Notes from MisCon 27, Part 3

(To see all my posts on MisCon, including last year’s notes, go here.)

In the panel transcriptions, I’m mostly paraphrasing what the panelists said. If there are any errors, they’re mine and mine alone. For any corrections, just drop me a note.

Panel title: The Werewolf Panel
Panel members: Larry Bonham, M.H. Bonham, Patricia Briggs, Rhiannon Held
Panel description: Werewolves supposedly have wolf traits, but how do popular ones actually compare to real wolf behavior? Are we still stuck on “big bad wolf” myths rather than science and biology?

PB: Are we paying too much attention to mythology than biology? I first paid attention to what they do in the book The Howling. As a mythical critter, what do you know about it?

RH: People have sent me history of werewolf links. In Europe, being called a werewolf was like begin called a witch. They did it to get rid of them. It served a purpose socially.

LB: Werewolves are archetypal across many cultures, from Native Americans, to Europe, and Japan. They’re like dragons, part of the collective cultural consciousness. Myths morph as culture morphs.

MB: It’s slippery depending on where you go. It’s the archetype of someone losing control. Deep down inside, we’re all beasts. It ranges from skin walkers who wear special pelts to getting bitten and turning into one.

PB: What comes to mind when wolves get mentioned? I think of “pack.” That came from biology and not myth.

RH: In stories, wolves are portrayed as bad. It’s different in science where it is wolf behavior.

LB: There’s the traditional lone wolf. But in wolf packs, it’s matriarchal, not patriarchal.

MB: There was a study in domestic dogs. The more wild breeds have wolf behavior. When an alpha wolf makes a submissive wolf turn over, it’s based on killing behavior. Sometimes the submissive wolf turn themselves over. This was misconstrued from what animal behaviorists saw.

RH: Wolves generally live in family groups where they are genetically related. Saying that the pack undergoes a bloody revolution all the time is wrong. It doesn’t make sense for the species. They keep ranking and a firm structure, it’s not endless fights like you see in captivity.

MB: It only happens when a new wolf comes in. Then there’s reshuffling and re-challenging, but it’s unusual. It happens more in domestic than wild.

PB: As a literary archetype, the werewolf is ultimately a tragic figure because he gets destroyed. But wolves themselves are not tragic, although they are scary instead. What kinds of things seen in movies and books annoy you?

RH: The alpha as a bully. It can be a great metaphor for a story. But as a romance trope, the alpha abuses the heroine. He never takes advice or confides in anyone. He “can’t help it” and uses it as an excuse.

LB: He can only change to a werewolf in the full moon. There’s zero control.

MB: The concept that the alpha female is subordinate to the alpha male. The female actually chooses the male. She’s the one who is leading and he will back down. In romances, the alpha doesn’t defer to her.

PB: It’s like a study on wild horses I read about. It’s instinctive behavior. The mares decide everything. Stallions only chase off other stallions and predators. Wolves do the same thing. The myth about the full moon is one of the first things that people throw out. You pick and choose what myths you use in your story as long as you acknowledge the traditions and stereotypes. I hate it when people turn werewolves and vampires into superpowers. It guts the power of it as a monster and the story. What kind of cool things can you do with werewolves using science?

RH: Look at werewolves on an evolutionary level. As a species, it’s subject to the same rules. For example, an involuntary werewolf (one that is forced to change every full moon), would more likely get killed. The voluntary werewolf (one who can change at will) is more likely to survive.

LB: Wolf behavior includes violent conflict. There is a gender conflict. If male dogs come into conflict, there’s posturing and fighting. One dog gives up to concede dominance. If a male and female come into conflict, they just stop. If two females come into conflict, it gets extremely violent, fast. For wolves, they don’t go too far because they depend on each other.

MB: Considering advances in DNA, you could have someone create a werewolf. There’s conflict between a created werewolf and a natural werewolf. There are differences in culture and behavior. A created werewolf doesn’t have history, and it would cause a schism between the two. The new group of creatures could be playing by human rules rather than wolf rules.

PB: In urban fantasy, you can do the same thing. You can take things from the real world and put it in the story. The difference between urban fantasy and fantasy is that in urban fantasy, you can make it so real that it could be.

Q: How did the myth of werewolves changing only during the full moon come about?

RH: The origins go way back to the “lunatics” and craziness. It’s a false statistical correlation. But there are not always reasons for things. People just link things up to symbols.

PB: The full moon goes back to the goddess Diana, pagan ceremonies, and magic. The Christian church said it was an evil thing so it got tied in.

MB: It was back when people were hunter gatherers and used to hunt in the full moon. Wolves were out at that time.

Q: Historically, did the werewolf change into an actual wolf or were they just people with fur?

LB: There are cultural differences. Skin walkers went upright and were humans with skins. It’s also easier to film.

PB: Traditional werewolves were bipedal and upright. You couldn’t tell if they were a werewolf until they attacked. People also mistook diseases for being werewolf. In the first werewolf story, The Beast of Gévaudan, it was actually a wolf.

RH: It’s seen both ways. Some werewolves just had the fur on the inside. There are variations on the story archetype.

Q: What’s the basis of the omega werewolf?

PB: My omega wolf is based on people rather than wolves. I get my werewolf dynamics from my husband’s family. They can’t work together. In scientific studies, they’ve labeled the omega wolf.

RH: I don’t have omega wolves in my story because I don’t use wolves as a basis. I use people.

MB: The omega wolf is thought of as the least dominant wolf. He’s non-threatening, he doesn’t go far, he’s picked on. Other wolves play with him because he’s not threatening and dominance isn’t an issue.

Q: I heard about Celtic werewolves that protected a king and got time off.

PB: It may be from King Arthur’s legends. There’s a knight called Melion. His wife stole his clothes and he stayed a wolf. When he got his clothes back, he turned back into a human.

