Writing Process Blog Tour - Part Three

You've arrived at the third round for the Writing Process Blog Tour!

Thank You to Lily for passing people along from her blog! Loved that one answer of hers... writing as, "Free Therapy". I think that's a very good reason for becoming a writer!

Welcome. I'm JZ Murdock, I'll be your host for this session....

As a blog about writing, there are really two sides to this thing. Are you a reader looking to understand a writer's perspective?

Or are you a writer (or want to be a writer), looking for a writer's perspective? I'll try to cover both, just skip what isn't intriguing you. Okay?

What am I working on?

The almost final cover version of the new release

My editor and I just finished a re-edit of my book, Death of Heaven. It had previously received good reviews before but I suspect (and hope) they will be even better now. Much thanks to my editor, Ilene Giambastiani and her husband Kurt, who is an excellent writer in his own stead. 

You'll be hearing more from him shortly.

I also write screenplays and currently have two new in process. One is a true crime story about a murder I knew of years ago when I had helped someone evade organized crime who she had said, committed the crime (news articles from that time indicate it was a random killing).

The other is a sequel to one of my current screenplays titled, Gray and Lover - The Hearth Tales Incident. It's about two Steampunk demon hunters, sent to protect a famous horror writer. The writer's friend from his military days in Afghanistan, named Saleel, is also briefly in Death of Heaven. The end of the screenplay neatly dovetails into the sequel to the book. Yes, I'm writing a sequel to an as yet unsold screenplay. But I find that writing in multiple disciplines helps each one of them in various ways.

Then there are always the inevitable short stories and mini-stories like I've started writing on Wattpad.

What is my background?

I grew up reading sci fi, horror and science fact. Before that I loved watching old sci fi films on TV and my favorite show, the original, Twilight Zone.

My first ever written short story was a sci fi story I wrote in tenth grade. My next full story came more than a decade later at university and was horror ("Andrew", is now a novella at the end of my collection of short stories, "Anthology of Evil").

My first sold short story was a piece of social horror titled, In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear, also in Anthology of Evil, and that book opens with that story. We are starting the re-editing of that book with Andrew, because it is the prequel and basis for my book, Death of Heaven.

Then I want to do, In Memory... and release it as a stand alone ebook because next year will be it's fifteenth anniversary since it was first published. Some of the other short stories in that book have already been released as short story ebooks and a few even as audiobooks.

In Memory... came to be when friends of mine challenged me when I said I could make any story workable. I was teasing them but they put me to task by saying that I couldn't write a believable story about a man who turned himself into a computer chip. In the end, I won the dare with that short story (as they had judged it) and eventually it was the first short story I ever sold.

The title of that story was an homage to Isaac Asimov (his first autobiography was, "In Memory, Yet Green". If you're a fan of traditional sci fi in its Golden Age, you really need to read that for a glimpse into the history of many of the old, great sci fi writers. In that book, Isaac had said that many of these great sci fi writers started out as Technical Writers during WWII.

Isaac thought that their need for attention to detail, working on cutting edge technologies in some cases (at the time) and all the practice they got finishing projects on deadline, as well as in needing to write and finish large projects, all made it easier for them to eventually become published as sci fi writers. 

So, I got a job as a Tech Writer too; later to become a Senior Tech Writer. I was working in Information and Internet Technologies (IT work). I finally got out of it because it just wasn't that much fun and really, I just wanted to write fiction, anyway. Besides, people found their team Tech Writer to be annoying as they were always trying to drag information out of team members who were just trying to get their work done. On Time.

I just wanted to write their work up as was a required part of the process; but I didn't want to be an annoyance to people. So eventually, I moved into other areas of IT work. I hope one day to make enough to support myself fully upon my writings. For now, I'm lucky to have the situation I do have. Lucky, though I have worked hard for years to be in a situation such as this, where I can work from home and have time to write in my off hours. You too can find your favored situation in your own life, but it takes hard work and is not without difficulties.

How does my work differ from others in its genre?

That's a hard thing to ask of me. I'd consider my genres to be horror and sci fi, speculative fiction in general. Though I write a lot of non-fiction, too. Mostly on my blog here, and elsewhere (Facebook, Wattpad, etc.).

I wasn't sure what to say on this so I asked my editor, Ilene what she thought:

"I think your work differs within your genre in that it is deeply psychological in it's heart.  Certainly, there is plenty of gore to go around, but the gore tends to serve the psychological suspense in the story, rather than be an end in itself. Your work is also very engaging to the reader--meaning that I get lost in it. You weave very wonderful stories, with eroticism, suspense, and just plain horror! Yay!"

Well, thanks Ilene! There's more on my page for Death of Heaven and my web site at jzmurdock.com.

According to author Michael Brooks as he puts it in having reviewed, Death of Heaven:\

"[JZ Murdock] demonstrates a lovely turn of phrase and some of the writing is almost poetic in its beauty."

High praise which I will always endeavor to live up to. Thanks Michael!
Why do I write what I write?

Again, I agree with Lily's answer, "Free Therapy." Honestly, I got my degree in Psychology for free therapy. After I got out of the military, I thought I could use some therapy and so I figured that getting a degree in Psych might just be a good way to go about it. Plus I wanted to learn true characterization, not through a literary degree. I think it worked out well on both accounts. 

I received some good ideas for stories in my university Abnormal Psych classes. Gumdrop City was one, a true crime but rather unbelievable story that I heard in class one day. Sarah is another one. One day after Abnormal Psych, a girl stopped me in the stairs on the way to my next class and told me about her grandmother's experiences with Alzheimer's. Of course, I fictionalized them both but GC is much closer to what actually happened. Sarah is more of a Twilight Zone tale.

To answer why I write what I do, it's when I have a story I inside that wants, needs to get out. It's like seeing a puzzle, one that you know you can solve and just have to work on. It's just very rewarding that I can share those with others; others who seem to enjoy reading them.

