Forbidden Zone 2

So, I just heard Rick Elfman is doing Forbidden Zone 2.
That's all I have for now, but I had to mention it.
I've very happy to hear this. I have a signed copy of the original.
Excellent!

On Writing "Death of Heaven" and "Showing the Monster"

As I've mentioned here before, I have a new book coming out called, "Death of Heaven". Actually, I have two books coming out soon. You know, I've been told all my life that I was a very good writer but I never really believed it, or that I could ever actually become a writer. Even though I was a Senior Technical Writer for many years, so I suppose in a way, I already am a writer.

But they say the" truth is in the pudding", don't they? And I do love my pudding. Or was that "putting"? I put it as good as I can, could, uh, goodly can-- would? Actually it is, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". And so, "the proof is in the pudding". Actually actually, the pudding in question was probably a savory and not a dessert. In William Camden's "Remaines of a Greater Worke Concerning Britaine" (1605): "All the proof of a pudding is in the eating." Camden's list of proverbs also includes, "If you eat a pudding at home, the dog may have the skin"; and so we are most likely referring to a typical sausage.

Well, well, well now.

Well? I was told frequently as a child how that was a deep subject for such a shallow mind as mine. But I won't let an infirmaty or a disability stop me now. Finally, I've decided that I'm going to grab it by the tail and see who salutes. That is, run it up the flagpole and hold on for dear life.

Possibly, I'll just publish and see if anyone reads it.

My first short story online, "Simon's Beautiful Thought" is currently on Smashwords and Amazon. People seem to like this little Sci Fi tale of romance. So far so good. However, compared to my works coming up soon, it's pretty lightweight, almost sweet in a way. My new book, "Anthology of Evil", is a collection of my short stories of horror, humor and science fiction. Shortly after that will be, "Death of Heaven".

We now have the cover done for the anthology and we're working on the cover for "Death of Heaven". This last book is going to be huge in its scope. Perhaps I'm just working out some demons, but I wanted to go as big as I could. There is a little of everything in it. It has links to a short story in the Anthology and one of my Horror/Comedy screenplays (HearthTales) that I have written. Once these are all produced, I think it will be a lot of fun. I think that is all I will say about it for now.

PreRelease version of "Anthology of Evil" cover
Cover art by Genius Artist Marvin Hayes

Okay, on to the point of this article.

JJ Abrams gave a talk on TED a while back. It's pretty interesting and entertaining. It got me to thinking about my book and what I have done with it. I saw three issues to consider in Abrams talk: imagination, how it relates to the entertainment experience ("showing the monster" or not), and communication between artist/author and audience.

First let me point out a couple of things about imagination and "showing the monster" which has a lot to do with how I structured my book and how I tend to work in my writings. Since Abrams is using film points in his talk, I'll use that as a way to exemplify my own points.

When I was very young and in the years following, movies never wanted to show the monster. Because what they had to work with back then was pretty lame. Before I started watching in the 60s, they used to show the monster in those old horror and sci fi movies. I later saw them as a young kid and they almost always let you down. But back then they were at the caveman level of creating (especially Science Fiction) special effects. So the F/X sucked for the most part. Like Robot Monster (1953) where you had an actor in a gorilla suit and they stuck a "spacesuit helmet on it. Pretty sad.

Robot Monster (1953)

Of course there were better ones. "Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954), was just an actor in a suit, but it looked pretty cool. And it went underwater. Even though you could see the zipper down the back, you didn't care because they actually let you see the monster and they put enough time and money into it and the story and production values, that it was really pretty cool.

The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

So we knew it could be done. Not to mention "King Kong" (1933), various photo enlarged bugs, and others. I loved BEMs back then, Bug Eyed Monsters. I think the show "Outer Limits" back then did a lot to explore that area. They were kind of the BEM version of "The Twilight Zone", the gold standard of bizarre speculative fiction. Rod Serling was a genius.

"Them" (1954) was a valiant effort and we accepted it because it was a pretty good movie and they played it for real. But the giant ants in that film, once shown were pretty fake looking. Still it was such a good effort that we appreciated it and accepted it.