Q: In stories, why do people turn into wolves rather than other animals?

MB: It’s because of a shift in people’s opinions on wolves. People romanticize things they don’t have to deal with. For example, the Scots are romanticized when historically they were downtrodden. People have dogs and think they see wolf-like behavior in their pets. There’s also fear of the wild.

RH: It was what people were seeing in the shadows. It depends on culture. In India, it was the tiger. In Europe it was the wolf. It puts a face on that fear.

PB: The top predator in Europe was the wolf. During the plague, they preyed on people. There’s something primal when they look at you.

Notes from MisCon 27, Part 2

(To see all my posts on MisCon, including last year’s notes, go here.)

In the panel transcriptions, I’m mostly paraphrasing what the panelists said. If there are any errors, they’re mine and mine alone. For any corrections, just drop me a note.

Panel title: Plot, Plot, Plot
Panel members: Carol Berg, Jim Butcher, J.A. Pitts, Patrick Swenson
Panel description: What is plot? How is it different from storyline? How do you keep your writing moving fast? Our experts will share what they know.

CB: What is the difference between plot and storyline? For example: “The king died and the queen died” is a storyline. “The king died because the queen died” is a plot.

JB: I buy that, but I don’t have a distinction because I just write a story. Everything happens for a reason.

JAP: Plot and theme go hand in hand. They have to work together for the story phase. Different things happen to different people.

PS: It’s wherever it takes me. Characters are reacting to push what they want. If there’s no plot, it’s just action. You need a character who wants something and can’t get it. At the end, the character gets it.

CB: You need a goal, motivation, and conflict. You can have a list of events but it’s not necessarily a plot if there’s no connective tissue. In action movie sequels, things just happen. In a plot, actions and events of a story happen because a person encounters a situation and they react. How do you decide what events happen in your plot?

JAP: I outline a lot. Then I check if the plot is covered. And then the continuity.

JB: I write what is fun to write about. The challenge is to bring those images in my brain to the story and how to get the awesome into the story.

CB: The connective tissue is the hard thing. We can think of cool things, but we have to figure out how to make it work logically. The plot is a road map–write with a destination in mind. How do you get them there? Ask why would he do that? What are the alternatives?

PS: I throw in a bunch of stuff and see if my detective character reacts to it.

CB: Sometimes we know where it ends and cool things happen in between. But the problem is, now we get into character. You cannot divorce plot from character. How can you get a character to do something really bad? Plot flows out of character and how to make them do it.

JB: How do you get a character in trouble? You don’t want to control the reader’s destiny. You can tinker with the character’s past to get them to do it, but it’s clunky. It’s better if you design in beforehand. Then it can happen no other way. You can’t separate plot from character.

JAP: Know your character. How will the character react to the MacGuffin?

PS: I once saw a movie where they asked some authors what they would do if a character does something that they didn’t want them to do. They answered, “Change their past” or “Kill them.”

CB: Connie Willis once said that you are the creator of the characters; they are not real. You are in control. You have to do the hard work of making it work. Plot, designing the right character, learning what they would do. Have you ever plotted yourself into a hole?

JAP: I outline, but then I get off the outline because I come across something cool. If I get into a plot hole, I get angry, do something else, and then go back to the original outline.

JB: There are no dead ends, only opportunities. You overcome it for something awesome. Don’t automatically assume it’s a wall.

CB: In one of my stories, I had a boy who was kidnapped. But I had two other narrators in first person. So who can tell his story? Finally, I had to have the child tell the story–and it was some of the best writing I’ve done. It can be an opportunity. Or go back to your last decision point and see if you made the wrong choice.

PS: I go on a chapter by chapter basis with cliffhangers. I use it as an opportunity. Look at it in a different angle. Reposition the character.

CB: Is there a difference if you’re in the middle of a series or a new book?

JB: In a series, you must balance if a character is needed and how much they appear on stage. Consider which side character is relevant or is the best person to approach the story. Also consider if a new character is needed–don’t double up on what an established character can already do. In a new series, you can drop in characters all the time. In an old series–I have to consider that a new character will be put on the wiki and I end up not doing it because it’s too much work.

JAP: If an ensemble gets too big, some of the characters have to go away. Everything has to be unique enough that it’s not like something that you wrote before.

CB: I don’t necessarily plan out a series ahead of time. Each book is a story, but it’s also part of a larger escalating story. How can you raise the stakes without being repetitive?

Q: Some disasters happen in your [Jim Butcher's] latest book. How do you know if it’s too disastrous?

JB: I check how late it is in the outline. But you can’t have too much disasters. New writers tend to hold back. You need to make it more disastrous. More disasters are always good.

Q: Aristotle said that character is plot. What’s your take on that?

PS: A character is in charge of his own destination. Escalate the trials and failures.

CB: One drives the other.

JAP: There are lots of things without plot but have just character and they are successful.

JB: Also keep in mind the context that Aristotle was in. In the ancient world writing was different then–it was more about value.

Q: As a character grows, do you alter the plot for the character or try to squeeze the character into the plot?

CB: Never squeeze the character into the plot. Characters rule. If you’re altering the character to fit the story, you’re mutilating the character.

JAP: It depends on what you’re doing. In a short story, it’s a closed room. You don’t have to show who they are. In a novel, you do.

JB: In an expanded story world, you give more room for the character to grow.

CB: People change in response to traumatic events. If they stay static, they’re not human. We know what stress does to people. Adjust the plot as you go along. Characters have to change.

Q: People say that there are only a set number of plots. Do you think there are archetypal plots?

CB: No, not while writing.

JB: Joseph Campbell did not write stories. He wrote about them. He didn’t know the process. I’m too busy doing my stuff to think about that. It’s all about people and how they react. It’s human nature.