How does my writing process work?

I don't really have to brainstorm ideas. They come to me in various ways. Taking in fresh information is always helpful and sparks new ideas, constantly. I like to stay abreast of cutting edge technologies and consider where they could take us. What fresh nightmare could they visit upon us at some unforeseen time?

I get a kernel of an idea in my mind, it starts to grow and there is nothing I can do to stop it. Then I start writing it down. Write and re-write till it's polished.

There is one writing method I suspect some people don't use: Massaging your text. It's a term familiar (or should be) to all Tech Writers. In all the re-writing, sometimes things get messy. Maybe all the time. So once in a while you have to start at the top and read down to the end, correcting as you go. It's the only way to be sure you have everything connecting properly and in its right place. 

Sometimes I will have a base outline set up and stick to that, allowing changes as I go and as are necessary for the overall story. But more frequently I prefer to go on an adventure through discovery writing. I get the general idea or just a title; a place to start or sometimes, a place to finish. Then I just start writing. Frequently my beginning will turn into the middle and I will back fill. Or I will back up from the end and try to find the beginning, then flesh it all out. I try to write it all down and then edit, and re-edit, rewriting over and over until it's done.

I am constantly writing ideas down for later. Otherwise, no matter how great it is, it can vanish. Don't listen to people who say (or your mind telling you) that if it's such a great idea, you won't be able to forget it. You can forget, anything. Write it down, with as much detail as possible to spark your mind, to get you back to where you were when it seemed like a brilliant idea.

I also write down the title of the film or show I'm watching in my notes (or song, or whatever sparked the original thought), then store it on my hard drive under novels, or short stories, in a folder called Ideas, or Titles. Then later I have a lot of ideas to write out, or get more ideas from. It's been very valuable.

I never through away anything, idea-wise.

Getting a reader, someone to read my writings, to catch anything I missed, is a must. But for years I never had anyone to read it by myself. I'd put it away for a few days or a week (months or years sometimes) and then re-read it anew, as a fresh read. It can then become painfully clear where the messes are that need to be cleaned up.

As you may have noticed at the beginning, I have been creating a Universe in my writings with crisscrossing interrelated characters and timelines in my stories, novels or screenplays. Why? Because I always loved it when other author's did that. I just accidentally fell into doing it myself. But once I realized what I was doing, I kind of got into the idea and have been consciously trying to build on it.

Like one of my new short stories for an anthology of writers called, the Giant Tales series of books. For World of Pirates, I wrote a story called, Breaking on Cave Island, which became a prequel to a character I wrote in a bizarre story called, Poor Lord Ritchie's Answer to a Question He Knever Knew, contained in Anthology of Evil. That was a story actor Rutger Hauer chose as a winning story back in a 2004 contest he put on. 

To sum up, my writing process is just like that of most writers: write, finish, re-write, re-write, re-write, massage, till it feels solid and truly is finished. Then if you can, have someone read it (or put it away and read it again later). Tweak it some more and then, get it published; and that, is an entirely different blog.

What exactly is the key to my writing process and style, then? Same as yours would be. It's all about what one's "voice" is, as it has developed through the art and practice of writing. My voice comes from what I've read before and all through my life; what I've learned about the mechanics of writing and how I enjoy applying them, correctly or incorrectly; how I see the world in general and at times in specific; and in the end, how it all sounds to myself when I read back what I have written; does it then please me?

That's it, really. That and lots of practice (writing is rewriting) tied to how an audience of readers responds to my writings (or how I expect they will) along with my consideration of how I wanted them to respond and how I then react to that in my writings. Still, in the end it's really what's pleasing to me.

Hopefully something useful came out of these last few minutes. Thanks for stopping by and I wish you all the best! May you always find new and fascinating stories to read. 

The next blogger up is for next Monday's (June 23, 2014) Writing Process Blog Tour! He is author of one of my favorite stories of all time, a revisionist's history called the Fallen Cloud series, as well as other very enjoyable books and stories.

I now turn the Blog reigns over to friend and fellow author, Kurt Giambastiani,

Cheers!

Bigger isn't always better. Better, is better. Always.

And now, a short rant on the old (Hollywood version of the old) adage, and a question:

"Bigger is always better!"

Is it?

No, I don't think is is.

Do you think bigger is always better? Want more then? Okay but, be careful what you ask for.

As a writer, a viewer and, a reader, I am so sick of this "bigger is better" mentality that is so Hollywood and somewhat the book publishing industry. Though granted, Hollywood may very well be the worst proponent of that banal mentality.

Case in point, volcano movies. I've never ever seen a good volcano film. One of my first was one I was thinking about just the other day. It was at the premiere of a film at the Cinerama in Seattle in 1969. They had a special showing for regional theater managers and their families and my step father was an Assistant Manager at a local drive in theater, so we got to go. The theater was amazing! The film, not so much. Well, it was amazing, but not in the way the theater was.

They showed, "Krakatoa, East of Java" with one of my favorite actors, Maximilian Schell and, I hated it. The special effects did not play well in 70MM widescreen, to say the least.

Here's some advice for filmmakers, don't make films about volcanoes.

In writing screenplays, you get that mindset from people all the time.

"Can't we add in a connection between the protagonist any other thing that will make this bigger, increase scope, increase the effect, make it, "better"? Can't we add in an explosion or six? Guns? There's no guns, how about guns?"

And so it goes. More, bigger, Bettererness! Must have Betternesses!

I see it most especially on TV lately. Do we really always need an A and B line in the story? Okay, maybe so (thanks MTV?), but do they have to be so intimately tied together so that even a moron can see it? Even if you want them to be similar, parallel story lines, can't we make them (see I'm working with you here, I said, "more"), more similar and less exacting? I mean, when you have the A line story going on about divorce, do we really have to have the B line story be about the protagonist's child breaking up with his girlfriend (or boyfriend if he's gay)? It's BORING!

