Thoughts on the Royal Wedding: What I Wish Would Have Happened

Yes, I watched it this morning. I was up working on my writing anyway, so I figured why not. I can't say I devoted my full attention to it, but then again it didn't really seem like something you needed to have your whole attention for. I mean, there was a lot of singing and music and waiting and waving and smiling. Not exactly rocket science, and there wasn't even a quiz afterward.

What did I think?

I think I'm really glad I wasn't anywhere near London this morning. Certainly not near Westminster Abbey. Because if I was, I think I wouldn't have been able to keep the snark inside me. You see, I realized this morning that I haven't really witnessed any mainstream wedding ceremonies first hand. I've been to a couple of Mormon ones, and I've been to a Quaker ceremony, but no Catholic or Protestant services.

But then again, I've witnessed loads of them on TV and in the movies. And this morning, I decided the ones on TV and in film just don't prepare you for how slow they are in real life. And as I've thought it over, there are a number of things that should have happened this morning that didn't. So without further ado, I give you: Bryce's Top Ten Things He Wished Would Have Happened at the Royal Wedding.

1. No last minute objections, followed by Kate realizing the prince she was marrying was really just a prematurely bald fuddy duddy, at which point she ditches him to run off with a hip cool guy with a full head of hair.
2. No spontaneous song and dance numbers about true love. Ideally, this would happen after Prince William admits just what exactly happened at his bachelor party last night. If he'd managed to at least sport a black eye and some strange sort of facial tattoo, I would have been willing to let the musical number slide.
3. No Hollywood/Disney-style special effects to show just how magical a union it's going to be. Seriously. They spent how many millions of pounds on this affair, and they couldn't even manage some Tinkerbell sparkles released at an opportune moment? What about trained birds to flock in a heart shape above the couple's adoring heads? I demand more from my elaborate weddings!
4. No long wait while the bride or groom debated whether or not she or he really wanted to go through with this. I'm sure it happened--we just didn't get the backstage coverage necessary to have been witness to it. Come on, press! Next royal wedding, I want a reality series, full of long, drawn out boring interviews with everyone involved. Also, I want to be able to vote for who the bride will be. Also the groom, if that's a possibility. Just sayin'.
5. No attack by the Dread Pirate Roberts. I was crushed, people. CRUSHED!
6. And speaking of that, no speech impediment by the priest. What's up with that? I think we can all acknowledge that some comic relief would have been nice at that point. At least someone in the crowd could have had some inopportune flatulence. I'm looking at you, Elton John. You've got experience entertaining people. Entertain me! If not with flatulence, how about an impromptu Lion King song? (see #2)
7. No sword fighting. If Prince William really loves this girl this much, he should have had to defend her from intruders, pirates, ninjas and nazis (for good measure). Preferably until he's so swashbuckled his knees wilt. You can't tell me they're out of swords. It's *England*, for crying out loud.
8. No one used the wedding as an excuse to steal the crown jewels. Talk about perfect timing. Come on, super criminals--do I have to do all your plotting for you?
9. No talking animals. At all. Not even a talking squirrel. Not that all weddings have them or anything, but still--it would have been a nice addition. Maybe at least a chimpanzee dressed up in a tux. I'm a sucker for chimps in black tie.
10. An extreme lack of rice, garters and thrown bouquets (preferably caught by Elton John). What's the point in having stereotypes and tropes if we don't haul them out for these important occasions?\\

Anyway. There you have it. There are more ways the wedding disappointed me, but I had to keep this list manageable. How about you? What did you think? What stood out as glaring omissions for you? If we make this list long enough, CNN might use it in its i-report section. Or--dare I hope it--we might be able to demand a redo of the wedding. Or at least an extended edition for the blu-ray.

Book Review: Faithful Place

Faithful Place by Tana French

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I've enjoyed Tana French's books thus far--enough so that I wanted to read this one. At this point in my reading life, it's not often that I read multiple books by the same author. I just don't have the time to commit to one genre and author--not when there are so many other excellent books being published every day. I like to dabble, going from one genre and author to the next, getting a feel for what's out there. When I find something I like, I will return. This is the third book of hers that I've read, and I guess I'd have to say I'm becoming a fan. Not a die-hard, will-read-everything-by-her-no-matter-what fan, but still--I haven't been let down yet.

What's great about this book is that I feel it's a step up for her. Her previous books felt like interesting, well-executed murder mystery novels with a more literary bent. More thinking involved than you'd get in the latest Cornwell or Evanovich. But not enough so that French stood out to me as an author. That's changed with Faithful Place. I'm beginning to know what sort of books she writes. The characters are more fully fleshed out. The literary bent is more pronounced.

But what really made this one stand out for me is the way the city (Dublin) took on an active, living role in the novel. You could tell these characters actually *lived* there. Locations were fully formed. They had a real impact on who the people who lived there were, and what could or could not happen. So often, I feel like setting in a mystery is there more for the flair than for any real effect. Maybe you have some southern drawl going on, or a bit of generic Angela Lansbury Maine. But that's all window dressing. You could switch the setting and have essentially the same plot.

Not so with this novel. You feel like you get to understand Dublin by the end of it. At least a piece of the city. (Of course, I can't say how accurate that understanding is--but at least I feel like it was well described.) The setting and the plot are intrinsically tied together in this novel.

It's the story of a cop returning to the place he grew up to solve the murder of his first true love. There's neighborhood intrigue, family machinations, police in-fighting--all very well done. It didn't quite have the oomph to get me to give it 5 stars. Something just didn't click 100% for me. Maybe it's a sign that while I like literary fiction, I don't *enjoy* it as much as pure genre fic. Either way, I enjoyed the book, and I look forward to reading her next.

View all my reviews

Lighten Up, People: Avoiding Negativity in an Increasingly Negative World

First off, a disclaimer. This isn't a post that's aimed at anyone. I'm not talking about specific people here, and there's nothing that I've read that's set me off this time. I try not to use my blog as a personal soap box to take pot shots at people. That said, I've seen a growing trend among many people, both in person and online, and I wanted to speak out about it.

Lighten up, folks!

My golly. There are just so many negative vibes emanating from everyone these days. People are angry at Obama. People are angry at the birthers. People are angry at Trump. Trump's angry at everybody. People are angry at angry people. (Who--me?) So let me get this straight: Obama is bonehead for giving into the birthers and releasing his birth certificate, thereby distracting our great country from what's really important: the royal wedding?

Don't get me wrong. I like to grouse and complain as much as the next guy. (If you read my blog regularly, you're well aware of that fact.) But I've come to a realization in the past week or so. Some people are negative. Some people aren't. It would make sense that the negative people have had many more bad things happen to them in their lives, thus souring their outlook on life. Likewise, it would seem to follow that the positive people are ones who have just been super-blessed. Trouble never came their way, so they traipse on in blissful ignorance.

Except that's not how it is, from my viewpoint.

How much personal pain and suffering you've gone through in life doesn't seem to have a direct effect on how positive or negative you are in general. Sure, there'll be times we're all down some. We're going through a rough patch. Whatever. But even then, positive people are still less negative than their negative counterparts would be in the same situation.

Why is this?

One of the things that has irked me the most recently is how much Americans on both side of the political fence seem to enjoy complaining about how awful the other side has made this country. Sorry, folks. I don't buy it. Take a step back, and look at things from an outsider's perspective. Imagine if you were just an ordinary Joe, and you overheard Donald Trump and Bill Gates arguing about how awful it was that Gates dinged Trump's fender on his Bentley. How the Bentley was ruined now. Heck--even if Gates had crumpled in the passenger side door, you'd still roll your eyes some, wouldn't you? There go the two rich kids, squabbling about stupid things while the rest of the world tries to ignore them.

Our country's still great. Obama hasn't ruined it. Trump won't be able to damage it. Life will go on.