"The Incredible Shrinking Man" (1957) is still one of my favorites, and probably the most philosophical Sci Fi of that time. But that was more tricks with cameras and lenses. Still, it looked great. They showed the monster, even though it was either a cat, or a spider made to look far bigger in sight and danger than we were used to seeing it. It took the ordinary and made it terrifying.

Producers and studios realized that it was difficult, expensive and time consuming coming up with good monsters and in the end many times, the audience didn't buy it or appreciate it. So they started not showing the monster. That put the impetus upon the viewer to create what scared them and it worked very well.

The unshown monster in that way is scary to each individual viewer. Hitchcock figured this out and Psycho is a perfect example. He did not show in that shower murder scene 90% of what people think they saw. After viewing that film for the first time, people said they remembered seeing Janet Leigh stabbed and naked, neither of which were true.

But let's face it after a while you get tired of doing all the mental drawing yourself. You want to see the monster and you don't want to be let down. So, along came films like "Jaws" (1975) and "Alien" (1979) which frankly, is understood to be "Jaws in Space". Those were scary movies! And in them when you finally see the monster you sure as Hell are not let down. Well, Jaws' shark was questionable but a valiant effort and the rest of the movie was so good that we let it go.

So, they proved that it can be done.

The other issue is in going bigger. Bigger than life. As big as possible. Bigger. And I don't mean, explosions. The James Bond franchise was one of the worst transgressors of this buffoonery for decades, where they really repeatedly went off the deep end time and time again. Of course I blame studio Execs for this kind of idiocy. And the viewing public certainly has its share of the blame to bear.

It's always been my experience that when you hit a certain level, to continue is to simply make a fool of yourself and your project. So it's best to do a 180, otherwise you jump the shark. And Fonzie jumping the shark on his motorcycle has many times been a far better scene than those in some of the films that thought adding gas to the fire made for a more pleasing filmic experience; when in reality it just made for a bigger fire (or explosion).

At some point the bigger is better paradigm breaks down

As for James Bond, give me a more thrilling experience, not a more action experience. I want to leave that theater drained and exhausted, not bored with yet another but bigger explosion. You get into Nukes eventually. Which is what we're supposed to be avoiding, right?

The turn around for me with Bond was "Casino Royale" (2006) with Daniel Craig. The opening scene was excellent. But again, was it a huge explosion? No. It was two people going against each other and exceeding what is thought to be Humanly possible. The opening chase scene with Sébastien Foucan and his "Freerunning" or "parkour" sport display was amazing and I found it far more thrilling than any explosion.

So, when I was putting my book, "Death of Heaven" together, I wondered: just how big can I go?

And I thought to myself: go as big as you can. So I did. But what? Bigger than a nuke? Okay, I can do that. But then what? What's bigger than a nuke? Exactly.

I went to the biggest things I could think of. For me, that would be the concepts of God, the Universe and the MultiVerse. Or to go the other direction: dark versions of God, the subatomic domain, as that direction seems to go on forever in the same way the Universe does. Some of it you can leave to the imagination, but at some point you have to show, something. At least how I see it.

The connecting factor between those two concepts of big and small is to go far beyond what we know, where anything is fair game and from our current knowledge and experience, anything is possible.

Still when showing the monster you have to show something, but you also have to leave something to the imagination. In films, you actually have to create and show something, be it with physical F/X or digital.

Now a days there is a lot of digital blood spray, fire, smoke, steam, water effects. And they're getting better, but they are still pretty bad in many cases. But they need time to work through it until they evolve and get better. The more they use it, the sooner they will start to appear realistic. And they will as soon as software, hardware and talent get better at it.

So we put up with it knowing it saved money elsewhere in the film and perhaps gave us a better overall experience. Eventually, we really won't know what is real and what is digital. In some cases we are there now, but in many we are still in the fledgling stages of special F/X. I can remember when the really good digital F/X started but were only in films like Star Wars, or Star Trek.