JAP: You learn the rules so you can break them. It’s only in the back of my head, but not while writing. The real issue about the set number of plots is that it’s a teaching tool. People don’t know there are other stories and variations.

CB: There are stories that satisfy us. Campbell was looking at why they satisfy us. These stories seem real and go beyond the book.

PS: It’s not so much plot as how people react and how they solve their problems.

Q: Do you think death is necessary and central to the plot? I’ve read books where there’s usually a death of a character that we can relate to.

CB: I hope not.

JB: Not essential, but it works.

JAP: Killing a character is part of the toolkit. If you always use it, it becomes predictable. But it’s a powerful tool.

Notes from MisCon 27, Part 1

(To see all my posts on MisCon, including last year’s notes, go here.)

I wasn’t sure whether or not I would have been able to make MisCon this year, but happily I was able to see some of the panels. And yes, I took some notes. I managed to lose my pen at the second panel I attended on Saturday (if you were sitting next to me and were irritated that I was rummaging through my bag like mad for a writing utensil, sorry!), but I was fortunate enough to bump into a friend and bum a pen from her.

In the panel transcriptions, I’m mostly paraphrasing what the panelists said. If there are any errors, they’re mine and mine alone. For any corrections, just drop me a note.

Panel title: Authors, Readers, and Social Media
Panel members: C.J. Cherryh, Jane Fancher, J.A. Pitts, Peter Wacks
Panel description: Let’s discuss social media. What can it do for writers? Readers? What do you expect from your favorite authors on social media? How do new writers learn the best ways to take advantage of social media? Will this trend continue or do you see something new coming along?

JAP: Publishers don’t do marketing. You have to do your own marketing.

JF: Social media has allowed me to meet some of my most supportive fans. The publishers haven’t ever done marketing for me. So you have to do anything you can. The Internet is one way.

Q: What would you prefer–a blog with a few die-hard fans or silence? Sometimes it can become a popularity contest.

JF: If you have a lot of “friends”, sales can go through the roof. It is a popularity contest so in some cases it doesn’t matter if you publish crap.

Q: I’ve posted an average review of a book and the author’s rabid fans down-voted my review to oblivion. It was an average book, so I was open to trying the author’s other books. But the fan base ran me off.

CJC: I’ve seen that operate and it’s not pretty. It also depends on the writing. A certain type of writing will attract a certain type of reader. If it becomes self-exclusive and waterproof, it will seal out any other viewpoint. I don’t like flame wars so I try to avoid politics, religion, etc.

JF: On Amazon, writers can’t post reviews.

JAP: Actually, I’ve been able to post on Amazon. Amazon doesn’t apply it consistently.

PW: If you have a hard core fan base, you should try to shape them. Have them run a Twitter or Tumblr account for you.

JAP: It’s not how many fans you have but who likes your books. You write books to garner more fans.

Q: Do you have a fan page to talk to other fans?

CJC: I have a blog, but I don’t go into the discussion to stifle them. Otherwise if I do say anything, it will become canon and it makes it harder to converse.

PW: Find friends to recruit to help you grow.

CJC: But you have to be careful who you choose. Choose someone who is polite, sensible, good-hearted, and knows what they’re doing.

Q: What’s your impression of the Amazon/Kindle issue?

CJC: I wrote a book on the care of fish and put it on Amazon because my SF base is too small. I haven’t put out my SF stuff because they change the rules all the time. For some projects it’s good. But you still need to get someone to edit your stuff.

JF: I use Amazon to sell my backlist. The worst thing that could happen is if you self-publish a book that is rife with errors. You’ll never live down that reputation if you don’t edit. And don’t rely on your own editing.

JAP: Amazon just bought Goodreads. Which means you can by stuff in people’s recommendations on Goodreads. Reviews will be bleeding from Goodreads to Amazon.

Q: With community building and interacting with the community, have you had any gaffes?

JAP: If it’s on the internet, it’s public. With Facebook, they change policies all the time so what was once private could suddenly become public. Be careful what you post. I post because people seem to like it. And it’s a powerful tool because you can reach people all over the country.

JF: I’m extremely open on my blog. It’s about honesty. My books are about honesty, so if you like me then you might like my books.

CJC: Don’t put anything down that you won’t be willing to face in court. Be kind and circumspect. I wait twenty-four hours before I decide to post anything that I’ve written when angry. But if the fans are behaving badly, you should get on them.

JF: When I was on Compuserve, I once posted a comment on an author’s message board. The fans jumped on me and the author just fanned the flames.

JAP: Some people who do social media right are John Scalzi and Cory Doctorow.

JW: I’ve managed to avoid gaffes. But some really stupid things can be pushed and you have to wonder, why?

Q: Do you ever use social media as a focus group to help you write?

Entire panel: No.

CJC: I don’t use social media for my creative process. I would rather spin my own wheels. There will be loonies out there who would say that you stole their idea.

JF: Only a very special person could help me with the creative process.

PW: Fans don’t want to see how their ideas get written.

JAP: You could open yourself up to lawsuits. It might give me ideas for further research, though.

Q (Deby Fredericks): I do a podcast instead of self-publishing. But the only way I knew people were listening was when someone sent me a response that I posted the wrong link.

JF: We just want to know that someone is reading us. Just come and say, “Hi!” We have statistics to prove that someone is visiting the site.

Q: Tell writers that you enjoy their work.

Q: If I’m the only one to comment, am I being a nuisance?

Entire panel: No.

JF: It tells me that I’m not dead yet.

Q: I think people should only comment when they have something important to say. Otherwise it would devolve into YouTube comments.

JF: You could stop them, but then there are e-mails.

JAP: I once didn’t post for five days because I was really busy. But I got a fan comment wondering if I was okay.