In the meantime, don't get so darned upset about things. I've used politics as an example, just because it's the easiest target, but this isn't a political post. I've just noticed that some people are going to complain about everything. Nothing goes right in their life. Other people keep an even keel and look on the bright side. They don't get down. Maybe there's something to that whole glass-is-half-empty thing after all.

I personally don't really enjoy being around the negative. I don't ignore the problems happening in my life or other's, but I don't dwell on them, either. That way lies madness and ruin. As I look at the people I choose to do things with--people I like spending time with--I see that most of them are really positive people. Not annoyingly so, but still. People who like to keep a good, but realistic, view of the world.

I do think it's a lifestyle choice. But maybe I'm just too darned positive. How about you? Do you think a positive attitude is a choice? Discuss . . .

Meanwhile, here's some quotes about attitude I stumbled across online, all of which I heartily endorse.

Do you have any favorites?


If you don't get everything you want, think of the things you don't get that you don't want. ~Oscar Wilde

The sun shines and warms and lights us and we have no curiosity to know why this is so; but we ask the reason of all evil, of pain, and hunger, and mosquitoes and silly people. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Happiness is an attitude. We either make ourselves miserable, or happy and strong. The amount of work is the same. ~Francesca Reigler

The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes. ~William James

People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Worship," The Conduct of Life, 1860

"It's snowing still," said Eeyore gloomily. "So it is." "And freezing." "Is it?" "Yes," said Eeyore. "However," he said, brightening up a little, "we haven't had an earthquake lately." ~A.A. Milne

Ignoring Our Neighbors--Call for Tree Recommendations

About a year ago, we found out that there was going to be a house built out in our front yard. (Well, not really our front yard. More like 100 yards in front of us--but there's nothing in between us, so it's a fairly big change to our view.) Anyway, it's built now, and it's a very nice house and all, but . . . I'd really rather be looking at something else. Yes, it could have been a trailer or something, but as long as I have all that space between us, it seems like a darn shame not to put something there that (within a few years) will be nice and big and bushy and obstruct most of the house from view.

That's where you come in, hopefully.

Denisa and I went off to look at some tree candidates on Monday, and we have a few in mind. Allow me to run down the potential candidates.

• White Pine--Native to Maine. It grows about a foot a year and can get really bushy really fast. However, once it gets beyond a certain height, it seems like it might start thinning out some--isn't quite as good of a screen.
• Norwegian Fir--Bristly and not as fast growing. Can be really dense though, and stays dense throughout its life.
• Balsam Fir--Native to Maine. It doesn't grow all that fast, and it doesn't get too bushy. Not bristly, but gorgeous once it's nice and big. I like the look of this tree the most once it's mature--the trick is all the years it will take to get it there.

So how about it, readers? Any of you know trees well? Any other suggestions? I'm thinking about getting a few white pines, as well as some balsam firs, and then essentially planting a copse of trees in my front yard. I might have to fill in some patches later with shrubs, but that's okay. A big bonus would be that I wouldn't have to mow all that space anymore. Mowing is a waste of time, in my opinion. The less I have to do it, the better.

Another question for you--do you think I have to worry at all about ticking off my neighbors? I don't want to seem . . . unneighborly, but I'd rather look at trees than look at them. It's not like I'm building a giant model of Devil's Tower in my front yard or anything. ("This means something.") Thoughts?

Movie Review: Source Code--See it now!

The movie Denisa and I went to see last night was Source Code, a slick sci-fi movie that seems (to me, at least) to have been flying under the radar. It's got a 7.8 on IMDB, a 90% fresh rating on Rottentomatoes, has Jake Gyllenhaal starring, and is directed by the same guy who did the fantastic Moon. And yet I haven't been hearing any buzz about it at all--or at least no buzz that penetrated my cocoon enough to register. I mean, Hop made 12.2 million last weekend, and this movie only made 5?

That's a pity.

You should go watch this movie, if you're a sci-fi fan. Is it the Best Movie Ever? Well, no. It bites off a bit more than it can chew, in my opinion. It's got 3/4 of a fantastic movie, and 1/4 of a really good movie. If that 1/4 had started the film, or been the second or third quarter, it wouldn't have mattered as much. But it's the last 1/4, which is unfortunate. Still, it's not insurmountable, and it by no means is a deal breaker. This is a solid three star movie in my book, and it's worthy of your cold hard cash.

One reason it's probably not gaining any traction is that it's one of those "You need to see it to know what it's about" sort of things. There are twists and turns to the plot, and you don't want to be spoiled going into it. So I won't tell you about those things. Another reason is that I think it has an awful title. Source code? The thing sounds boring as something named "Users Manual." It's generic, and it lacks anything to set it apart.

One warning: the climax has the biggest flaw for the film, and it's the reason the movie didn't make it to 3.5 stars or higher for me. It peaks a bit too soon, and then you're left with 15 minutes of long denouement, which felt really out of place for me in this genre.

Why should you see it? It's smart sci-fi. It's demanding and intriguing. It's well acted. It's unpredictable. It's just a fun movie.

One interesting tidbit if you're a Quantum Leap fan: the voice of the father is Scott Bakula. There are very clear Quantum Leap parallels in this movie--yet another reason why it's a shame it's not getting better play.

Already seen it? Disagree with me? Speak up!

10 Years: A Look Back at Eloping

Ten years ago today, I eloped.

It wasn't like you see in the movies. It's not like Denisa and I looked at each other that morning and said, "What the hey--let's get married." We didn't wake up next to each other after an all-nighter and find out we'd been married in some sort of drunken stupor. Las Vegas wasn't involved. (Although we did consider getting married in Las Vegas, just so we could say we did. It was a longer drive, though. And not as cool as Manti.)

No--our elopement was much different. We planned it out months in advance. When you live in a marriage-hungry place like Provo, Utah, it's quite difficult to elope properly. For one thing, you've got all these friends who are constantly roaming the streets. Have you ever tried to hunt for an apartment without running into anyone you know? We had to live somewhere once we were married, after all. There were two or three very nice apartments we had to just walk on by instead of checking them out, because we saw someone we knew already looking.

We didn't tell anyone we were engaged, although I did let my family know ahead of time that when I got married, they wouldn't be there. It wasn't the easiest conversation I'd had with everyone in my family, but they were all understanding well in advance of when I finally eloped. Actually, quite a few of them had a pool going as to when I'd actually do it. I forget who won.

Of course, all secrets have a way of bubbling to the surface. The night before the big day, I came home with a rented tux, and my roommates looked at it in confusion. "Going to a wedding?" "Yup," I said. "Whose?" "Mine."

Their expressions were worth it.

We'd chosen to get married in the Manti Temple for a couple of reasons: first of all, my ancestors helped build it. Second of all, it was on the way to Bryce Canyon and Zions, where we'd chosen to honeymoon. (Our other choice had been Yellowstone, in which case we'd have chosen a different temple, but again--it was too far of a drive.) I called my family from the gas station just outside of Manti. (I didn't have a cell phone yet.)

We'd arranged for a photographer (we have lots of pictures--all of them just of us.) He was Denisa's boss at the BYU Bookstore where she worked at the time, and he bought us a photo frame engraved with a picture of the temple and our names and the date. While he was standing in line to order it, he turned to the girl behind him and asked her how she'd spell Bryce (he realized too late he hadn't asked). She knew just how to spell my name--she was my sister in law's sister, and I'd even been on a date or two with her. (But hey, I'd been on a date with lots of girls at BYU. (-:  )  So of course she tells him, then gets on the phone with her sister, who gets on the phone with her husband, my brother.

Like I said, secrets bubble.