I remember saying that they will really have matured once they are not noticed in films like Braveheart or RomComs, where they blend and enhance the film without anyone realizing they were there. Now, we are pertty much there. But still, the cutting bleeding edge, are the heavy special F/X users, such as sci fi and horror films. Smoke and fluids seem to be the tough ones still to crack.

But in fiction writing, you don't have those constraints. You can use the reader's imagination more and if you do it properly they won't even know it. But I wanted to give the reader as much to work with as possible. So I felt I had to show my work as well as try to draw on the reader's imagination. There is a balance there and when you hit it just right, both reader and author can be highly satisfied and know that they will return to do it again.

Whether or not I have achieved this lofty goal is yet to be seen. So far though, I've gotten good feedback from readers. I put a lot of work into it over a long period of time and I have at some points stretched myself beyond my own creative limits. Because that is how you get better so that one day you will exceed your present capabilities, as you hopefully will the next and the next time. It took a lot of work, and it has caused me some degree of concern.

I think there is definitely a dynamic between author and reader where one can help the other along. It's symbiotic, or it should be. Yes, the author should write what feels right, but you have to pay attention to your audience. Communication of any kind is a two way street. Don't get angry if someone doesn't follow what you are saying, you are the one saying it after all. If they don't get it, you have to adjust so that they do; and yes, they do need to put in the effort to try and understand you. As in any relationship if you both take on the responsibility when the communication isn't working well, to enhance communication from each end, then you will both have a far better experience and understanding than you would originally have had.

 If the author is not getting across what they are trying to say, then who is wrong? The readers? Well, maybe. Sometimes marketing goes vastly wrong. A Romance reader may very well not get a hard Sci Fi story. And the far religious right will probably hate my writings. Mostly because I have put a lot of thought and research into my works and I'm not limited to any artificial boundaries like religion sets for its followers.

I read the Bible many years ago and such books as: The Bhagavad Gita, The Koran (as most Westerners seem to spell it, but then they also say "Buddhist" when really it is "Buddha Dharma", referring to the study of those teachings), and others. But I also researched where the Bible came from, and the others. And I read many other non religious books, historical, scientific, physics and metaphysics, and so on. I also got a University degree and studied psychology (my major) and Anthropology and Sociology.

My brother used to like to tease me saying that college students are "college stupid"; and there is something to be said for that. College isn't the end all be all if you come out of it closed minded in merely a more educated way. And when I graduated I thought again, as I did in graduating High School, or in becoming a teenager that I knew everything. I didn't.

In fact, what college taught me was that as I grew more knowledgeable, I grew to know that I knew less and less about  more and more. Religion is the opposite; as you learn more you actually want to know less and less. You don't want to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, right? Because once you start thinking that way, religion starts to fall apart.

Anyway, I was still better off than before I went to college. In the end you just have to come to terms with exactly what you know.

"A good man knows his limitations", someone once told me. And that is a powerful thing to know.

Whenever you push your limits, as I was mentioning earlier, you are always going to be sweating bullets until the consensus is in. Was it positive? Or negative? Basically, you want to hear what direction it is heading. I just want to know if it's negative or not, at first. Then I want to know the specifics so that hopefully I can learn from it, adjust what I  am doing and in the end, turn out a far superior work next time.

All that being said, sometimes you just have to write. Sometimes you are ahead of the times. Like Van Gogh. But truly, there is no reason as an artist to starve if you pay attention. You can always "do your art" as well as make a living. Being too much the idealist, is immature really, not purist.

If my book isn't selling in say, Spain, then maybe next time around I'll distribute copies there in Spanish. Yes, you should write what you feel, but you should also consider how you need to communicate to your audience. "Art" is not all about doing what you think is right. It's also a form of communication, sharing an experience, taking your viewers into your mind and letting them feel what you feel.

Then again I read some authors because I know they are better at their Art than I am at understanding it and I want to get to where I can understand them, because I know I'll be better for it.

In the end, I just want people to know that I certainly put in the effort in my writings and that I took a chance. Because I felt I really had to. And I always will. That's just who I am. Otherwise, why am I doing it if not to entertain and progressively develop my skills in order to do it again and again? Then hopefully the next time I will be even better at it.