Can't instead, we have the B line be about loss in a clever way, or some other elements of divorce so that we're not merely rehashing the A line story in B? Maybe something new, some unusually ignored elements of divorce? I'm really sick to death of it. Because I know that once I see the A line in a show, I'll merely be watching the same damn thing in the B line, even if it's "different". Give me something more if you want, but come on, I can handle it; make it smarter not "bigger and better" in how you usually perceive it. I bet most of America can, in fact, get it.

Challenge me on the B line, don't bore me with it just wanting to get back to the A line. That's a pathetic technique. Don't make the B line mere filler. Make it exploratory, push the boundaries, make me think, at least, a little. Let me veg out on the more obtuse A line, but make the B line a bit more obscure so that just maybe AFTER the show, I'll reflect on it and go, "Oh, I get it now! Nice work!"

Bigger is not always better.

It's like with what happened to the James Bond franchise. It is perhaps the ultimate example of that. "There was an explosion in the last film. We have to do better. Put in two explosions in this next film." And there it began to the point of utter lunacy. When did Bond get better again? When they pulled back, added tension back in. Brought the human back to the story line which really was what the books were all about that made them popular in the first place.

Yes, films are different than books. But better is the same. Sure explosions work better in a visual than a conceptual format (film over books). But you have to use it sparingly or you become a parody of yourself. Which, eventually, Bond films achieved, self parody (Roger Moore became a prime example of in his later Bond films. He was incredible as The Saint on TV. Though Ian Fleming wanted him as Bond in the films and not "that brute", Sean Connery (who was awesome by the way and Ian did eventually come around on that one). But Moore was not Bond, he was, The Saint. That is what he excelled at, not Bond.

But that's beside the point. The point int he Moore Bond films was they took it to absurd levels (Jaws as a case in point), because they didn't know how to go bigger and better anymore. I will give Moore points for one thing. At a time post 60s when things like MI6 (Bond's agency in the UK) and the CIA in America and the military in general (and government) had falled into disfavor with the post 60s rebellious kids who had now grown up,

Moore allowed Bond to limp along into a new age, setting the stage for a new actor to take over and take it to more serious and at times, melodramatic levels. But then, it did get better. Timothy Dalton took over and I thought did a wonderful job. It wasn't his fault the screenplays weren't that good. But he got us back on the right track with the right idea acting wise, anyway.

Where this annoys me most (bigger is better) is in my own writing. That is, in how I'm "supposed" to write if I want to sell; or in how some respond to a story I might write, or want to write. You get replies like, "it needs to be more "Hollywood" (to paraphrase), or "A and B lines have to be more the same", or "Punch it some up more with more banal boringness." Yeah, I'm being ridiculous, for a reason.

What really is better, is not just what's bigger, what's more, tossing off more explosions, more connectedness. Sometimes more is in the disconnect, the disparity, the unexpected, where the awesomeness lay.

Yes, I agree, better is, well... better. But bigger isn't, not necessarily and I'd argue, not usually.

That's not to say a story I wrote is boring to begin with. Or that at times perhaps, I could conform a bit more to some standard protocols. But aren't we tired of remakes, sequels, formula? I am and I'm doing my best to avoid that, to break that plastic wrap ceiling and get something out there that is fresh, different, unique in some ways and not the same pablum we have had force fed to us again and again and again and again and... well, you get the idea. You do, right?

That is why I now say, seemingly more and more all too often:

Bigger isn't always better. Better, is better. Always.

Security State? Edward Snowden's Burn Notice Interview with MSNBC

I do not know enough (and neither do you) of Edward Snowden's background to feel 100% on this but from my understanding of covert ops, and of many of the things he was talking about in last Friday's MSNBC interview with him, I saw nothing that felt patently incorrect.

However, I'm going to more or less blow off concerns about him because his situation has distracted us from reality and what is actually important. There will be more of his type down the road, that is now the nature of the beast that is modern intel acquisition. We'd  better get our act together. If nothing else Snowden has pointed out some major issues, including not just what our intelligence people are doing but also a vast orientation in our government toward cheaper and quantifiable, being better than more expensive and qualitative (traditional spycraft) intel.

Get past how you may think he looks like a snotty twerp who turned on his pledge to secrecy, our government and America. Get past that. Listen to what he says, objectively. Then realize that you probably don't know enough to judge him merely by his perceived actions, his demeanor and situation. Look beyond that because much of what he is saying overall, is important to us as civilian citizens of the United States of America.

Snowden knows that when he left and took those docs, when he spoke to journalists. He contacted Glenn Greewald of The Guardian (see his book on this, No Place To Hide - Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"), via a rather cryptic email requesting him to install encryption software for his email. But Greenwald blew him off because so many times this kind of thing turns out to be nothing. Considering he is one of the busiest journalists in the world, he gets a lot of that type of thing.

Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in Germany. She wasn't sure about all this either so she contacted, but she had encryption so Snowden went forward with her. But she wasn't so sure about this shady character either, so she contacted journalist Barton Gellman of The Washington Post. She met him at a Greenwhich Village restaurant in New York City. When they got there, they moved to elsewhere. Better safe than sorry.

Poitras asked Gellman to vet Snowden and he agreed. Snowden called Gellman, "Brass Banner" and himself, "Verax" which means "Truth Teller" in Latin. In the end, Snowden requested a meet in Hong Kong. but Gellman decided against going after Snowden said their lives may be in danger from American covert agencies. So odd as life can be sometimes, Gellman suggested Greenwald instead who took over for him and flew to Hong Kong with Poitras to meet Snowden.