But in any case, it was all too late and we were too far away for anyone to make it to the temple in time to be there for the ceremony. (I eloped for many reasons. I won't go into them here.) The ceremony was great. I remember when we'd driven down to Manti ahead of time to meet with the Temple workers and plan things out, they'd been quite confused. Mormon weddings typically happen in temples, where only faithful adult church members can attend. You'll get something like 20-40 people at the ceremony. There's a temple sealer (we believe marriages performed in a temple last not just til death do you part--you're "sealed" together for time and eternity) who you can choose. There are two witnesses, who you also choose. We asked to be married in the tower. They told us that would be really hard on our grandparents, who would have a hard time with the stairs. They couldn't quite understand that it was just going to be the two of us. They asked us who we wanted as witnesses and a sealer. We said whoever the temple had on hand that time. (They ended up being very nice older gentlemen. One of the witnesses fell asleep in the middle of the ceremony.)

Would I do it again? In a heartbeat. Both the eloping and the marriage. Eloping was easy as pie. There was no pressure, and either one of us could have backed out at any time if it's something we had any doubts about. I think sometimes people have real reservations about getting married, but they go through with it because by then, so much has been planned and they'd be afraid of letting too many people down. We got married because we wanted to, plain and simple. There were no big elaborate receptions to plan. No crazy wedding breakfasts and who sits where. No big expenses. (Denisa bought her dress at the BYU Bookstore. She got a good discount as an employee. She made her veil.)

Of course, as a parent, I can see how disappointing it could be to have your child have such a momentous occasion that you can't be there for, but in the end, marriage is something that should be all about the husband and wife--no one else. I really liked being able to focus on that that day, and not having to worry about what anyone else was thinking or doing or where I had to be.

And as for the marriage, it was flat out the best decision I've ever made in my life. I was terrified of marriage, ahead of time. My parents divorced when I was about 6, and I was so worried I'd end up doing the same. I really didn't want to put my kids and myself through that. I had a girl in mind who I thought would be perfect. We were great friends, and had been for years. But I wanted to be sure I was making the right decision. Being the goal-oriented lad that I am, I set a goal to date 30 girls in one semester. I got to 16, and things were going fine. Each girl was nice, but in the end I didn't see any reason to change me from my course. Then came 17.

I asked Denisa on a date mainly because my main date had fallen through. We went on a double date with my sister and a guy I set her up with. That date was so different than any of the others I'd been on. Before it, I was mainly just happy to be bragging that I was going on a date with a girl from a foreign country. After it, I couldn't get her out of my head. I remember getting home at 2 in the morning (my car had gotten a flat on the way home--fun) and talking to my roommate Juan for about another 2 hours. All my certainty about who I wanted to marry had flown out the window in the space of a few hours.

The only thing I can compare it to is fishing. (Romantic, I know.) When you've been fishing for a while, you start imagining there might be a fish on the end of your line, mainly because you're bored and you want there to be one. So you reel it in, only to discover you've got nothing. But when an actual real live fish is there, it's jerking and tugging and moving all over the place. There is no doubt.

I had a real live fish.

Less than two months later, I proposed. I'd always sworn that would never be me. I wouldn't be the guy proposing to a girl he'd known less than a few months. (Denisa and I met at the beginning of the semester, in our German Phonetics class. Our first date was November 4.) No--I would have to know the girl for at least a year, preferably more. How else could I be certain I was making the right choice? But all that flew out the window. When you've got a real live fish hooked, you reel now--not a year from now.

I didn't propose by getting down on my knee and having a ring or anything. No--we were just sitting, talking, and I looked at her and suddenly found myself blurting out, "I think I'm going to marry you." After that, it was just an assumption on both our parts.

Anyway. I wasn't planning on writing a novel today. We're going tree shopping and then on a date this evening. But Denisa had to bake some bread, and so I had a bit of time and figured this would be interesting for you all to read. Hopefully I was right. I'll just add this: When I look back on these 10 years, it's crazy insane. I can't believe how much we've done together. I can't believe how much fun I've had. Sure, there have been difficult times, but those times were made that much easier by being married to the best friend I've ever had. We still do practically everything together, and I hope that never changes.

Thanks for 10 wonderful years, Denisa. [Insert more mushy gushing here. I try to avoid public mushy gushing when possible. I make exceptions every 5 or 10 years or so.]

For more photos, check out my Facebook album.

Movie Review: Rio (or, Wannabe Pixar)

TRC's birthday is coming up, and as part of the celebration, we went to the movies yesterday. His choice? Rio. For those of you who don't know, it's a movie about a blue bird raised in comfy captivity who goes back to Brazil and has exciting adventures. It's made by the same people that brought you Ice Age and its successors.

So what did I think?

I thought that the movie was trying too hard to be like Pixar. We all know the Pixar formula by now. Make something that's funny throughout, with interesting characters you can connect with, and then make it have heart. Make it matter. And because of the incredible run Pixar's been having, it seems at times like that formula is just so easy to pull off. That clearly seems to be what Rio thought. Because instead of trying to just bust out all the laughs they could, they kept trying to make the movie have heart and real meaning. And they fell short on many of those attempts.

It's not a bad movie. I'd probably give it three stars. But it's got four star aspirations, without having four star material. Does that make sense? And that really dragged down pieces of the film for me. I kept seeing them try to Pixar things up, and all that made me do was see how they couldn't pull it off. It's like watching a weight lifter struggle with lifting something about 20 pounds above his maximum limit. There's lots of straining involved, and you just feel uncomfortable after a while--as if you could *will* them to success, just so you could stop seeing all that wasted effort.

So how does it fail? First off, it doesn't quite manage to pull of the memorable characters bit. A lot of the smaller characters really get short changed, and they end up being basic stereotypes that just aren't that memorable. They all blend together quite a bit, and you're left not really remembering who was who and who did what.

The other big way it fails is in its blend of humor and heart. The problem is that the humor they go for is usually pretty basic: lots of rump shaking and some poop jokes. And that's fine, if that's what you're going for--but trying to blend that with a feel good message just feels out of place. There's a climax with main characters dressed in skimpy clothes for Carnival, and it's just harder to feel for these characters when they look so screwy (and it was so predictable anyway). Imagine Toy Story 3, but with Woody dressed in a bikini. Not quite the same gravitas.

Still, I feel bad--I don't mean to put the movie down this much. It was fun. Three stars, remember? But a guy's gotta have something to blog about, and the thing that kept going through my head over and over was this blog post while I was watching the film. Sorry, Rio--just keepin' it real.

Season Two Doldrums: Why So Many Great TV Shows Get Lost

I remember back when Lost was on the air, some of my friends had gotten hooked on Season One, but then got disgusted with Season Two and jumped ship, complaining that the characters no longer felt like they were real people--that they were more like pawns in the hands of the show's creators. That conversation has stuck with me since then, and as I've watched television shows developing in the years since, I think I've seen a pattern developing:

Crappy Season Twos.

In addition to Lost, I've personally seen this pop up in various other series: Angel and Heroes come to mind. Veronica Mars suffered from it somewhat. 24 sort of puttered through some of its later seasons, as did Alias. Buffy had consistent issues with the beginnings of its first three seasons or so. Battlestar Galactica had some bumps toward the front half of season two, as well.

Why is this, you ask?

I have an answer. A theory, at least. It seems to me that television series as we know them are evolving into Something Else. It started with shows like Twin Peaks and the X-Files. Shows that demanded a lot from their viewers. Shows that expected viewers to obsess about them. To follow hints and clues down a rabbit hole of trivia and theories. Buffy and Angel built on this, Alias branched out into other genres--you get the trend. Whereas in the past you had tv shows that were fairly stable (think of MASH or the many Star Treks, for example)--shows where the main characters remained fairly constant, with the main conflict of the show stemming from what adventures those characters fell into next. It's like most of the James Bond movies. Bond never really changes (except the actor playing him). He's suave, collected, full of one liners--he's Bond.