I'm here to entertain and hopefully offer a different way of looking at things, especially the mundane in life. And if I can do that and you take a few new ways of looking at things after reading my works, then I will be a satisfied and proud writer indeed.

What is a religious state?

I thought this was an interesting comment that I heard from Director Godfrey Reggio, the Director of 1982's ground breaking film, Koyaanisqatsi:

"Life unquestioned, is life lived in a religious state."

That explains so much, really. Why things are in such a mess in many places as in the most religious there is the least questioned and the most taken on "faith", the bane of scientific inquiry. And we should question, everything. To go through life with one's eyes closed is to leave the innocents to the ravages of nature.

And yes, that includes questioning "God".

Because even if you are religious, if you do not question your God, you are not questioning the posibility that some individual between you and your God, injected something that God never intended.

 And if anything is a sin, that is.

The comment was from the Director of Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqoyqatsi, and he should know, he has the acumen and wisdom to be accurate in such a statement over that of most of us, I should think. His having gone into a monastery at fourteen and come out at twenty-eight, makes him much more educated on this topic than those of us who have haphazardly learned our beliefs out in the world where the level of ignorance is heightened not unusually blurred; sometimes even, purposely.

So don't be ashamed, fearful, or reticent to question authority, at whatever level. Because any true God will not be offended but appreciative that you are trying to find the True Word and not one adulterated by nefarious injections.

Or, just trust Scientific Inquiry.

It's up to you. Just remember what being in a "religious state" means and don't let it turn you into one who is too scared of your own shadow to ask questions, or use the brain that your God allegedly gave you. Because, someone gave it to you for some reason. Or it was mere happenstance and so you essentially gave it to yourself and so if that's the case, I would make the best use of it possible.

But either way, I'm pretty sure that wherever it came from, it wasn't meant not to be properly used.

When am I a writer?

On Bill Moyer's new show on PBS, "Moyers & Company", the Poet Chis Wiman said that he hadn't written a poem in two months and he doesn't feel like a poet. He said that when he writes a poem, then he feels like a poet and then he is a poet. But in between those times, he is only a person like anyone else. Prose, he said, you can do anytime, but poetry is something that comes only on those occassions when you are tapped into something special. 

I think that is an important and salient point.

Many people like to say they are a Writer. There are many ways for people to be whatever they like now. You can write a book and throw up a first draft online and say you are now a writer. You can talk about writing and never do it, and tell people you are a writer. You can write not a letter and claim you are a writer.

But what makes you a writer? More importantly, when, are you a writer?

Are you a writer because you write? Or is it about the quality, or the volume of your writings? Is it if you get paid for your writings? Is it if you are given a lot of money by a single entity, a company, a corporation? Is it if you are paid individually by the individuals who read your writings? Is it by peer review, or by critique by knowldgeable other writers who designate you, a Writer?

If you want to be a Writer, get up in the morning, and put pencil or pen to paper and write. Put your fingers on the keyboard and write. Lift them when you have to. Any less than that slows and decreases the speed at which you will achieve your goals.

Of course you have to eat, work, clean, have a family, rest, relax, make love and be loved. But it is a fine balance. The more of one, the less of another. You decide what your priorities are. Would you prefer that TV show? Or produce a piece of writing? Enjoy time to play, or become what you want to become, sooner?

I liked what Mr. Wiman said about being a poet.

When I write, I am a writer. But further, it has to have some quality to it. Surely, a bunch of letters written, is not writing. So, when I am producing a piece of writing that has a quality that is above what anyone can do; when it is above the quality of most writers, then I am a Writer, and especially so.

When it is accepted as good enough for me to be paid for it, I am a Writer. When I am given praise by readers who spend their hard earned labors turned into currency, that they transfer to me for what I have produced, then I am a Writer. When I write a piece that touches my own soul, even if I show it to no one else, then too, I am a Writer.