In doing all this, Snowden burned himself, his career, and he will never work in intelligence again. Perhaps he can find a teaching job somewhere. I just hope it's for an American school and not a foreign one, especially not for one of our enemies (and I use that term lightly and include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China, among others). Let's not force him into that, because we are now forcing him into a Zugzwang set of moves and if we're not, we're surely trying ("We" being our government who speaks for us).

That being said, do you know what "burn notices" are in the intelligence field? Wikipedia: "A burn notice is an official statement issued by an intelligence agency to other agencies. It states that an asset or intelligence source is unreliable for one or more reasons, often fabrication. This is essentially a directive for the recipient to disregard or "burn" all information derived from that individual or group." 

At times "burning" someone includes discrediting them, or worse, as in the TV show mentioned below. Sometimes, far worse, which are few and far between. Consider that for a moment, then reflect on our government saying what Snowden claims as proof, is non-existent, that he is a "low level analyst". Is he? He claims not and we may never know for sure.

There was recently a TV show called, "Burn Notice" that ran for seven seasons. At first it was quite good, even the "Farm", the CIA training facility used episodes to show to it's trainees. Later and especially in its last season, it had gone downhill pretty badly. They probably should have ended at season five.

But that was entertainment. This, is reality.

They keep saying Snowden should return to "face the music" (for more on this type of thing see Daniel Ellsberg's comments, "Pentagon Papers Whistleblower: Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial"), a rather stupid thing to even ask and a shallow and obvious attempt to obfuscate and further denigrate him. If he did the wrong thing, considering his gone already, let him go, who cares, we don't need him.

If he did the right thing, then the government is going to want to persecute him, hide him, and lock him away, though they may be forced to parade him around a bit, I'm pretty sure they will pull national security issues and scurry him away with all possible aplomb. They fear to an almost paranoid degree, being found out that what he says may be true. They fear for their future plans, on the track that they have been on now for over a decade, all of which have their roots back in the 80s.

I couldn't help but think that in the interview, Snowden could have been me at twenty-nine saying very similar things, or my son if he had gone into this kind of work. But would we have had the wherewithal to speak out and do what Snowden did? Considering his family background (his grandfather was at the FBI, his father a veteran), it adds at least some veracity to his words.

Snowden claimed in 2004 he joined the US Army under the 18X special forces recruitment program where he admittedly washed out when he broke both his legs. He also said he was in foreign countries working undercover. I don't see why that would be such a hard thing to believe. After all it's not claiming to be a superspy or anything, just a guy undercover. Cops do that. Big deal.

He said may things I agreed 100% with. The government, and his own statements regarding his bone fides, in those not matching up, is really not so surprising. You have to consider the field he is in regardless of what level he was at. This would be par for the course and he knows it and we should, too. I don't have (in some ways) any issue in believing him against our government and I tend to err on the side of the government, whenever I can. Typically, business as usual is the order of the day, so, that's kind of a double edged sword in a situation like this.

Believe it or not, the government is actually pretty good about being stand up on issues like freedom of information and being honest about things; individuals and administrations, notwithstanding (Dick Cheney and Bush Jr. and that administration for instance). Typically they are surprisingly honest about things; when pushed. Until, you step into issues of covert ops and then they feel an absolute interest in honesty; but also absolutely no need to be honest, no compunction whatsoever to alter things in order to support their contentions, against all others.

At this point, until I see a crack in his mirror, I tend to believe much of what he's saying. On the other hand, if he was trained as a spy as he claims, this could all, as he indicated, be exercising a part of his training to deceive.

See, this is how the covert ops paradigm works. It's basic trade (spy) craft and it will drive some people crazy who are unfamiliar with it. It makes civilians feel distrustful almost instantly; but this is a shadow world where you have to "see" what's going on only by seeing what lies match with what, what truths with what verified intel; or by what is simply not there. As in "seeing" a black hole, only because of what is missing around it in the sky. It's a fascinating area and it gets easier as you delve deeper into it.

To those who would say his answers were shallow and thin, you have to consider that is simply the nature of his situation. He is walking a thin line with broken glass glued to it. He has to be circumspect. He also doesn't, so he says, want to spill the beans on too much as that wasn't his purpose in all this, but rather to let us know what's going on. Many of the arguments against him simply aren't supported by either his situation or his actions.

This area is a world of misinformation and disinformation, distraction and misdirection. Even at times when the government is being completely honest with us, it can be lying to us; and it knows it. That's how it works. I can tell you an absolute truth, and yet, in my delivery, you will believe the opposite.

The government claims his submitted complaints to those above him do not exist. It is almost impossible now a days to thoroughly hide a "paper trail" like that as it's digitized, stored, backed up, possibly with redundant backups, and so on.

An independent analysis and pulling of emails, backups and so on would very likely eventually come up with something; if not just someone else stepping up and speaking up on his behalf. Though I wouldn't hold my breath over that one, as it would most likely take someone who has retired, or left the community and in no fear of losing their retirement or severance, if not simply concerns about repercussions.

The fact of the matter is that many of his words fit. But do they fit too perfectly? Or are they simply purely accurate and the government is being disingenuous. Ask yourself, much as he was saying, does what he says fit (it does). Has our government been doing questionable things, and for a length of time; hiding their activities beyond what they should be (they have)? Is it easier now to trust our government who have been doing questionable things for how long? Or a guy who has done some good and little harm from what we can gather, just as he claims; a guy who has shared with us stuff we really, seriously, need to know?

The journalist he turned his documents over to claims his next release of information will blow the previous ones out of the water. So time will tell. But as Snowden claimed, he only took what he thought was needed and reasonable and passed those along with the stipulation of doing no grievous harm in releasing future information. That is now out of his hands. As for his not taking this into Russia with him, his argument there holds water Of course he could be lying, he could have a bank account with money from Putin. He could be making deals with extraterrestrials, too. He could be doing anything. But we need to deal with what we can see and extrapolate and what he said, simply makes sense. He was safer not bringing all that with him. Question is, what did he do?

