.
    
    And I hate that the movie is 3 hours too short — 2 hours and 2 minutes are not enough to convey the intensity and depth of Edward and Bella's (careful) courtship. I'd talk about the injustice of cutting the scenes in Twilight and Midnight Sun (draft on the author's site), but those are other hated reasons.
    
    Yes. I realize I'm holding the exact opposite positions in this reason. This is called creative use of irony — deal.


9. I hate that the movie stayed resolutely true to the spirit of the book, very true to the flow of the book, but did not have that saccharine worshipfulness that another first movie of a certain book series about paranormals involving (pre)teens and magic had.
   
   I also hate that this movie refused to stoop to the belief that movie goers are mindless cattle. It refused to explain every little detail like other blockbusters: "Look", it refused to explain in voice-over, "I'm a defenseless human girl leading what I know to be a vampire into a secluded forest patch so he can have his way with me. I'm putting myself in danger." Nope, no explanation. Or, that they kept the onion root cell division scene from the book nearly intact. It is at least a misdemeanor to mention not only the word "prophase" but also to follow it up with "metaphase" and "anaphase" is moving into felony territory. Also, I have always answered the statement "I have a question" with "1.77i" for the last twenty-five years (I always assume the asker's question is "What is the square root of negative π?"), so I have prior claim to the copyright.
   
   I hate the layering of every scene. Mega-blockbusters are supposed have only one camera angle: the close-up. But, no. Nearly every scene in this movie has important things transpiring between at least two major characters (with emotion and reaction in a subtle interplay) but then, out of focus, the minor characters are also communicating important thoughts and feelings and advancing the story and require strict attention to capture. Look, I'm only human, I can only concentrate on a few things at a time. Watching this movie is a strain to my complacency!
   
   I also hate that the minor characters are treated with respect and given time to develop — what? development of minor characters? — This is a mega-blockbuster: minor characters must be at most one-dimensional! Put it this way, if one were to role the additional material on James, Victoria and Laurent back into the book, there would be at least another 50 pages for us to read. And that's not a bad thing ...
   
   You may accuse me of listing more than one reason in this one reason, but I'm really not. It all boils down to my anger that this mega-blockbuster has the daring feel of an indie. Put contrapositively, this indie has the refined slickness of a mega-blockbuster. This movie takes the best of both sides of the tracks with an assured élan.
   
   Show-off.


8. I hate that the baseball game only showed 4 at bats. That game was so good I demand my 9 innings. No, that's not correct: I require the game be tied at 9 innings so that I could have my extra 5 innings for the tie-break, just as in the 2004 ALCS. — Yes, I went there.


7. I hate that some of the scenes in the movie were — deep breath — better than the book. Look, only Blade Runner is allowed to do that.
   
   To wit: the expanded relationship between Bella and Charlie, the expanded (long-distance) relationship between Renée and Bella, Bella's more creditable escape from Jasper and Alice into the arms of James, Esme acting as a more believable mother during the Cullen kitchen scene ("Clean this up, now."), or Bella hurting Charlie as she fled James ("Like what? Watch baseball on the flat screen and have steak and cobbler at the diner? That's you, Dad, it's not me." "Bella, I just got you back." "Yeah. If I don't leave now, I'm going to be stuck here, just like Mom." Darn it, I'm tearing up again just writing those lines!). Then there was the angst in the cafeteria: Eric's claim ("my girl, Bella"), then Mike's counterclaim ("your girl?") then Tyler's peck ("Sorry, Mike!") and Mike's ensuing chase, this scene played out rapid-fire and true to teenage kids in school, and, yes, better than the book's description of the boy's rivalry as glowering looks. The icing on the cake? Jessica: "Omygod!" Bubble-bubble, "this is, like, first grade all over again, and you're the shiny new toy!"
   
   I'm forgetting the other better scenes because it's been 12 hours since I last saw the movie. Stupid fading human memories. Now I have to take notes the next time I watch the movie.