CJC: There are a lot of regulars who visit but don’t necessarily comment. They always check the site to touch base with “family.”

Q: Authors seem to use social media in reverse compared to businesses.

PW: There’s no model for authors to use. Businesses use the broadcaster model. Authors, however, need to interact. The trick is to be honest in your communications. I have 17,000 fans, but I feel it’s a waste. I’ve managed to sell a book without help from social media.

JAP: It’s a time sink.

JF: E-books are convenient, but now they are hard to find among everything else out there.

Q: Someone can write a really insightful blog, but I feel “eh” about it. I would rather watch interviews. Have you done video podcasts?

JW: I’ve done videocasts (not necessarily interviews). With podcasts, once you mention an author, sales spike.

JAP: I have a hater on Twitter. But whenever this person rants about my books, I get a sales spike. I’ve done interview podcasts live. There’s Between the Sheets and Skiffy and Fanty. Someone in Norway once invited me to do a blog post on craft. Someone read that blog post and it led to an invitation to a conference. If you put it out there, assume that someone will read it.

Q: What’s the most important platform?

JAP: Anything you’re comfortable with.

The Ghost in the Net

Note: The following post is where I completely geek out about Nalini Singh’s Psy-Changeling series. The latest book in the series, Heart of Obsidian, is coming out next week. So if you have no interest in the gritty details of world building in paranormal romances or spoilers for the aforementioned series since you haven’t read any of the books yet, it might be a good idea to look away.

* * *

One of the things about the Psy-Changeling series which I think propels it heads and shoulders above many other series in the paranormal romance genre is its success at integrating character with the world building. Sure, you can read it primarily as a romance, but the speculative elements (which are integral to the characters and not face paint) push things into really interesting directions beyond the simple boy-and-girl-fall-in-love story.

The character of the Ghost, to me, is probably one of the most intriguing characters in the series. Up to and including the spoiler chapters posted for Heart of Obsidian, we still don’t know who the Ghost is even though there are clues sprinkled throughout the series. I think most of the clues point in one direction (as Dear Author speculates for one particular character). But not all. And it’s this little bit of uncertainty that’s driving me nuts (in a good way). With most books, I find the answer to mysteries obvious or completely out of left field. Singh’s books keep me guessing even though I know there’s a completely logical explanation.

So, let’s dive into the clues and interesting coincidences:

(Edited to add: a character guide to the series for the confused.)

The Ghost and Kaleb Krychek

The Ghost is a rebel, a saboteur who is a thorn in the Council’s side. He is first introduced in Caressed by Ice. However, we’re introduced to the term “ghost” way back in the first book (Slave to Sensation, 193). Sascha has developed a telepathic shadowing skill called “ghosting” which she uses to cruise the PsyNet as a “ghost”, undetected, to gather information. Later we discover that Kaleb Krychek can also travel this way through the PsyNet. And in fact, he learned this trick by observing Sascha (Blaze of Memory, 160).

When Shoshanna presents the Council with an infected data file, Nikita suggests that it was corrupted by the Ghost (Caressed by Ice, 32). This is the very first mention of the Ghost as an individual in the series. To Nikita, Kaleb immediately replies that the person responsible could be someone else. If Kaleb is the Ghost, is he trying to deflect attention off himself? Kaleb also has a strong motive to destroy the file. The file contained information hacked from the Liu group. Kaleb has a relationship with the Liu group which he does not want to jeopardize. And he considers that particular issue as a “first strike” after reading about Protocol I (Caressed by Ice, 19). The data file was infected by a virus. Nikita, a Tp-Psy, is a known viral transmitter. Everyone knows that Kaleb is a Tk cardinal, but he is also revealed to be a Tp cardinal (Tangle of Need, 335), making it likely that Kaleb is responsible for the destruction of data.

As noted above, Kaleb has an interest in Protocol I. The Ghost is responsible for the destruction of a Protocol I lab. The Ghost is part of the Council’s superstructure with access to classified data, but he is careful not to use data above a certain access level, probably to prevent revealing his identity (Caressed by Ice, 42). Kaleb is part of the Council. Both Kaleb and the Ghost aren’t afraid to kill. The Ghost is skilled in both psychic and physical warfare (Caressed by Ice, 286). So is Kaleb. Both the Ghost (Mine to Possess, 240) and Kaleb are well versed in finding information on the PsyNet.

The Ghost assassinates Marshall Hyde, but he is careful to be in a public location with a minor official to guarantee an alibi (Mine to Possess, 252). As a highly visible member of the Council, even a random doorman recognizes him (Bonds of Justice, 287), it would make sense for Kaleb to be seen at the public location. An Arrow would not need such a public alibi.

While certain things involving innocents and children give the Ghost pause, he is actually focused on something far bigger (Mine to Possess, 182). The Ghost’s plans are meticulous (Kiss of Snow, 364). Kaleb also has meticulous plans (Mine to Possess, 293). The Ghost has been carrying out a particular plan for over 20 years (Ghost chat). Kaleb has also been working on his plans for two decades (Hostage to Pleasure, 48). Later in the series, the Ghost notes that he understands change and that plans could change (Kiss of Snow, 364). Kaleb is also somewhat flexible in his plans as he hasn’t discarded all of his options in pursuit of his goal (Tangle of Need, 144).

Judd suspects that the Ghost wants control of the Net (Play of Passion, 96). Kaleb wants to control the Net (Hostage to Pleasure, 95; Kiss of Snow, 293; Tangle of Need, 144). In fact, he doesn’t like things out of his control in general (Branded by Fire, 41).

The Ghost will do anything to protect the Psy (Branded by Fire, 119). Kaleb finally reveals his dual cardinal powers to Aden and Vasic when he single-handedly saves a section of the Net from total collapse (Tangle of Need, 335).