His comments about our becoming a Security State were 100% on the mark.

Who do we know has lied to us more at this point? Snowden? Or our government? Okay, the trouble with that train of thought is, no matter how much Snowden is lying to us, there is simply no way he can surpass how much our Government has been lying to us, and that, is a matter of record. But you get my point, yes?

Sometimes what seems to be, simply is. Sometimes Occams Razor fits and points to the truth right off, and through the entire situation. The problem now is that the government will continue over the top, if they have already been, to make him look bad.

The question is, will they go smooth and slick, or outright discredit him? They will either do nothing, do something, or do a lot of something. It's very possible that who he really is will be pointed out shortly by the government, merely in how bad they make him look. That is, if they pile a lot of crap on him, will it be obvious to the public that it's a "snow job"? Yes, of course, I had to say it. Okay, maybe I didn't, but that is how the government works, you see? Trigger words, offhanded comments of defamation, and so on. You can be distracted by the comment through the words used. Pay attention.

Of course, this also has a lot to do with how incompetent the government will be in response. For years now they have been amazingly incompetent in intelligence matters though they do seem to be getting better, but because of and at the expense of, national confidence and constitutional freedoms. Over the years they've lost most of their experts in this field. SIGINT has trumped HUMINT now for decades and I do disagree with Snowden in that one thing, in a way.

He said that they get far better intel through SIGINT now than HUMINT. Well that actually may be, but it's sad. Because HUMINT is far superior in specifics, in nuances. Much like it's better to use a born national to translate foreign intel, than a foreign born and educated translator. We have failed on these things since the 80s in thinking that SIGINT was the cheaper, better way to go.

Acquiring the communications of Americans has been going on for a long time now. These infractions to our national freedom began walking that fine line, even before 9/11. There was "ThinThread" which encrypted American's private communications, seemed to work well. But then after 9/11, they followed a new program. They would remove the encryption, by Executive Order.

There was a siphoning off from the communications pipe traversing the Pacific Ocean that brings in overseas calls to southern California. A certain No Such Agency entered a certain TelCo building and set up a secret room taping into and piping those calls, splitting them to another building of theirs, located elsewhere, where they could store and access all those calls, including American's calls. Some of the TelCo employees not in the know, noticed something odd in that building, figuring out what was happening. Though I'd assume most of you never heard about that.

We need to keep close scrutiny on these things. Even to the point of being a wee bit paranoid at times, because sometimes they are out to get you and sometimes, it's not the enemy. I think people in our government who have applied these measures, had the best of intentions. Maybe that isn't an excuse. But even if it is, there comes a time when it isn't. See, there is a statute of limitations after an attack, in fear and appropriate responses to the point of a new status quo. It has to be limited. Because as we learn and time passes, what used to be undoable, can become doable.

If we don't force ourselves to find that, what does that say about who we will, or have, become?
Isn't that important too, considering who we are in the world and history as Ameicans?

HUMINT requires time and humans in weird places making calls that aren't quantifiable and we do like quantification now. Qualitative intel requires clever thought and we've dumbed ourselves down because of promoting and replacing experienced field operatives to be in charge with bureaucrats. Not to mention how many times in recent decades we've been asleep at the wheel because we simply did not have local field operatives previously embedded on the scene with working relationship with local nationals.

Like in going against the Chinese years ago. We simply looked different and had a harder time fitting into Chinese maters. This was true as well as the Middle East, which is also very tribal and closed off. In Iraq years ago we pulled our case officers because we thought we could use Saddam Hussein instead. That turned out well, right?

We've made some inroads now in both though, as we finally realized that Chinese Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (both as well as foreign nationals) can do a better job than the good old white boys. But we mistakenly continue to think that "push button" intel is better. True, it has its place and it is incredibly valuable. But there is nothing like personnel on the streets to ferret out what's going on, which has other valuable uses beyond purely gathering intel. There is something to be said for having relationships and winning hearts and minds.

Intelligence is a grey and shadowy area that requires a lot of on the spot judgment calls, trusting operatives in the field and the micro-mangers back in the offices not micro-managing and actually knowing something; like trade craft. Replacing those old school professionals with others, using orgs like the CIA for Military ops and  the Military for Intel Ops, has really skewed things.

We live in a new world today and in a field where nothing is as it seems, much of what can be seen is hidden in a vast array of data we have to filter and get to the proper agencies. When sometimes, the same can be done in a conversation in the space of a few minutes. If you have the right relationships already in place, with the right people, by the right people.

Whether we like it or not the only way to get a handle on this is through people like Snowden. What's interesting is that we're not seeing so many defectors anymore, we're seeing people standing up for our country and and opening the books they are sworn to protect; opening them to, US.

The question is, why? The further question is, are we going to play whack-a-mole with those who are trying to help us, against our own people; our servants who see themselves in some cases, as our masters? Even if, only to "serve" as they see fit, while we lose more and more of what our country once was?

Why is this even happening? Why are our Intel agencies so into acquiring everything they can, even if it's wrong? I think they probably have the best of intentions. Consider that they found out about the 9/11 attack on a small TV, from CNN. They rightly never want that to happen again. But that shouldn't give them carte blanche on all communications, everywhere, now. Should it? Let me answer that for you in case you make the wrong decision there.

No!

Here's the bottom line.

Snowden is now misdirection for us, pure and simple. The important question is, how easy do we want to make our Intelligence community's job? It's all a balance between pure freedom and pure security state. How cheaply do we want them doing it? Because that's really what all this boils down to. Intel isn't easy, or cheap, it's expensive, it takes brains, it takes trained individuals and it's messy. No one wants to allow that anymore.

No one wants to consider risk, better to take freedoms and decrease risk to as close to zero as possible. Yes, I'd like zero risk, but not at the expensive of the country I grew up in, disappearing and being only a faint phantom of what it once ways. I don't want us to turn into another America of 1950s paranoia.