Until Daniel Craig, where suddenly James Bond has a plot arc. He grows. He changes. Do you see the difference? That's what's happening to tv shows. I'm not saying the old style of shows don't exist anymore. You've got plenty of sitcoms full of that style, and you always have Law & Order, CSI and the like. But there's a new niche in town, and it's closer to a really long mini-series than it is to a standard tv show.

But this style of show is still a work in progress. Creators haven't quite figured out how they work just yet, and so often times they have some really rough edges. I'd say it's because this new style of show has three very different stages in its life. Stages that each have their own pitfalls. To me, they seem like the three pieces of a standard fantasy trilogy.

In Book One, you set the stage. You provide interesting characters and conflicts. You establish how the world works, and what makes it unique. This is the Season One of most of these shows. (Sometimes it bleeds into Season Two a tad.) For the most part, these shows do really well with Season One, because that's how they came into existence in the first place: they had a great hook. They knew how to start and capture audiences.

But then comes Book Two. The second part of any trilogy is a tricky beast. You've got to sustain the tension and make it bridge to Book Three without making Book Two seem lame and drawn out. Authors these days know how to do that, but tv shows are different. In books, authors can introduce new characters. They can drastically change the setting, explore new main leads--do all sorts of things to keep it interesting. That's now how it works in a typical tv show, however. You've established who the main characters are. They're all paid by actors who have contracts. You can't abandon your leads. You don't have enough money to start paying brand new actors to get major roles (typically). So all your conflict has to come from the pieces already in play.

This means you have to start mixing things up. Make some characters start doing different things. Have them show that they weren't all they seemed to be in Season One. If your audience really liked how things were in Season One, they can start to feel betrayed by Season Two. Characters you loved are suddenly doing things you hate, and that's a hard pill to swallow--especially when you're forced by the nature of the show to wait for a week to see new content each time. It can kill a series. What's worse, is that by the nature of tv up to now, shows never knew how long their Book Two would last. It might be for a season, it might be for five seasons. You have to somehow keep changing things up without alienating your audience, but also without becoming boring. Good luck with that.

And then of course there's the end. Most people can do a Book Three: the grand finale. You've been building up to a climax, but it's different with television. For one thing, who knows if you ever get your Book Three. You could get canceled (Firefly). You could get the ax midseason. You never know. And even if you do get your shot, you have an audience that has invested *years* into your product. They have very firm ideas of how it should finish. If you don't meet those expectations--or better yet, exceed them--then you'll be accused of ruining everything.

No pressure.

And even if you have everything planned out ahead of time--your whole show's arc ready to go--who knows what the audience's reaction will do to that. Maybe you suddenly discover an actor who's doing great, and everyone wants him to be the new lead, or at least play a main role (ala Ben in Lost). And now you have to accommodate that, which might ruin all your carefully laid plans.

This "new beast" is one of the reasons I think you've seen show creators start turning to fantasy for inspiration. Game of Thrones. True Blood. Prepackaged, multi-arc stories ready and rearing to be adapted to the small screen, if you can weather the ups and downs.

Anyway. I've gone on about this enough. What do you have to say about it? Am I right? Way off base? In either case, I'll be interested to see where television heads next. I've been loving the new style of show, and I look forward to seeing how it further evolves.

Smelting for Fun and . . . Not Really Profit

TRC and I went out last night with a friend to go smelting. I know most of you read that sentence and assumed we started heating up ore in the hopes of extracting metals, and you're wondering what in the world I was thinking, getting my son close to so much hot molten metal. Well, no fear. We were fishing with a net, not melting ore.

Smelts are tiny fish, a couple of inches long. In early spring, they swim in schools upstream to spawn. If you stand with a net and shine a flashlight or headlamp into the water, you can see them swim by and swoop 'em up. Your catch size is limited by the quart--2 quarts of smelt per person. That's a lot of smelt, in case you were wondering. We came home last night with maybe a quart, and it still took forever to clean them all. (Cleaning them involves cutting off the heads and then squeezing the body like a tube of toothpaste to get out the guts. It's fast, but when you've got to do it 200 times, it can get a tad tiresome.) Supposedly the best way to eat them is to bread them and fry them up, tails and all. Denisa's going to try that.

TRC and I really enjoyed ourselves. The smelt didn't start coming in earnest until about 9 or 9:30, and since it was about 40 degrees out by 10:30, I had to take my helper home. (Too bad--it sounds like the smelt really started running twenty minutes after I left. Maybe they didn't like how I smelled.) There were a few other people by us--you smelt on the shore with a long pole with a net at the end, or in the pond if you've got waders (then you use a really big net that you set on the pond floor and lift up when the smelt come by). About 9, a group came along that was pretty drunk and obnoxious. I didn't like that part too much, but them's the breaks.

Basically, it was a great chance to be outside with a friend and my son, enjoying some non-freezing weather and experiencing something new. I'd like to do it again. TRC had a blast--he used the net all on his own to bag a few smelt, and he thought it was fun to have a headlamp on and be able to check out the brook. Not to mention the fact that there was lots of mud for him to squish through in his boots.

So . . . smelting. Assuming Denisa likes to eat them, I think I've found a new yearly tradition (smelt season only lasts a few weeks). That fishing license I bought back in January keeps coming in handy. :-)

Google-Fu: Tips for Searching Google like a Librarian

(I'm double dipping today, using the same post for my Library Blog and my personal blog. Because it's That's Sort of a Day.) I had the pleasure to attend the Maine Academic Library Day this past Friday at Colby College. The keynote speaker was Daniel M. Russell, a Google exec in charge of search quality and user happiness. (Can I just say that Google has some pretty cool titles? 'Cause they do.) Anyway, I've sat through my fair share of keynotes over the years, and this one really stood out from the crowd. He went over all sorts of tips and tricks for getting the most out of your Googling. I will say that most of what he went over was review for me, but it was a really healthy review. (In looking over his web site, he had a post on the Einstellung Effect which I thought was fantastic. So many times as a researcher, it's too easy to get used to using one tool. When  you get really good with a hammer, everything you look at starts looking like a nail. Got a board that needs trimming? Just beat the heck out of it, and eventually it'll be the right length. Get the picture? Being reminded from time to time about the various research tools available to you can be really beneficial.)

Anyway.


Another cool thing I discovered--remember that post I did last week on agoogleaday? Dan was one of the people who set that in motion and got it running. It's not often I do a blog post about something cool online, and then I meet one of the people who contributed directly to that cool thing. Dan was nice enough to leave us with some links to training materials Google uses to teach people how to search more effectively, and since I'm a nice guy, I'm here to share those links with you.


First, a disclaimer. A lot of you are no doubt rolling your eyes, offended that anyone might think you don't know how to do something as simple as *use Google*. But you know what? I'm willing to bet you don't. I don't mean to be offensive, but if I learned a thing or two from this, I'm willing to bet good money you will, too. And don't skip the easy stuff. Don't rush off to "Advanced Lessons," assuming you're good to go on all the basics. One of Dan's points was that there are many basic tricks that the vast majority of people don't know about. For example, to find something on a web page, you can just hit Control + F, which brings up a "find" window in your browser. According to Google's studies, 90% of users don't know they can do that, so when they go to a search result, they end up scanning the page, looking for the word they searched for.


So don't be in a rush. You probably use Google every day. Taking a bit of time to learn how to use it wisely is time well spent. Okay? Here are the links, direct from Dan and endorsed by yours truly:


9 lessons for teaching search: http://www.google.com/educators/p_websearch.html

Google site with a LOT more materials for teaching search skills: https://sites.google.com/site/gwebsearcheducation/ )

Webinars: https://sites.google.com/site/gwebsearcheducation/webinars

And... you can sign up to get intermittent email about teaching
search: http://groups.google.com/group/google-search-education-k-12/subscribe

(And Dan, since I know you have a Google Alert set up on your name, and I'm betting you might end up reading this, can I just say thanks for the great presentation? Really made the day worthwhile for me.)