Faith discovers that an old, hidden crack in the PsyNet is the Ghost (Branded by Fire, 244). Each crack in the PsyNet represents an individual who has flaws in their conditioning. Kaleb also has a large flaw in his conditioning (Heart of Obsidian, chapter 1).

The Ghost grew up in “a cage so tight, so restrictive that he’d almost forgotten how to breathe” (Branded by Fire, 261). Santano Enrique was a sociopath who groomed Kaleb to be his audience (Bonds of Justice, 312). Enrique also trapped Sascha, making her an unwilling audience as he recounted his murders. Enrique applies his trap with pressure and crushing walls (Slave to Sensation, 311).

The Ghost gives Judd information that Arrows taken off Jax are funneled to a facility in the Dinarides (Blaze of Memory, 293). In an earlier scene, Kaleb realizes that he doesn’t have the location where Ming sends Arrows to die, but he knows he can get the information before the day is out (Blaze of Memory, 230).

There is someone that the Ghost cares about. This is implied by the Ghost’s reaction to the fact that Xavier hopes that Nina is alive (Blaze of Memory, 292). When Judd questions the Ghost, he discovers that there is one person the Ghost doesn’t want to die (Play of Passion, 195 and Kiss of Snow, 140). This person is the reason the Ghost doesn’t just destroy the Council and everything else because the person acts as the conscience he doesn’t have (Kiss of Snow, 179). Kaleb has been searching for someone for over six years (Bonds of Justice, 287) and even kills for this person (Bonds of Justice, 311). Kaleb owns a platinum star charm and he wonders “what its owner would make of his thoughts of assassination” (Tangle of Need, 329). This implies that Kaleb thinks of this person as his conscience.

On Twitter, the Ghost states: “you do not want to marry me. I would snap your neck if you touched me wrong.” Sophia notes that Kaleb has many admirers, but that he is “quite capable of snapping his admirers’ necks without the least pause should the occasion call for it” (Bonds of Justice, 66). Judd has an inkling of what the Ghost’s “other matters” are and that if he is right about his guess, the Ghost would become even more dangerous (Play of Passion, 96). It is around this time that the Arrows are considering Kaleb for their leadership.

Judd and Hawke know the Ghost’s identity (Kiss of Snow, 291 and Ghost chat). Judd remarks: “If I am ever taken…my mind is set with triggers that’ll erase your name from my memory banks at a single mental command. Images are more difficult to remove” (Kiss of Snow, 364). As Judd gave Hawke a name and not an occupation, it is highly likely the Ghost is high profile. Like Kaleb. If it was an Arrow, names and images wouldn’t mean as much.

The Ghost comes across a hidden archive of data which he names Obsidian (Kiss of Snow, 180). The book, Heart of Obsidian, is about Kaleb. The Ghost says, “There are places in the Net that belong only to me” (Kiss of Snow, 368). Kaleb can communicate with both the NetMind and the DarkMind that can take him to places other people don’t know about.

The Ghost remarks: “Some things need to be broken to become stronger” (Tangle of Need, 415). For Kaleb: “The fracture had sealed to adamantine hardness, the weak spot morphing into the strongest part of his Silence” (Heart of Obsidian, chapter 1).

The Ghost and Vasic

Just as the Ghost and Kaleb are Tk-Psy with blood on their hands, so is Vasic, an Arrow who claims at his first appearance in the series that he is not a team player (Hostage to Pleasure, 12).

When the Ghost first appears in person in the series, he asks Judd about human and changeling funeral practices (Caressed by Ice, 66). Vasic seeks darkness (Tangle of Need, 39) and is tired of life and just wants peace (Tangle of Need, 249).

The outcome of several of the Ghost’s actions–destruction of Protocol I (Caressed by Ice, 293), finding out who massacred the deer changelings (Caressed by Ice, 302)–result in protecting or avenging innocents, particularly children. We know that Vasic has a soft spot for children (Tangle of Need, 339).

The Ghost doesn’t think that he has a soul (Kiss of Snow, 364). A little later, Vasic remarks that there is nothing left in him to save (Kiss of Snow, 408).

When the Ghost watches Sienna’s mating ceremony, he notes that Sienna’s hair has darkened and after observing Judd ponders that this was not a life he would ever have (Tangle of Need, 100). This implies that the Ghost had seen Sienna when she was younger. Vasic knows that he would never have a life like Judd’s (Tangle of Need, 398). Vasic had also seen Sienna when she was younger (Tangle of Need, 399).

It Could Go Both Ways

The Ghost has been “broken” as a child (Ghost chat). Vasic was broken (Tangle of Need, 339) through Arrow training which starts in childhood. In Kaleb’s records, there are odd gaps starting at seven years old when he was supposedly being trained by Santano Enrique–who turned out to be a serial killer (Caressed by Ice, 306-307).

The Ghost says that Ming will die when the time is right (Ghost chat). Aden says that Ming will die when he needs to die (Tangle of Need, 247). It is possible that he is also voicing Vasic’s opinion since they have a subconscious telepathic connection (Kiss of Snow, 33). On the other hand, both Vasic and Aden are tentatively under Kaleb’s leadership. Kaleb also has similar thoughts: “That left Ming and Tatiana. Both would have to die when it was time” (Tangle of Need, 329).

Vasic also notes toward the end of Tangle of Need that his reaction to Sienna, not precisely Sienna herself, was what helped him survive through the years. There is no mention of any other women in Vasic’s life. On the other hand, the Ghost is bonded to a woman, but that woman is the only one to whom he is loyal and will keep him from carrying out his plans (Ghost chat). Similarly, Kaleb has been obsessively trying to find a woman throughout the series and have been doing things for her.