Should we return to despising Germans, or Japanese, or to despise anyone who praises Allah or Mohammed? Anyone who isn't us and disagrees with us? Even if, they try to attack us? Because killing all out enemies isn't the answer. Turning them into our friends is.

We've gotten cheap and lazy and we've been on this course since at least the Berlin wall going down. Europe has thought that we've been lazy and deluding ourselves for decades about terrorism, mostly because we thought the Atlantic Ocean and our "big island" mentality was our saving grace. Well, it's finally happened to us. Now it's our turn to join the older kids in the pool. And it's... scary.

We woke up and it scared us. We retaliated after 9/11 in Iraq in a knee jerk response. America was hurt and pissed off and the Bush administration finally had their reason to invade another country, for oil, but not openly. They took that and ran with it, pushing our fears to the top, taking what they could, making their jobs as easy as they could possibly be, at whatever cost to the nation; to the citizenry. And now it's time to pull back.

We need to buck it up and start being Americans again. Remember John Wayne? That tough guy demeanor has a lot of bad baggage with it, like hiding emotions when you should share, being sexist and ignoring some important things at times. But it's a film hero. Let's skip over the John Wayne anti-communist film, "Big Jim McClain" (1952), for instance.

Still, "big Duke" had some good things about his demeanor. Like being kick ass, not being cheap or afraid of every little thing. And not relying always on the easiest things possible, at the expense of American's lives. And holding Americans in high esteem, and our Republic. Now if only Republicans would realize that too, right? But, I digress....

If we want to allow ELINT, Electronic Intel, to be the tip of our national sword, fine. But we need some limits for Reason's sake and Americans need to be the wall maintaining what our nation stands for Yes, the bad guys may be hiding amongst us, but hey, guess what? What does that start real quick to sound like, again. The Red Menace, right? "A commie behind every bush"? (pun not intended)

Let's face it, there isn't a terrorist behind every rock and cranny. Yes, they are out there. But let's maintain an even strain here, kids. Let's at least try to be the "right stuff". Let's stand up for ourselves and start pushing back.

Snowden, regardless of what he's done or how you think about him, has started the ball rolling. Are you going to let it slide back down now to where it was to start with?

We need to stop trading security for freedom. That is really, the final consideration.

Memorial Day and what's your reading level, or writing style?

Welcome to Memorial Day. I hope you are having a great extended weekend and sharing it with family and friends and there are good times all around.

A moment if you will though, to remember all those who have fallen trying to maintain our freedoms and our way of life. May we begin once again to remember that we only sacrifice for what is our basic human needs, in defense and no longer for oil. I so look forward, I so do hope to one day see us off that disease ridden fuel. As well as coal and gas. Thank you to all those who have perished in the wars of necessity (certainly WWI and WWII would fall under that), and perhaps more so, thank you to all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for reasons of power and ill judgement.

Also, it seems to be a national paradigm going back to before this country was founded, to even the Revolutionary War, to not properly take care of our veterans. This is a small but profound and powerful, impact filled request: Can we please do that, take care of our vets? I'm a vet, I hadn't seen battle but I'm horrified at how our vets are being treated; like trash no longer needed, to be thrown away or simply, ignored. As usual in government, if they don't know what to do, they ignore it, misdirect us in order to keep their jobs, but they do nothing.

Nothing is defined here as not doing enough when vets are left in need, with treatments when they can even get them that are poor, or completely wrong, with back logs on appointments for months or years when they needed help yesterday. Part of the issue comes from our longest wars, turning out our biggest numbers of patients, something that should have been seen at the start, and does not have the numbers of needed healthcare workers, doctors and mental health specialists. Our only recourse now is to turn these patients loose in the private sector along with the rest of America, as single payer supported patients. That being said, Vets should not have to pay for this healthcare as do the rest of us with co-pays and deductibles. I do fear their getting abused in that way. Regardless of their volunteering for battle, we pushed them into it and so, we should pay their way.

Our government is famous for waging wars, on other countries, on drugs, on women's rights, on the poor, minorities and illegal aliens. Stop waging wars and focus on this. If and when we send people to fight and die for us, people who come back damaged in taking our places for us on the battlefields that we send them to, then let's take care of them afterward; let's suffer our woes privately in how much the money hurts us to do so; let's shut the hell up about it and bleed money for them, as they have bled their own blood and suffered through the same with their battlefield compatriots. We owe them at very least, that.

Okay then, that was uplifting. Moving on....

I found an interesting little web site where you can paste in some of what you have written and it will analyze it and tell you who you write like; what famous author's style you imitate. It's called, IWriteLike.com.

Since I've been working on re-editing my book Death of Heaven, I pasted \ analyzed some passages from the chapters within it. I got various author similarity ratings, kind of as I'd expected. I have always tried hard to not write my style all the time but to choose a style that fits that story, more than myself. If and when possible. This analysis would seem to support that. Not that it's perfect, but it's kind of fun.

By the way, I should finish up the re-edit on my book this weekend and will be re-releasing it soon. Keep an eye out for it. Hell of a book, if I do say so myself. I'm working on finding other author blurbs on it. Yes I'm shooting for the sky in Clive Barker. We shall see.

Anyway, here's what I got off that author style web site.