What am I Doing this Patriot's Day?

It's Patriot's Day today in Maine, which means I don't have to go to work. Why do we celebrate this holiday? To commemorate the battles of Lexington and Concord. So first off, thanks to the British, for making this holiday possible. I suppose to celebrate, I really ought to be joining the Tea Party or something, but I think I'll pass this year.

Instead, I'm going on a hike. To a waterfall somewhere. And maybe have a cookout.

I'd get a bunch of stuff done around the house, but I had the bright idea of starting a stone wall on Saturday. Denisa and I got a fair bit of it done, and then my back reminded me that it's really not into lifting heavy rocks for long periods of time. Mustn't make the back angry. So no big chores today.

I need to get some writing done, but I have no idea what I'll write. I suppose I'll work some on Tarnhelm, since the Q&A is done, the next edit for Vodnik isn't here yet, and I have no idea what else I'd write about.

This was a fascinating blog post, I know. Basically, just a long way of saying "Have fun working today, suckers. I've got the day off."

:-)

How Did You Become a Writer?

I'm still working my way through the Q&A my publisher has provided me with, so I thought I'd share another answer today. How I became a writer:

I first tried writing a book when I was in third grade. It was a time-travel fantasy, and I was really proud of it at the time. (I still have a copy, actually—I even posted it to my website, just for fun.) I’ve loved to read since I was little, although writing was sometimes a bit rockier. (In fact, my eighth grade English teacher encouraged me to gravitate more toward math or science, since he didn’t think I was up to the task of taking advanced English. That might be one of the reasons I ended up heading deeper into the subject—I’ve always loved a challenge.)

I wrote some attempts at novels in high school, but I never had the stamina to keep at it for very long. Writing a book is a long process, and you need to really be dedicated to it. There are times when it’s very difficult work, and if you give up, you’ll never get very far. But if you can push through those difficult times, it can be a blast.

When I got to college, I decided I wanted to be more serious about writing. I signed up for a creative writing class taught by Dave Wolverton. I really enjoyed it—loved hearing Dave talk about the experiences he’d had as a successful fantasy author. (That same class had several other students who went on to become professional authors, including Brandon Sanderson and Dan Wells.) However, as much as I loved it, I ended up getting a B+ in the class. I know it sounds silly looking back at it, but at the time, I took that as a sign that creative writing wasn’t for me. I felt like I didn’t have enough talent to succeed, so I gave up. I put away my books and focused on studying literature instead of writing it.

That was the plan, at least. The problem was I couldn’t stay away. I just had to keep writing.

A year later, I took another creative writing class—this one focused on general literature, not science fiction and fantasy. I liked it, but my short stories all ended up being really depressing. I’d write about divorces or life crises. I loved writing, but I didn’t love the end result. When I took a Writing for Young Readers class from Louise Plummer, all of that changed. Suddenly I was enjoying what I was writing: a novel about a teenage girl who gets sucked into an alternate world full of talking keys, rumor magic and evil machinations. My writing wasn’t great, but Louise kept encouraging me, and I kept at it.

When I started my English Masters program at Brigham Young University, Brandon Sanderson entered the program at the same time. He and I both taught Freshman Composition, and I mentioned in passing to him that I was writing fantasy books. At the time, he had just signed a contract for Elantris to be published in a year and a half or so. He was looking for writing group members, and he invited me to join. Suddenly, I was around other people who were serious about their writing. Brandon writes like a machine—he cranks out words and approaches it like a business. We’re talking millions of words. Still a fan of a challenge, I followed his example—not managing millions of words (I was still writing young adult fantasy, after all—not epic), but finishing six novels. I would write 1,000 words a day, every day. It was excellent training, and I’ve been doing it ever since.

How about you. How did you become a writer? (Or how did you choose your career, if you're not a writer?) Do share!

I'm Thinkin' Arby's

The last time I ate at Arby's--that I can recall--I was in Utah on summer vacation, hanging out with my cousins. At the time, Arby's seemed ideal. Lots of meat, low price, and cool curly fries. I think I got something like 4 sandwiches and ate them all, and I enjoyed the fries. Mission successful.

Of course, that was something like fourteen years ago, so apparently the mission wasn't *that* successful, at least from an Arby's marketing standpoint. But still, I remembered two basic things: roast beef and curly fries. So when I was out and about on the road yesterday, and my boss and I couldn't find anywhere else to eat, I decided to give Arby's another shot.

Big mistake.

I had a medium something or other--whatever their standard sandwich is. It arrived looking vaguely pancake-ular, with two squished, soggy pieces of bread bookending a big mound o' roast beef, topped with globs of what supposedly was melted "cheese" at some point in its life, with a bit of what I hope was barbecue sauce splatted haphazardly through the rest of the thing. I should have looked at it a bit longer, since that sandwich was going to be with me for the next twenty hours of my life or so. I finished eating it, and it felt like my stomach was heavy enough to anchor a small boat.

The curly fries were okay.

In any case, I have no idea how this store is still open. The only reason I would *ever* want to "think Arby's" was to use the store's names in creative similes that would inevitably end up as foul and rancid as Arby's cheese sauce.

Next time, I think I'll just go hungry.

Thanks, Arby's!

So Long, Angel. Hello, Starbuck! Battlestar Galactica Begins

Denisa and I have put Angel into cold storage for the time being, moving on to something less broody. I'd heard wonderful things about Battlestar Galactica, and it's on streaming in HD through Netflix, so I figured we'd give it a shot. Denisa did have to be persuaded some that she wanted to watch it, but I had to do some persuading back with Buffy at the beginning, too. I'm a good persuader. We're eight episodes in now, and loving it. In fact, the two parter focused on Starbuck--her getting stranded on that moon and her coming clean with her involvement in her fiancee's death--was some of the best television I've watched in a long time. Really well done. If the whole series can keep that up, I'll be ecstatic. If it can keep even half of it up, I'll still be very pleased. Fans of the show--what can I expect ahead? (NO SPOILERS, PLEASE!!!)

When I was in Utah this past summer, I had the chance to play the board game version of the TV show (linked from the picture above). I really enjoyed it, and I've been even more surprised to find out how well the board game captures the feel of the show. (For those of you who don't know, the premise of BSG is that robotic cyborgs have all but destroyed humanity. They look and feel human, and they're hell-bent on finishing their master plan, whatever that is. Humanity's reduced to a small fleet running for its lives. Some members of that small fleet are cyborgs. They know that, but they have no idea who is and who isn't. Very paranoid, and full of cool.) Anyway, I'm liking the board game even more in retrospect. I might have to go and purchase it, if I can find three or four local people willing to learn the rules and play it. It's definitely on the more extreme end of the board game rule spectrum, although I was playing it with expansions added already. Actually, if you all could just go ahead and buy that game for me, that would be great. Click the ad, buy it from Amazon, send it to me. :-)  I wonder if I could ever get to the point where I review things that people send me for free. That would be awesome.

In any case, that's all the time I have for today. I'm off to a meeting in Portland.

Faith and Metaphor: A Long, Rambling Post by Yours Truly

I've been following the production of The Book of Mormon: The Musical with great interest, primarily because I'm always interested to see how outsiders perceive Mormons. From what I gather, the musical pokes fun at Mormons--but at least it's poking fun at things we actually believe, as opposed to stereotypes that just are play wrong. But that's not what today's post is about.

As I've been reading the comments of the creators of that musical, something clicked in my head. They were comments that mirrored many of the remarks people made about Mitt Romney when he was running for president a few years ago. Here's one random quote that illustrates the sentiment:

While disputing the validity of the faith, Lopez (one of the creators of the musical) also acknowledged its inherent good. “It’s such a load of baloney,” he said, “But people believe in it so strongly, and their lives are demonstrably changed for the good by it.”