6. I hate that they cut Emmett fighting the bear and the following discussion between Emmett and Edward about the ramifications and consequences of love. Go Team Emmett!
   
   I hate that they cut the Blood Typing chapter. There was no greater irony in Twilight/Midnight Sun that not only Bella reacted (badly) to the sight of blood, but that she was (impossibly) vampirically hyper-aware in every one of her senses to it.
   
   In fact, I hate that they cut anything. What? Didn't they have 150M USD to play with? We all know this movie had waaaaay more than 30M USD, because that amount of money is just the catering bill for mega-blockbusters flicks, like this one.


5. I hate that the movie didn't go AU ("Alternate Universe"). I so wanted to see Bella set Edward in his place two days sooner after his unpardonable behavior that first day at school in Biology and the administrative office. After all, what's the problem of gracefully ignoring the siren call of Bella's blood? Get over it, Edward, and show the girl some of that gentlemanly courtesy that you so pride yourself for.
   
   But then! I hate the lump in my throat when the confrontation did arrive the next week that all she could manage was an heartbreaking "You were gone." I blame you, Catherine Hardwicke: you cannot be human, for no human could make me believe so completely the strength of that devotion after Bella and Edward spent only one uncomfortable hour together a week before.


4. I hate that his movie was a "Chick Flick" in a real sense of the phrase: all the women were "strong, independent" women: Bella, not Jacob, was the sun around which every other, um, person circled. Gravity moves, indeed! Rosalie was sincere anger in the strength of her protectiveness of her family. Jessica was pure bubbly fun with just the right edge when it came to Mike. And Victoria, ah! Victoria, was the last to withdraw from the crouch and twice as dangerous, devious and menacing as all the other vampires on that baseball field put together.
   
   A chick flick that appeals to a Twilight Dad. That's just not fair.


3. I hate how Edward introduced himself with a confidence of a vampire over 100 years old: "Hello, I'm sorry I didn't introduce myself last week. I'm Edward Cullen. You must be Bella." However, at the same time his voice quavered with the uncertainty of the 17-year-old body in which he is forever trapped.
   
   And I hated how Bella responded with a gasp of an infatuated teenager but with the insight of timeless wisdom (that betrayed her true age(lessness)) to Edward's prying niceties: "You're asking me about the weather?"
   
   And I hated Edward's self-knowing smirk of a response — she caught me — "Yes, I guess I am."
   
   In fact, I hated that whole exchange, how that Edward so desperately was trying to figure Bella out only to be confounded and befuddled by Bella's insights into his character. "I'm sorry for being forward: I'm just trying to figure you out. You are very difficult person to read." "Hey," Bella interjected, "did you get contacts?" "No." "It's just that last week your eyes were black, and now they're a golden-brown color." Edward swallowing, "Yeah, its the florescence ..." making a hasty and embarrassed escape.
   
   I hated that it was so good.


2. I hate how that every scene made this movie Bella's: how we couldn't hear the thoughts that Edward read, but we knew that he could from his expressions that she saw, how the camera's focus, as was her focus, was on Edward when Mike was asking her to the prom, how the conflict of her pure impatient want warred with her desire to be a good girl to ease the pain of Edward's blood lust radiated from her body in expectation of her first kiss, how disappointment lanced from her angry eyes as she commanded Edward to follow her into the forest ("Not mentioning you were a vampire? — that's a rather big secret to keep from a friend, you know.") and how her courage facing the impending change turned to the shock of disappointment then tightly controlled fury when Edward placed a gentle, cautious, and hesitant kiss on her neck at prom, and how she instantly swallowed that fury to show him that she did love him and did forgive him enough ... for now.


1. I hate that now I am compelled to watch the movie again. Today. And that I am compelled to reread the Twilight/Midnight Sun story. Again. C'mon, people, I have a life ... and I have fanfiction to write. Jeez!