The Ghost does not have a tattoo (Ghost chat), but is this just semantics? Kaleb has a mark on his arm that is branded on him (Mine to Possess, 293). It is never mentioned whether or not Vasic has a tattoo, but he does have a computronic gauntlet fused to his left arm (Tangle of Need, 41).

* * *

So, if you’ve also read the Psy-Changeling series, who do you think the Ghost is? Kaleb? Vasic? Someone else? As Singh’s world building and characterization has been extremely consistent so far, I would tend toward the logical choice. But you never know. I’d love to hear from fellow fans who think I’ve missed a clue or two.

Addictive Reading

I’ve been recently pondering about what makes certain books “cracktastic”–books that people can’t help read once they start. Books that make some people, literally, into foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics. Is it because of the subject matter? The last time I was at a bookstore, I overheard some ladies raving about some “very steamy” novels. But are all cracktastic novels about sex? Despite the fact that the current zeitgeist is all about erotic novels, I don’t think so. Twilight and The Da Vinci Code are considered cracktastic by many readers, but they are in completely different genres. Are cracktastic books necessarily badly written? Well, no. During Charles Dickens’ lifetime, people were devouring his writing like hot cakes. Are popular books synonymous with cracktastic books? Not necessarily. The Great Gatsby is popular and much loved, but one would hardly call it cracktastic. And on the flip side, I’m sure there are obscure books that are cracktastic for a small subset of readers.

So, it doesn’t particularly matter what the book is about or how it’s written. Or even if anyone else is reading it. But the term “cracktastic” does have a negative connotation, implying that the reading material in question is bad yet addictive. Some people seem to use it as an excuse. That they can’t just help themselves reading it. That if they had the will power, they wouldn’t be reading it. Personally, I find it a bit sad that some people are too embarrassed to admit that they like reading about X or Y without qualifiers.

What does make for a cracktastic book then? I think a cracktastic book pushes a button (or a series of buttons) hard enough and long enough that it engages the lizard brain which swamps whatever objective thoughts we’ve had before. Call it emotion or instinct or gut feeling or curiosity. Whatever it is, it’s a hook that never lets go. Any writer who wishes to share their work probably hopes that their writing has some of this elusive quality. Some work hard to achieve it. Others stumble upon it accidentally. But most will never find it although that doesn’t mean that their books aren’t good. There are a number of authors I enjoy reading (and re-reading) but they just haven’t managed to push that particular button which tips me over the edge from favorite and loyal to absolute obsession.

(What I also want to make clear, though, is that you can never assume that what people read–and especially what sort of supposedly cracktastic stuff they read–defines who they are. Few would consider books heavy in life philosophy to be truly cracktastic. Unless it’s an Ayn Rand doorstopper. It could probably crack someone’s head open if wielded properly.)

“Cracktastic” is a really subjective term. What somebody else considers cracktastic, I may think is mediocre. And vice versa. From my observations, for most people, something becomes cracktastic because it pushes one single button really well. For me, several buttons usually must be pushed at one time or it’s going to be a no-go. It must be written in a style I enjoy, with an emotionally engaging storyline, non-stupid characters, impeccable world building, and exquisite tension which makes me keep turning pages even though it’s already two in the morning. Note that I said usually. Depending on my mood–or just where I am in life–different things push those buttons. For example, I am quite positive that the Harry Potter series would have been cracktastic for me if it had come out when I was younger and less widely read in the fantasy genre. But it came out later when I was already bored with all the stories about wizard schools.

Sure, it might make for a frustrating time if you can’t find anyone else who is as rabid about the same books as you are. But I think it’s a good thing that not everyone finds the same story cracktastic. Otherwise, publishers would only be looking for one thing and there would be only one kind of writer getting published. And while readers lament even now about the lack of diversity in the literary marketplace, it would be even worse if there was just one formula for making a hit book.

Those Last Thoughts

What do I not want to think about in my last seconds of life?* A lot of things, obviously. I wouldn’t want to waste my last seconds thinking about inconsequential things like whether or not I’ve turned off the stove or errands that I’ve left unfinished. I wouldn’t want to waste that time thinking about regrets or things that I’ve never had the chance to do. You know, trivial stuff in the whole scheme of things.

Then again, it’s human nature to wish that our lives aren’t trivial. That we have more meaning beyond the seemingly small random events which make up the bulk of our lives. In hindsight, we can assign meanings and influences to what has happened to us. And we can speak about it as a narrative. Usually when someone asks us to tell them about ourselves, we are able to shape our past into a story that we find interesting. We have control over the details, filtering out anything we might deem irrelevant.

But those last seconds are out of our hands. And I think that’s why it may seem unsettling. The implicit lack of control may be one of the reasons why we even have preferences for what we want to think about in those last seconds. Because in those last seconds, any thought could cross the mind. If the thought is about something inconsequential or about things not done, one’s end fizzles into a non sequitur. If it was the ending of a book, it would be a wall-banger because it doesn’t make sense in the context of the story. For storytellers, that would be unacceptable. The end should involve some kind of grand, profound statement. An insight. A koan. Or at least something that is related to what is happening at that moment.

However, this is reality. And real life isn’t a neat outline with all the causes and effects mapped out. The saying that fact can be stranger than fiction is true. Characters in fiction must be “believable”–in other words, their actions must flow logically from what was established about them in the narrative. Real people, on the other hand, can behave randomly and irrationally. I could act randomly and irrationally. And who’s to say what thoughts will logically float into my consciousness at any time, let alone in those last seconds?