In other words, Mormonism is crazy as all get out, but its end result is good people, so I guess that's okay. Slate Magazine said this during Mitt Romney's run:

One may object that all religious beliefs are irrational—what's the difference between Smith's "seer stone" and the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea? But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud.

So it's okay to be religious if you're believing things that happened thousands of years ago, but believing that God and angels still appear to people in recent history must mean you're an absolute lunatic.

The sad thing is, some religious people seem to be agreeing more and more with this sentiment. (BIG DISCLAIMER: I'm not aiming this at any religion in particular. In fact, I don't even have one in mind. I'm just talking about the general feel I've gotten from reading a variety of articles and commentaries over the past few years.) Religious people seem to be turning to scripture more for the metaphor of it than for actual belief in it.

I understand the appeal. It's a lot easier on you if Christ was talking about metaphors. If Satan isn't an actual being, and heaven and hell are states of mind, not actual locations. You don't have to worry about any conflicts with current scientific findings. You don't have to defend your beliefs to anyone--because you're just endorsing good morals, or proper choices, or healthy living. But to me, that's religion without the teeth. You might as well pick a favorite movie and live by its precepts. I could found a "religion" based on the teachings of Groundhog Day or The Princess Bride pretty easily. Heck--people have already started some for Star Wars. And if "religions" like this get people to do good things, then what's the harm in it, right?

If God doesn't exist, and it really all *is* a bunch of baloney, then there is no harm. But if He does exist, then it detracts from true religion. It cheapens the faith of millions of people.

It's easy these days to have a whole lot of faith in science, and not a lot of faith in religion. People are getting smarter. We know about cool things like atoms and quarks and relativity and evolution. We know how immense the universe is, and we've got things like genetics to keep us occupied. And since we know so much, it becomes more and more laughable to believe in God. You might as well say publicly that you believe in the Easter Bunny.

Then again, I think it's right at the moments when you start having so much faith in your own knowledge and understanding that you might be in need of God the most, too. Let me put it this way: I've always thought I've known a lot. I've always thought of myself as well-informed. Even when I was in grade school, I thought I had it all down. I'd be willing to go so far as to say that's a trait of humanity. We always want to think we know everything. Go back in time a hundred years, and people would believe that. Go back to the Egyptians, and I think they'd believe that, too. Jump forward a thousand years, and we'll still believe it. Despite the fact that science will have progressed so much further. That "truths" that seemed so solid at one point (flat earth, helio-centric universe, blood letting) now are laughed at.

My point is that human knowledge changes. All the time. Scientists can't even decide whether it's better for babies to sleep on their stomachs or their backs. So turning to science for proof of anything as enormous as the existence of God seems sort of like using crayons to design a new form of life.

Either God exists, or He doesn't. If He does, then science can say all it wants, and that won't change that fact. If God doesn't exist, then all the theologians in the world can shout that He does, and it won't change it, either. If He does exist, then true religion should be an effort not to find a harmonious lifestyle, but to find out who God is, and what His will for us is. But that's a post for another day.

For now, I just want to say that I don't believe religion is a metaphor. I personally don't believe Christ was just a good guy with some good ideas about peace and harmony. I literally believe he was and is the son of God. And I literally believe that He and God appeared to Joseph Smith in the early 1800s. It's not some feel good story to me to get me to make good decisions and pay my taxes. I believe we live after we die, and choices we make in this life affect our lives in the hereafter. But again--all of that is a post for another day.

I'm not writing this post to persuade you Mormonism is true. I'm writing to say that faith--any faith in God--isn't just a metaphor.

And I don't think I'm irrational to believe that.

Bryce Moore: Personal Website Revised!

After quite a bit of revision and effort, I'm happy to announce that the new version of my website is up and running. I'll be adding more to it in the months ahead, but for now, it has all the content my (very) old website had, along with some compiled information on Vodnik--mainly through links to blog entries.

Anyway--now that it's done, I can turn my attention back to that questionnaire I'm supposed to be filling out for Vodnik, and then it'll be on to my next round of revisions. Sorry there's not much of an entry for today. Most of my time has been taken up with putting the final touches on this web revision. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have. If anything's confusing or irritating about it, let me know! (And if you happen to like anything, that's always welcome, too. (-:  )

Check it out.

Happy Monday, all!

Book Review: Wise Man's Fear

The Wise Man's Fear by Patrick Rothfuss

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The Name of the Wind was one of the biggest things to happen in fantasy in recent years, making a huge splash on the scene, and propelling Patrick Rothfuss from newcomer to fantasy star. But you have to sort of wonder anytime an author has a breakout book--will he be able to do it again? After all, often with first books, the author has had years (sometimes even decades) to work on that one book. There are such things as one hit wonders, and I always worry that the first book in a series will then go on to pull a Matrix, with each subsequent book just proving that the lightning captured in the first was just a fluke.

So. Wise Man's Fear--the second book in Rothfuss's series. Would it be Name of the Wind: Revolutions, or The Name of the Wind Strikes Back?

I'm ecstatic and relieved to be able to report that it's a fantastic read. Easily as good as the first--likely better. It's books like these that bring new fans to the genre. It's got all the hallmarks of a great epic fantasy: engrossing characters, fully-realized world, complicated politics and intrigue, awesome magic system. The works.

Really the only question to ask yourself is what you thought of Book One. If you loved it, read on. If you didn't . . . we can't be friends anymore. :-) If you haven't read it yet, then what are you waiting for? It really is that good.





View all my reviews

Help Save Angel: Somebody Convince Me to Keep Watching

Dear Angel,

First off, I wanted to say how I think you're totally cool and all. Really noble, in a pained sort of never-know-when-you'll-turn-evil sort of way. So go you! But that said, I'm sorry. Things just aren't working out with us. I've given you 29 episodes, and I know you have like 80 more to offer me, but I don't know if I want to keep watching you.

What's the matter? You're just too darned broody. Nothing but mope mope mope, all day long. At least in Season One, you had Cordelia to inject a bit of light and fun into things, but now you've gone and given her a plot arc that made her grow up and mature, and . . . she's becoming boring, too. And don't get me started on your buddy Wesley. I didn't like him in Buffy, and you dragged him back for your own series. Snoozeville.

Last night, I found myself watching the episode all about Darla's history, and I kept wondering what else I could be watching. Maybe we should just call it quits. If you don't have anything other than doom and gloom to offer, then you go your way and I'll go mine. But if you get better--more interesting, less self-absorbed--than could you please let me know? And if you can't let me know personally, then if one of your friends could leave a comment telling me why I shouldn't give up on you, that would work, too.

Because I want to like you. But you're making it hard on me.

Thanks.

Bryce

How to Buy Tickets to Europe, Cheap: 2011 Edition

If you follow me on Facebook or Twitter, then you already know I bought my tickets to Slovakia yesterday evening. I'd been watching ticket prices for the past two months, and I finally found a deal worth snapping up. When you find these deals, you have to act quickly. Yesterday evening was a six hour marathon of planning departure dates, coordinating times, checking various airfares, and reading a bunch of fine print. But after all that, I got a wicked good deal on the flight. Read on to find out how.

Step one of getting a good airfare to Europe is to be able to realize what a good airfare is. You need to know how much the tickets cost for the time you want to fly, or else you'll have no idea if you're getting a steal or the airline's stealing from you. So I start by looking at prices for the ideal airports: in this case, Portland to Bratislava. Right now, that prices is $1600 for the travel dates Denisa and I wanted.