But as Mr. Wiman indicated, I am first and foremost a writer when I write. That, is the first step. You have to write first, to be considered a Writer. You have to continue  being a Writer, to continue being considered a Writer. If and when you do that, only then can you consider yourself, a Writer.

And when you stop? Then you are no longer a Writer. So if you want to be considered a writer....

Write.

Gender Bender article

I was recently in a writer's group on LinkedIn and was contacted by another writer about something I had posted regarding a story of mine, and Rutger Hauer. She was very curious about the story that Mr. Hauer had liked so mcuh, and I ended up sending her the story and another I had just finished.

She found the whole story about Rutger and my story intresting and asked if I minded if she posted an article she had in mind. I pleased to hear what she had in mind and told her to please feel free to write and post it. She has. It was fun and very pleasing to read.

I thought you might find it entertaining too and I wanted to share it with you. If you go to her aticle Gender Bender, on IndiesUnlimited.com, you can read what she wrote and see my reply posted beneath it. The two stories of mine that she references will be in a book I'm preparing this week to release, so if you are really curious, it won't be long before you will be able to find out what all the fuss is about.

As posted in her article, the stories in question are "Poor Lord Ritchie" (short title) and I had also sent her "The Fall". Both stories will be out in my new book any time now.

It's a very nice article. I hope you check it out. I've been on IndiesUnlimited for a little while now and it's a pretty cool site.

From the IndiesUnlimited.com About page:

We are at the beginning of a technological revolution in how books are written, published, marketed, purchased, and read. This site is dedicated to the independent authors, publishers, reviewers and readers who are on the cutting edge of that technological revolution.

A major challenge for any indie author is the lack of established infrastructure in place to market indie books. It can be challenging and time-consuming to get the word out about your book, to find reviewers, and to drive traffic to your website or Facebook page. As a new author, I was delighted to discover a very high level of mutual support and camaraderie in the indie author community. This platform is born from that spirit of mutual aid and support.

Please make Indies Unlimited your home for engagement with others who are interested in the Indie Author Movement. Be sure to “play nice” with others. Write informative, educational, or opinion minded comments, guest posts and other contributions. You can promote your books or yourself by participating in discussions and providing valuable content. Please do not spam us or use this system to send unrequested self-promotion, marketing, or sales materials. Instead, please use this platform to engage, inform, discuss, and build quality relationships.

I hope you will find this site both entertaining and informative and you will make a visit to Indies Unlimited part of your daily routine. You can also find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Sincerely,

Stephen Hise

It's okay to write

Someone was just pointing out that perfectionism stifles writing and creativity.

I hadn't really thought about it that way, but I think that years ago, between that and a kind of fear of exposure or being called out as being substandard in various ways, it made it almost impossible for me to write.

I loved to read when I was young. To be a writer was the highest goal I could think of. But I didn't really consider it. I "believed" I wasn't capable. But in 10th grade, my English teacher recognized my ability and tried to get me on the school newspaper. But I came up with reasons not to out of fear and a belief I was unworthy, incapable, or just too stupid. See, I had a step-father who told me that on a regular basis, "You're stupid." he would say when I was frustrating him. So I believed him. I don't believe him anymore.

When I started college, my first English comp teacher told me that of anyone in our class, I had to be a writer. He said that I had a skill and passion for it whether I knew it or not. He could see it in my class assignments. He had said that I had an energy that was undeniable; I had ideas that jumped off the page. I remember the lighthearted gleam in his eye, the energy he had for me to go on writing.

But I told him that I knew I didn't have a good, conscious comprehension of the rules of grammar. He smiled knowingly at me and said, "Look, just write, don't worry about all the mechanics and peripheral things; just write. Then go back and worry about all that later."

Once I heard that from someone I respected, that it was okay to throw caution to the wind, and just write, I tried it. It felt like dipping into a cold lake, naked at first, but after a while, the waters began to warm (or I to it) and it got easier, and easier. That stage lasted for me for a few years. But it allowed me permission to continue with the practice of writing, for it to happen more frequently; and more importantly perhaps, for it to happen more enjoyably. Until and so that eventually, the quality of what I wrote began to increase.