• First from the short opening chapter, The Steppes, I got James Fenimore Cooper. 
• From, The Conqueror Worm chapter I got Stephen King. Not surprising perhaps.
• Rosebud came up with both S. King and David Foster Wallace.
• From, Harbinger and Going Home, Dan Brown. Bummer. Well, his books are enjoyable enough pulp and I would love to have his income (or even his tax return).
• Still, another part of Harbinger gave me James Joyce. Well, I'm in good company anyway.  
• A Thirst Divine gave up Bram Stoker (awesome) but another section of that chapter reverted back to King.
• Marking Time gave me Stephen King again. Hmmm... seeing a pattern here.
• From later in the book and the book's longest section, Vaughan's Theorum, I got Harry Harrison. 
• The Mea Culpa Document of London (which actually refers to a document not included in the book, but is available in another book of mine, Anthology of Evil), a short section, came up with... Dan Brown again. I did three paragraphs and all were Danny boy. Which I suppose isn't surprising considering his genre and style as this section is supposed to be a professionally written, academic document about an antique document, much like Dan writes about much of the time. 

So what about all this? I don't know what I'd have had to do to come up with Clive Barker. Maybe they didn't include him in the analysis? Well, I don't know, why are you asking me? Still, it was kind of fun. It reminds me of a time before college when my friends complained that they didn't understand what the hell I was writing about half the time, in my stories with no endings (see, I was terrified to attempt endings back then). Especially one story they challenged me to write, "In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear". I promised them I'd write that at my most comfortable and then write stories that were easier to read.

Years later I ran that story through one of those grade analyzers which tells you want grade level a piece is written at and it came up grade seventeen; so the first year of Grad. Yeah, I don't know either. After that I tried hard to write at a more general audience level like newspapers and magazines do, at around 9th through 12th grades. I like to believe that today's reading levels have gone up. Average reading level in 1935 was grade 7.8. So yeah, I think it's gone up a bit.

I just read on a web site that said "The average newspaper is written at the 11th-grade level, the tolerable limit for a 9th-grade reader" and that people generally like to read about two grade levels below their ability to read. It also said that, "experts recommend writing documents intended for the general public at the 9th-grade level, health and safety information at the 5th-grade level." Okay then....

Through most of my life I have preferred to read mostly above my grade level, with a peppering of slightly lesser works for pure guilty pleasure. My grandmother used to tell me that every other book we read should be uncomfortably above our skill level. So I always did that (literally; I didn't try to do that, I followed it like gospel) while growing up and yes, I spent a lot of time not understanding, at first and wondering why I was doing it. But over time it paid off, and much of that I was later able to remember and eventually understood.

Reading levels are something to consider, both for the reader and for writers.

As writers we need to know our audience and write for them, always trying to elevate though not talk down to them. As readers it is our responsibility as it is in all communication, to understand more than we need to. In interpersonal communication some people think that it is the job of the communicator to communicate. Which is somewhat of a fallacy.

Indeed it is the job of the communicator, he or she who is speaking, not only to convey their meaning, but also to see to it that the one being communicated to, understands. That, is always not the case. There is nothing more annoying than someone who speaks over your head and then after the interaction, you are clueless as to what they just said. It's a waste of time to both the individual listening, but mostly and more likely, simply an ego trip for one of those involved; most probably, not the more ignorant one involved in the intercourse.

As for the one being communicated to, it is our job in listening, to, well... listen. But also to understand. To, THINK. Reference what is being said, store some information, remember some key words for later, in case you need to look something up; rethink it, in order to better comprehend it. A word or sentence spoken, is something that should last beyond the words spoken. Otherwise, it's just common speech which should be used for commanding and acknowledging in merely getting through the day. Other than that, speech should convey and instruct, and educate.

We've mostly lost that common way of speaking now a days. Our leisure speaking tends to be fluff mostly, about sports, or celebrities, TV shows or films. When we should be talking about science, politics, philosophy, family dynamics, life. Things that enhance our lives and culture. No doubt we all need down time and fluff has it's place. But in a world where we are supposed to "seek our bliss", to "pursue happiness", we've kind of gone off the deep end. A little ice cream is good, but a fifty gallon barrel is too much. The trouble is, our stomachs physically let us know when we've overdone it (not that you could tell from the average weight of an American, but still....). Our minds however will allow us to "eat" all the crap we could ever want, with no real warning (like weight gain or diabetes) and all we get out of it is an addiction for more and a bloated and ignorant mind (supported by the internet where there are plenty more of the same).

So look, have fun, don't get me wrong. Do have fun, just don't kill yourself, or your mind, or the rest of us, over it.

Will we be dating AI and machines some day?

Futurist Ray Kurzweil: Dating artificial intelligences could be possible within 15 years.

While building a relationship with your AI is reasonable in some ways, it does raise concerns as it could quite easily make human relationships appear at some point to be simply too much trouble, or toxic.

There was a sci fi story that I read many years ago about clone handlers on another planet. One good handler could run up to nine clones in the field, using a kind of technological telepathy, to direct the clones to mine or process product. In the off hours as many did, the protagonist frequented the company supplied brothel. 

There was one sex worker he frequented more than any others until he saw no others. Eventually, he fell in love with this woman, only in the end to realize that "she" was just another clone. This was something the clone handlers found disgusting as they manipulated these every day and felt them a lower form of life, which essentially, they were.

When he found a telepathy tech unit beneath the bed, he finally came to realize that he had fallen in love with himself. He was therefore, more or less having sex with himself by proxy.

My point is that in "dating" an AI type personality, a person would basically be dating themselves. As the AI "earns you it shapes itself to fill in your needs, which would be the ultimate form of what can only be considered technological masturbation; the ultimate form of narcissism. We already have quite enough narcissism in the world, more than we need really, in government, in social environments and in interpersonal relationships.

Part of what makes us human is not that we exactly fulfill one another, but approximate it in as much as we can comfortably handle. It is in part within those differences that we find fulfillment in human relationships. Many times it is the unexpected in the relationship that endears us to someone and not in the exactitude of being complimentary to another personality. As I had posted the other day about music, it is in the "inexactitude" that the true quality and affection of human performed music comes across to us.