Of course, I suppose it would help for you to know what search tool to use when looking for European flights. My old reliable these days is Kayak. It's versatile, easy to use, and it searches a ton of sites, all at once. Of course, I don't typically BUY the ticket through Kayak, but I'm not buying anything at this point--I'm just exploring price options. Kayak usually does a good job of including taxes and fees in with their listed price--that's not always a given with many airfare search engines, and it makes accurately comparing prices a real beast. Nothing's worse than feeling like you've found The Ticket, only to discover that there's a $250 booking fee, gas fee, tax, airport security fee, etc. So stick to Kayak, and try to resist the siren's song of other sites. They're just trying to trick you.

Another important note is that if you're going to fly to Europe, going in the summer is a Bad Choice. In fact, it's pretty much the Worst Choice. Fall would be great. Late winter is also good. Spring is okay. Summer? Very bad. How bad? Try 2-3 times as much. If I were looking for this flight in fall, my expectations of a good fare would be dramatically different. Hence the need to know a ballpark figure for how much tickets at that time are going to cost. (Kayak also has a feature where it will show you what the ticket prices have been doing for the past few months--going up, going down--based on purchase date and travel dates. Very handy for historical research.)

Anyway. I'd done all that legwork ahead of time, and I knew that a few months ago, the tickets were around $1200. Now they were up to $1600. Unrest in Libya and the Middle East is a beast when it comes to plane tickets. Bottom line: ticket prices were going up. There's always a chance they'll come down up until about a month before you're leaving, but it's risky to wait too long. A month before your departure date, ticket prices spike up. So buying early is good. But not too early--I usually shoot for about 3-4 months out. I could probably wait for 2 months out, too--but I get too nervous, and I've usually found a good price by then, anyway.

$1600 for a family of four comes to $6400, and that was officially too much. So now that I have a baseline, the goal becomes getting that ticket for as cheap as possible. The first step is the easy one: find alternate airports. Not a whole lot of people fly in or out of Portland or Bratislava. Lots of people fly in and out of Boston and Vienna. Boston is an extra two hours from Portland. Vienna's an extra hour or so. So it will mean longer travel times, more hassle, but potential big savings. In my case, it brought the price down to $1300/ticket. $5200 total. That's a savings of $1200, just for a bit more hassle. If it were a short trip, maybe it's not worth it. For a long trip, I think it's a no-brainer.

But still: $5200? That's expensive. And we can go lower. The trick with Europe is that they have really cheap airfares for flying from one European city to another. They nickel and dime you to death on baggage fees and other ticky tack stuff, but if you're willing to fly spartan, then it can save you money. The trick is getting to Europe. Kayak has this excellent tool called Buzz. You put in your departure airport, the month you plan to travel, and the continent you're flying to, and Kayak shows you the cheapest fares to cities in that area. You're not guaranteed to get those cheap prices--but it gives you an idea of what deals there are to where. In my case, I discovered that Iceland Express was doing a sale to London right now for $650 and up per ticket. Searching for the specific dates, and I found tickets for $800/person.

That's a pretty darn good price. But it's far from a lock. See, getting to London won't do me much good if I can't get a flight from London to my ultimate destination (Vienna). And not just from London: from the right airport in London. (If you really want to save money, you can try to switch airports, but do you really want to do that to yourself? It's a personal call. If you're single, maybe. If you have small children . . . not so much.) So I moved on to the next phase: searching for fares from London to Vienna.

At this point, BE VERY CAUTIOUS. Your safety net is gone. You need to make sure your layover will be enough to give you wiggle room. You don't want to have a flight delay make it so you miss your connection. Since you're not booking through all the way on the same airline, the airlines don't need to feel sorry for you and change tickets to ensure you make your destination. So be careful.

In this case, I found a budget airline that flew from the right airport at the right time (4 hour layover in London) for $200/person (including their baggage fees and other fee garbage). So now I'm down to $1000/ticket, $4000 total. Overall savings of $2400. Things are looking up. But when you're deep in the throes of cheap airfare searching, you don't just stop there, my friends.

You keep pressing forward.

At this point, $1000 a ticket was an okay price. I could live with it, but it's a huge hassle, and I wasn't sure there wouldn't be something better coming along in the next few weeks. But this is where I busted out my ace in the hole: children airfares. Some (not all) European airlines will give you a discount on international fares if you're a child (3-11). They'll give an even better discount if you're an infant (0-2). I have no infants in my house anymore, but I do have the kidlets. Kayak won't show you these discounts: you have to leave and start poking around the individual airline sites to find them.

Iceland Express does the discounts. To a tune of $500/child, including taxes and fees. A bit of quick calculation later, and I found myself looking at the total cost of $3400. Divide that by four, and it averages out to $850/person. Total savings: $3000.

We have a winner. Since we were flying through London, I gave us a five day layover on the way back, because hey--free trip to London. And since we're flying into Vienna, why not have a short stay there on the way out? I'll be getting all of that, and still be paying less than I would for a Portland to Bratislava flight. Much less. Oh--and Denisa's $3600 dental bill? It'll be more like $850 tops in Slovakia. So yes, we'll be paying a fair bit this summer for vacations and dentists, but we'll be paying much less than I thought we would.

I am very pleased. Six hours of search time, $3000 saved. That means my search effort earned me about $500/hour. #winning

Anyway--there you have it. If you have any questions, ask away. I'm happy to give advice.

So What Happens When You Go Bankrupt?

First of all, a big fat disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Not even sort of a lawyer. What follows is based on some conversations I've had with bankruptcy lawyers, and it's limited by my memory. I asked the questions because there seemed to be some interest from my faithful readers in hearing more about the "get out of debt . . . or else" topic that came up a while back. Some had wondered what happens when you go bankrupt. Why is it so bad? After talking to several people, I discovered there seems to be some wildly differing ideas on the process, so I thought it might be useful to go over what I learned. Ready? Here we go.

Let's set the stage first. You're in debt up to your eyeballs, although maybe you've been doing a fair job of hiding it. You've got several credit cards--all maxed out--you've got student debt, two mortgages, a car loan or two, you're behind on your utilities payments, and you're basically at the point where you have to decide which bills to pay each month, based on how overdue they all are. That said, your actual life hasn't changed all that much yet. You're still buying things when you can, still living in your home, still driving your car. You're on the edge, but you haven't gone under.

Then, it happens. You have an unforeseen debt pop up. Maybe the car engine goes, or you have damage to your home, or some unexpected dental bills--but in any case, you're no longer on the edge. You're now getting phone calls from creditors, and since you were already on the edge to begin with, you start sliding into real crisis.

What can happen? For one thing, your creditors will be in a rush to garnish your bank accounts and your salary. What does that mean? It means that if you owe people money, they can contact your employer or bank and tell them, "Hey--we know you owe this person some money, but he owes us money. From now on, we want you to pay us X% of whatever he makes, or give us X% of his bank account funds." Yes, they can do this to you. Yes, they will do this to you. At this point, everyone you owe money to is realizing you're likely going to go under, and it turns into a big game of Hungry Hungry Hippos to see who can gobble up what they can while it's still there for gobbling.

Up until now, you've been able to make sure that what money you make goes to things you actually really care about: your car, or your house, or your XBox Live subscription. But once your wages start getting garnished, that freedom goes out the window. You now are forced to pay some bills, and your other creditors start gathering the torches and pitchforks to come after you, as well. You are now in real danger of losing things you really value.

It gets to the point where you really are in trouble, and there's just no way you're going to stay afloat anymore. So you start looking into filing for bankruptcy. As an individual, there are two "chapters" you can file under. Chapter 13 is where you work with a central figure to pay off a certain amount of your debt over the next three or five years, with clearly established monthly payments. At the end of that time, then you're back in the clear. It's the preferable Chapter, for the most part. Once you file, all those nasty creditor phone calls go away, and you get some protection.

Of course, if you've made it far enough to need to file for Chapter 13, chances are you really haven't learned your budgeting lessons. You make the payments required for a month or two--maybe even a year. But old habits are hard to break, and sooner or later, you start getting behind again. You miss your bankruptcy payments, and your "protection" goes away. Creditors start clamoring again, and it's time for the final step: Chapter 7.