If not for that one English teacher giving me permission to write horrible prose, I may never have gotten past that initial fear of not being perfect. The rest really just took practice-- and listening productively to criticism.

He made it clear to me that it wasn't that hard. If I just did that, "listened", I would get better. He took the fear of writing, almost completely away for me, so that I could simply enjoy doing it. I didn't have to be perfect. I could just enjoy myself; and of course, try to become better over time. No matter how long it took. Because the other element in being a writer is, perseverance.

The fear of outwardly being perceived by others in a negative light, took a different kind of practice to overcome. I don't think it was so much growing a thicker skin as it was learning to accept people's criticisms. To recognize that criticism was a tool, something to divert from my feelings and instead over to making changes during rewrites. Then incorporating those learned components into future writings. One should also be aware and recognized that some criticism should be thoroughly discarded.

It is important to learn to recognize useful criticism as useless criticism. Some people are either mean spirited, or are fools and simply don't know what they are talking about. They are certainly out there and sometimes they can be emotionally close to you. They either have standards far higher for you than are useful to you; they want you to fail; they simply believe you will fail; or THEY fear that you will let THEM down. Because as we all know, with those types of people, it's all about them, right? Just ignore them. Move on. Instead zero in on those who are useful to you, to move your writing along, onward and upward

Criticism isn't about your feelings. It's about using comments on your writings as a tool. Use that tool to forge your current and next writings into a far better piece of art, or production. The trouble is, like in learning to ride a bike, it's scary, sometimes painful; but if you keep at it, you will get through it. Every professional writer, or rider, has had to go through that painful period.

They just had to learn how to make it through to where they finally ended up. To turn things around to where they buoyed themselves up and carried them forward, instead of impeding their progress, which can be all to easy to let happen.

Perhaps most people, most of the time, give up. Since most people do not seem to continue on after initially being shot down; and we're almost all shot down by someone in the beginning, This is especially true for writers, artists and musicians. Sometimes we get stuck in that first stage of fear and pain. Sometimes, we deny ourselves our own greatness.

Of all those people who will tell you that you can't, don't be one of those who believe them. There are enough people out there already who will tell you that you can't. Can't make it, can't do it, that you can't be what you want to be.

At this point, let me say that I've finished editing my new book, Anthology of Evil and we are working on the cover art. It should be out soon. Very quickly after that will be a second book which has an interesting connection to the first. I have recently gotten my first work up as an epublication, on Amazon and Smashwords.

Cover image for "Simon's Beautiful Thought"

It's been a long time from my first short story in 10th grade to now with this short story "Simon's Beautiful Thought" and it is a very rewarding time for me. I'm not even quite sure how I got to this point, except to say that it took a lot of hard work and immersing myself in what I love to do.

For yourself, if you wish to write, or anything you think you would love to do, just remember that it's okay. Work through that first stage and work hard to make it be as short a period as possible. And don't forget that the more you ride that bike, the faster you pass that painful and scary training period.

So-- write. Do you Art.

"Simon's Beautiful Thought" cover art reworked

Update: My brother kindly reworked the cover art on my Sci Fi short story, "Simon's Beautiful Thought" both on Smashwords and Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing. And this was a good reason to mention it again....

Cover image for "Simon's Beautiful Thought"

FYI [Tuesday 2/21 - 11:15AM] It looks like uploading the new cover graphic last night put the Amazon KDP version into draft mode which may take a couple of days to come on line. But the Smashwords version is still available. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Check it out. It's visible on Smashwords, Amazon is taking their sweet time replacing it the graphic.
I worked massive hours this weekend on my Anthology of Horror and have 100 pages left to get through, then I will be getting it out to be published. I was slowed down by a birthday party on Sunday and ensuing events, as well as the short story in the anthology titled, "Andrew", which is written in a difficult to edit style but I believe to be a good work.

Once I finish the Anthology, then I will finish up my book and get it out to the public and then it's back to my "America" screenplay that I've been working on with Producer Chris Soth.

Have a great week and for those of your who only have a four day work week, congrats and enjoy!

Cheers!