Yes, that could all be programmed in, but don't we need technology to bring us closer together and not further apart? We are presently already seeing human relationships, true physically close human relationships, suffering. In some countries, like Japan for instance, there is already gap growing between close intimate contact. True, there are robots now that are giving shut ins fulfillment and that is one thing, and I believe it is a good thing, but it will only speed up what I am talking about.

I just think we need to be careful about this. In my short sci fi story "Simon's Beautiful Thought", his AI does him a great service and if that is how things will go, then good, great, that is how it should work out. Our robots and technologies should aid us and not work against us, or inadvertently through artificial means, increase the distance between human beings. But if they do, where will that leave us,as individuals, or as a race of beings?

Wisdom in Business, and in Life

There is a lot of knowledge already known out in the world and through history. There is great wisdom available, you just have to look for it. Mostly you will have to find translated versions if you don't read in the original language and who translates sometimes is very important. Just translating is one thing, understanding a language in the period in which it was written is important as well as an understanding of accurate history during that period.

That being said, it's all in what you are looking to find and what you find, which may not be what is there, or may be an epiphany that others who read the same words, do not "see". One of my favorite sayings is, "Even the village idiot has his story." It means that you can find wisdom anywhere, if you pay attention. Staring at a blank wall can give you great insight, if you are prepared to "hear" it.

I've been told that knowledge with experience, is wisdom. Acquiring information, as in book learning, simply isn't enough. Experience, isn't enough either, but extremely valuable. Still, in adding to experience, book learning, you can go leaps beyond by utilizing other's experience, who have mostly likely tried the wrong ways. That being said, sometimes revisiting those wrong ways can lead you in the right direction because those others missed something. But you don't want to haphazardly just waste your time on that, either.

Wisdom is a tricky things sometimes.

When I was starting high school I asked a lot of questions. Until one day a teacher, frustrated with my constant questions finally told me I was holding back the class from moving forward and I could question him after class. He said I was asking good and relevant questions but I should give others a chance to ask them. Except that I wasn't seeing that anyone else was asking these questions. Still, I got his point.

He also said, if I would just wait and listen, to pay attention closely, I would most likely hear the answer at some point in the class, or someone else would as the question. Or, I would simply find the answer within myself before the end of the class period. He told me that I may already know they answer (to paraphrase him) if I just listened to my own interior dialog.

That may have been the greatest single piece of advice I had ever been given.

People suggest reading Art of War for business awareness and I fully agree. It gives you a template you can hone to your understanding of a compassionate way, but you do have to read it first.

Another book that I found perhaps more useful is The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli Written c. 1505, published 1515, in business endeavors. Many read his book as a very dark book but I found it useful in warning me, making me aware of things, more than how I should act toward others, and if you read it for that you are ahead of the game for those reading it to find how to abuse people in order to maintain power and rise above them.

There is another book I like on this type of book, a few really and there's others, but to be brief here's a few I'm fond of:

The Art of Worldly Wisdom by Balthasar Gracian

In a different vein and perhaps a bit more obscure but still useful, a few others....

The Art of Peace by O'Sensei Morihei Ueshiba
The Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho) by Miyamoto Musashi

And the more esoteric....

Zen Essence The Science of Freedom Translated by Thomas Cleary
[Another is Rational Zen The Mind of Dogen Zenji by the same]
I Ching The Book of Change Translated by Thomas Cleary

The Tibetan Book of the Dead 

New Musical Artist - Amanda Dewell

Amanda "Cat" Dewell, remember that name.

Live It Outloud! is a Ted Brown Music outreach program and a Rock Music Summer School out of Tacoma, WA. My sister's husband Joe Wilson is deep into running it, or helping run it. I'm not quite sure how that works out and it's pretty unimportant for our purposes here today.

I wrote about this last year and the year before when I went to their final concerts. It's about sixty miles for me to get there so that says something. Not a real long trip but more than popping down to the local theater. And it was great fun just to hang out and see everyone, too.

That first concert assured that I would see the second one, and so I did. I'll be there again, next time, too. I had a great time and the kids and their bands were very entertaining. Some of them unbelievably professional for their age and a few bands about ready to be touring. What is important here are the kids and how positively this is affecting them.

This is an awesome project!

Joe has been very pleased with the talents of these kids and those who excel in the program. Particularly one exceptional individual that I would like to point out here. I met her briefly at the first and second concert and she is very sweet and still quite young. Which makes her talent, all the more amazing. 

Perhaps I'll just let Joe talk about her in his own words:

"Years 2011, 2012, 2013 - Amanda Dewell AKA Cat Dewell. Available on Amazon and YouTube.

"Amanda came to us, an 11 yr old seemingly very shy girl, dressed like a rocker, (with the added dimension of also dressing in “Hello Kitty” Pj’s and slippers at times) and surprised everyone with a rendition of “Misery” by Paramore the first year.

"2012’s concert saw her play the cello and perform “Broken”. The audience appeared fixated on this young girl who wrote lyrics and melody to a song orchestrated with Jonathan Irwin. The appeal of that song got the attention of Mark Simmons at Pacific Studios, members of the Vicci Martinez band and a recording session was born. That song was subsequently made into a simple video that garnered 8000+ views in 6 months.

"Surprised at the reaction a decision was made to finish an EP, “Notes From the Out Crowd” and was released on iTunes, Amazon and all the other digital services the 1st of April. She was contacted by a lawyer in Seattle who worked for Nirvana and all the rest of the grunge scene at Sub-Pop Records during her 16 year tenure.

"She is looking into sync- licensing some of Amanda’s work for Television, Film and other venues. We’re learning how all this works and are privileged to have Amanda help us on this journey that will help other musicians in the program, past and present, find a way to get their music heard. Amanda will finish her album this summer with a release date in September."

And so, congrats to Cat! Congrats to Joe and the others behind the scenes!
Check her out and keep watching....

UPDATE 8/9/2015 - Cat's new CD should be available sometime in September 2015.