Chapter 7 essentially consists of liquidating your assets. In order to have your debts discharged, you need You're allowed by law to keep a certain amount of money for your assets, depending on state exemptions. For example, if your state has an exemption for cars of $3000, and you have a car that's worth $10,000, then your car will likely be sold, and you will get $3000 for it, with the other $7000 going to the people you owe money to. This same principle usually applies to home equity, as well--your house can be sold, but you're entitled to a portion of that equity, depending on the state exemptions. Non-exempt property will be sold to pay back your debts. It all depends on how much you owe, how much you own, and how it will be handled. Many Chapter 7 filings end up not selling off any property, because it's all under the exemption threshold.

In Maine, $5000 of a single car is exempt; $47,500 of a home if you have no dependents; $95,000 of a home if you do. You can find all this information online.

Anyway, it's more complicated than I'm making it, but hey--I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to illustrate what can happen. Basically, if you're forced to file for Chapter 7, then you'll emerge from it with some money for basic house and car, and most other debts wiped clean. (Student debt, tax debt, and some other debt isn't wiped--you have to pay those back eventually) Of course, getting any credit for the next while will be difficult, and you'll pay a lot for the credit you do get. So don't expect credit cards in your near future.

What it boils down to from my perspective is that you can either choose to start living within your means now, or you will be forced to live within your means later. And for a good year or two of your life--maybe more--you will not have a very pleasant experience. Then again, this is just from what I've read. I've never gone through bankruptcy--I suppose I might be painting it as being worse than it is. Heck--maybe I'm portraying it as too lenient.

Anyone have anything to add? Any questions? Discuss away!

How did the Idea for My Novel (Vodnik) Originate?

My editor's sent me a ginormous questionnaire that my publisher has its authors fill out in order to help them market the book. Since I'm back in writing limbo (not really enough time--I think--to work on a different project, but no current work to be done on Vodnik), I've been using my writing time to answer their questions. There are a few answers that I think would interest my faithful blog readers, so I thought I'd take the time to post my response to one of them today. I might post more responses in the future, depending on if I think you'd like to see them. Anyway--the prompt for this questions is "How did the idea for this story originate? What interested you about the material? What inspired you?" My answer turned out to be a tad long--sort of like asking for the time and getting the history of the clock. I'd say I like to hear myself speak, but that doesn't quite work for the written word. Here you go:

I know that typically it’s really hard for authors to say where they got the ideas for their books, but that isn’t the case for me and this novel. I can pinpoint many of the exact dates and places where the ideas came to me. For example, it all started November 2, 2000. 

I actually ended up writing this book because my first choice for a date had to cancel on me. I had tickets to a concert in Salt Lake for November 4, and a few days before, my date had something come up. So I was scrambling at the last minute to find someone else to go with me, but everyone I asked already had plans. On a lark, I asked a girl who sat near me in my German phonetics class: Denisa Križanová. I’d been in a couple of study groups with her, but I didn’t know her that well. Only that she was from Slovakia, which sounded wonderfully foreign.

Six months later, we got married.

It was always very important to me that we travel to Slovakia so I could get to know her family and see where she grew up. The first time I saw Trenčín Castle, I was blown away by it. I had just started writing books in earnest, and it seemed like a wonderful setting that I could use at some point in the future. I’d lived for two years in former East Germany, and I’d also been fascinated by the way formerly-Communist countries were handling the transition to the next phase in their histories. Slovakia was in the same boat.

One of the places in the town that stood out to me the most that first trip was also one of the most unassuming: a fountain in the shape of a small man perched in a well, water spouting out of his mouth in an endless stream. I asked Denisa what it was supposed to be, and she told me about vodníks for the first time. The basics are simple: according to legend, vodníks are little green men (green skin, green hair, green suits) that live in the water. They fill their days by waiting to trick villagers into getting drowned, then the vodníks steal their souls and keep them in lidded teacups.

So many aspects of the creature seemed strange: teacups, dripping water, green hair? Then again, when you think about it, our own creatures from folklore are just as strange. Why silver bullets for werewolves? And why garlic for vampires? What was most strange was that they had a fountain dedicated to a soul-stealing creature right in the middle of the town, and children came to play in it. (Though again, we have Count Count on Sesame Street, so maybe it isn’t so strange, after all.) Even stranger, Denisa insisted that vodníks weren’t really all that sinister. They were mischievous, but they weren’t evil in the same way vampires are evil. Creatures in Slovak folktales aren’t “evil” or “good”—they just are. It’s the humans who can be evil or good. Vodníks do what they do not from some innate desire to be wicked or mean—that’s just who they are. In any case, the creature’s mythology crept into my head then and made itself comfortable. I couldn’t forget it.

My second novel took place in Slovakia in the 1600s. There was a countess who lived not far from Trenčín: Countess Bathory. She’s now regarded as one of the worst serial killers in history, having purportedly killed hundreds of girls in her area, then bathing in their blood so she could stay young forever. A real winner, and one of the historical figures that served as the models for Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but a person who really wasn’t that notorious in America. I decided to make her the main villain of the book, and I have her a sidekick vodník, sinister and evil. The main character was a minor noble, a teenager named Katarina—Katka for short. That book never quite worked for me: the tone was too dark for my typical style, and I found I did better when my main characters could be contemporary, so I set it aside and went on to other projects, hoping to find a way to use some of it at some point in the future.

When it came time for my eighth book (in 2006), I initially wanted to write a book about a haunted house. However, as I brainstormed what sort of house it could be, I found myself gravitating toward making it a haunted castle, instead. I mean—why have a house when you could have a castle? And then as I worked with the castle idea, it all suddenly clicked: this shouldn’t just be some castle, it should be Trenčín Castle. I turned back to my old Bathory book and looked at it for some ideas. (Never miss a chance to steal ideas from yourself.) Like I said, the medieval setting hadn’t worked for me before, so I decided to set it in the modern day this time around. The original plan was to have the main character live at the castle, with the main conflict focused on freeing a girl who was trapped inside a tree at the castle. The girl’s name was Lesana (les is the Slovak word for forest, hence the choice of name).

To get an overview of various folktales I wanted to use in the book, Denisa and I called up her brother, Miloš, who knows pretty much every Slovak folktale known to man. Through that conversation and further research, I started drifting away from the haunted tree idea (thank goodness—it hadn’t been working, anyway) and toward a book which drew heavily on Slovak mythology and folktales.

Anyway—that’s where the core idea for Vodník came from. The actual writing of it proved to be a much more difficult journey than any of my other books had been, but that’s a story for another day.

Snow Day! (And the Revenge of the Dentist)

Yes, it's April 1. And yes, it's a raging blizzard outside. And you know what? I love it. Especially the gift of a snow day this late in the year. Sure, TRC will have to make up the day later on in the year, but such is life. At least I won't have to make it up. :-)

And on more somber news, Denisa's appointment with destiny the dentist came and went. Verdict? $3600 of tooth repair that needs to be done this year. Insurance could cover $1000 of that, but you don't need to be a math major to figure out that's $2600 we'd need to find somewhere to get her teeth into shape. She needs a bridge replaced and a new crown. I swear--sometimes the woman seems like she's got her heart set on becoming royalty. Bridges? Crowns? Of course, give her a few more years, and her mouth will be worth a king's ransom. :-)

So . . . Slovakia is back in the cards. She's figuring out how much the work would cost in Slovakia, and when we could go. Good thing I was looking at our finances for the start of the month and we look like we can afford it. Book deals help with things like that, as does bread baking. Although perhaps we won't be building staircases into my garage attic this year, after all.

Such is life.

Anyway, suckers. Enjoy work while you're there and I'm not. And Happy April Fools! I hear Gmail has a new motion interface. Check it out!