Let’s step back a bit, though, and perhaps ponder if there is a more fundamental question than asking what sort of thoughts I would want or not want to have in my last moments. I think a critical question is, does it really matter what I think–whether it’s trivial or profound? My instinctive answer to that question is no. Or at least it doesn’t matter in my case. Unless I somehow get a case of verbal diarrhea on my deathbed (or that somehow in the near future, someone develops technology to upload everyone’s thoughts for all to see–like Twitter with a neural interface), no one is going to really know what I will be thinking. And after I’m gone, I wouldn’t be here to care about what I thought anyway, would I?

*Written for a writing group prompt.

Mid-Month Meanderings

Update on Camp NaNoWriMo progress: I am behind. Extremely behind. By 20,000 words. So I’m going to have to really kick it up a notch for this second half of the month. As to whether or not I’ll be able to reach the 50k goal–maybe. But I have other things that have more priority at the moment, like preparing for the ASM general meeting next month.

And speaking of ASM, sure it’s kind of stressful if you’re going to be presenting anything there, but it’s fun, too. If you’re a microbiologist or want to become one, I highly recommend attending the conference at least once. And even if you’re not, there are plenty of interesting talks. (I saw that they had a cool workshop for do-it-yourself whole genome analysis, but it’s already sold out.) Most of the talks can get pretty technical, though, so you might get lost if you’ve never taken any biology courses in college.

* * *

If you’ve followed me on Twitter, you’ll know that my website, gamalei.net, got wiped out last month when the hosting server suffered a catastrophic hardware failure. I wasn’t too worried about this since I had my website backed up elsewhere and otherwise, I’ve never had many problems with the hosting company for the approximate decade I’ve been with them. However, I did take it as an opportunity to streamline the site as it had grown rather labyrinthine.

Among one of the semi-hidden corners of the old site, I had a section titled “Linkrot” where I had stashed a bunch of links that I thought were interesting but not interesting enough to be taking up permanent residence in my browser’s bookmark folder. It was all hand-coded which after a while, got rather tedious.

So, what to do now? Well, I’ve decided to stick all those extra links on Tumblr. Technically, I’ve created two Tumblrs. Textual Curiosities contains cool stuff I’ve found on archive.org. Its sister site, Strange Interlinks, contains everything else. The thing about Tumblr is its simplicity. I can just dump a link into it and tag it to help categorize it rather than spending too much of my time manually adding to my old page. And since it’s now on Tumblr, other people can follow and/or share these links if they wish. Of course, if no one else does, I don’t mind. This is more for my own edification and organization than anything else.

After reading some opinions on Tumblr, I was thinking about how my own views about the blogging platform has changed over time. When I first encountered it, I couldn’t really understand why anyone would have one in addition to a weblog on, say, Blogger or WordPress or LiveJournal. But I think, in some ways, simplicity is a good thing. And it also depends on what sort of project you’re working on and what sort of platform is best suited for it.

When I first started blogging, I had also included random links I’ve discovered on the internet in my posts. Sort of like Kottke.org or Rebecca’s Pocket. But eventually, I ditched that format and concentrated on writing posts that were a little more focused and coherent. So that’s sort of how I view this blog today: a journal-like site containing long content or commentary (in text or in pictures) generated by me. And while Twitter and Tumblr can in some sense also be blogging platforms, they’re both more ephemeral in my mind. I like using Twitter because it’s quite amendable to quick observations (which can be extremely cumbersome on a traditional blog) and it has an instant messaging-like capability that doesn’t quite have as much stress as an actual instant messaging program*. And as for Tumblr, you have the ease of chucking things in there without the worry of moderating comments. And these days, I find that ease has a lot to recommend it.

*Aside: One thing I hate about the electronic age is the expectation of immediacy. Some forms of electronic communication, however, have greater expectations of immediacy than others. Like instant messaging, for instance. I once had instant messaging eons ago, but I am prone to multitasking and getting distracted by more important things than random chitchat. This, of course, pissed off people I was IMing with so I ended up not doing any sort of instant messaging at all. E-mail, on the other hand, is more flexible. I respond fairly quickly if it’s from family or work, but otherwise I can put it off for a couple of days. Or respond not at all. (Or pretend that it got lost in the aether if it’s from someone I don’t really want to talk to.) Twitter is a mix between the two. While I like the IMing aspect of interacting with other people online in a semi-immediate way, I don’t think many people would get really angry with me if I get distracted and respond two hours later.

Planning for Camp NaNoWriMo April 2013

This is the first year that Camp NaNoWriMo is being held in April. I suppose they’re doing this to replace the now defunct Script Frenzy which sadly didn’t see all that many participants. (I’m guessing the low numbers may be due to the high barrier to entry–writing scripts require a special format which isn’t exactly intuitive.) However, script writers are welcome to write scripts for Camp NaNo. And there are even flexible word count goals.

Anyways, I’ll be doing this as I’ve always done ever since Camp NaNo was started. I’ve already changed my mind once on the plot which means I could very well change it again later. But so far I do know it’s going to be squarely in science fiction. I don’t have any concrete ideas, let alone an outline, set in stone yet but there are some themes that I want to explore in both a serious and satirical manner.

• Beauty pageants and dog shows. This will probably take up most of the novel. Basically in this universe, an alien species called the Collectors are in charge. They view other species, including humans, as we would view pet cats and dogs. Through “indenture contracts” and other means, the Collectors acquire other species to show off in conformation trials–hopefully to win some prizes. This is also why this writing project is tentatively titled Reserve Winners.
• Xenobiology and alternative relationships. The Collectors are extra-dimensional and sentient fungoid creatures. Humans can only perceive part of them in three-dimensional space. And that part sort of resembles a Lovecraftian fungal monster. Their thought processes are decidedly alien which makes the reason why they have all the conformation trials much more interesting. Because it really isn’t the equivalent of a beauty pageant or dog show to them. It’s for a completely different purpose. Also similar to some fungi on earth, these Collectors have hundreds of different mating types. So relationships between the Collectors will be very complicated.
• Names. A lot of characters will be named after Roman emperors and empresses. It’s a fad just as it’s a fad today to name your kids Jacob or Sophie. In some ways, this is going to make naming characters pretty easy if every other person is named Augustus…
• Genetic engineering. Just as humans have done selective breeding on domestic animals, the Collectors have done some subtle (or not so subtle) nudging with other species.
• Looking beneath the surface. Appearances and motives are never what they seem. The trick, I think, is not to turn this into a mystery or some kind of evil versus good cliche. Things aren’t repulsive, unnatural, or malevolent. Just different, depending on your point of view.

That’s my ramblings about my April writing project so far. How will it gel in the coming days? Who knows. But I’ve been reading a lot of papers on fungal biology so at least I’m learning something.

This Bookworm Won’t Be Munching That Leaf

As an unrepentant bookworm, it’s rather difficult for me to come out of a bookstore without purchasing a book. For a bookstore, they should be happy I’m dropping by because I’m almost guaranteed to be a customer. And a repeat customer at that. Other kinds of businesses (with the exception of grocery stores) can’t count on that from me.

However, note that I added the word “almost.” There are some reasons why I would not go to a physical bookstore for a book I want. Most of these reasons are practical in nature. For one, a bookstore may not have a particular book I’m looking for. Sure, I can order the book from the bookstore and get it later–and I have done this before–but I’m also the rather impatient type. If I get the yen for a particular book, that means I want to read it now, not a week from now. So it’s often faster to order it online myself. Physical bookstores (and libraries to some extent) are more for browsing, impulse buys, and finding those books that I’ve been meaning to get eventually but weren’t at the top of my mind.

The second reason why I might not go into a bookstore is that it’s a specialized bookstore. And not just any specialized bookstore. A specialized bookstore that concentrates on subjects that I have very little (if any) interest in–like self-help and religion. If there was a bookstore that specialized in nothing but fishing, I’d probably avoid that, too, unless I got advance warning that my fishing-obsessed co-workers were going to forcibly drag me to one of their weekend fishing trips. Life is short and despite being an unrepentant bookworm, I’m not indiscriminate. Because what’s the point of cluttering up my personal library with books that I don’t want or need?

And then sometimes I don’t go to a bookstore because it simply doesn’t feel right. Or to put it more bluntly, it’s the staff that attempts to make me feel ashamed for buying books that they don’t approve of. Actually, this can be generalized for all businesses. If you’re going to make a customer ashamed for buying something, then why the hell are you selling it in the first place?

The first two reasons why I don’t go to a bookstore are just mere inconveniences. The third reason annoys me. I’m noting this now because yesterday, I wandered into a bookstore in Missoula that really rubbed me the wrong way even though I did not have any direct interaction with anyone working there. While this bookstore has, as far as I’ve seen, done the best job at showcasing local authors compared to every other bookstore I’ve been to in the city, the atmosphere reeked of elitism.

The entire time I was there, I overheard the person working at the front desk talking to a customer who had asked a question. There’s a line between helpful recommendations and outright telling someone what they should read because everything else is dreck. I thought the person working there yesterday crossed that line. Another thing I noticed was a comic strip lambasting the bestseller* next to it, basically shaming anyone who wanted to read it. While I have no intention of reading this particular bestseller regardless of the comic strip’s presence, I thought it was a rather passive-aggressive attitude for the store to take towards the people who did want to read that book.

I walked out of that bookstore without buying anything. Because frankly, there was another independent bookstore literally across the street that was friendlier even if it was somewhat less organized and had a mysterious schedule for business hours. I’d rather interact with clerks who place no judgement on what readers wanted to buy.

Bookstores can run their business in whatever way they want. I’m just one potential customer, after all. Maybe I’m not that particular bookstore’s target. Perhaps I should think of it more as a specialized bookstore–one that caters to literary snobs. I’m sort of the opposite of that as I often enjoy reading genre fiction, including stuff that critics would call “trashy.” Yet despite that, I’m still bothered. I know bookstores need to carry bestsellers and genre books in order to stay afloat but I’m not sure why that particular bookstore wants to stomp on its cash cow. If you’re going to shame people away from buying a book they want, it’s going to be less likely for them to look at any of the other books you want them to buy.

*Aside: In some ways, I do agree with the comic strip’s assessment of the bestseller’s lack of literary merit, but not in the most obvious ways. It’s not that I think that most readers are stupid enough to buy into the bestseller’s philosophy–in fact, I think they’re smart enough to tell fact from fiction. The problem is in other people’s assessment of the readers, that they think that all the readers actually do buy into the book’s destructive philosophy. What is insidious is that it makes them feel they have the license to treat these readers (and others like these readers) accordingly.

From Albuquerque to Tuscon

Day 5 (December 29, 2012)

It was clear. Slightly chilly. A fine day for driving with a few detours.

There are many ghost towns in Sierra County, New Mexico. I’ve heard that Chloride was a rather nice one to visit. But we only had time for one, so we went to Cuchillo, the closest one to I-25.

Then we stopped at Truth or Consequences. Mostly to find a particular gift store. But when we arrived, we found that the gift store had closed down and moved to online only. But there was the post office…

Then we stopped at Deming for lunch at El Mirador. It had a stereotypical atmosphere of an old worn diner, but the food was rather good. Also, it was the first time that we encountered horchata.

Then it was all the way to Tuscon. My sister was quite adamant on trying Lani’s Luau, a Hawaiian restaurant, for dinner. It’s located in an unassuming store front in a strip mall. We had Kalua style pig wrapped in taro leaves. I’m personally a bit “meh” on Hawaiian-style food, but the portions at this place are huge. We saved the leftovers for lunch the next day.