I've been hearing things here or there about the racism in the new Transformers movie.  And while I wouldn't make as big a deal about it as some, there is a really good case to be made there.

And I'm not talking about Mudflap and Skids, the Autobot twins.  I didn't find them as remotely as offensive as others seem to have.  I'm not saying I cared a lot for their characters.  Too broad.  Too goofy.  And even their design was (I believe) unintentionally racist.  Although, really, is this because having big teeth and big ears a "black" thing or a "funny" thing?  And that kind of opens the whole door to stereotypes and perception that make up our world.  Ideas so ingrained that they are practically invisible to most people.  It's a deep subject, and one I can't really tackle.  Plenty of smarter people than me have commented on this subject in general, so I suggest you go find one of them and listen to what they have to say.

No, this is about Transformers 2.  This is about a movie that is so broad in its humor and writing that, by virtue of the complete absence of forethought from its creators, it ends up having accidental racist undertones.  And I do believe they're accidental, although this isn't an excuse.  Maybe once I could forgive.  Twice, I could overlook.  But there's a point where it's hard to make excuses.

I have very little problem with Skids and Mudflap.  Probably because they, like nearly every other Transformer in the film, are relegated to bit players.  They really don't get enough screen time to be offensive.  Although they do get more than nearly any other Transformer in the film, which just goes to show how this film kind of went off track somewhere.  NOTE TO FILM PRODUCERS: People go to giant robot movies to watch giant robots.

In the end, the twin Autobots are redeemable.  Their broad personalities aside (and pretty much everyone in this film has a broad personality anyway) they actually are good guys.  And not the Meesa-Be-A-Friggin-Moron JarJar Binks kind of good guy.  They actually fight Devastator and manage to do a halfway decent job of it until the movie decides that thirty seconds of robot-on-robot action is apparently too much for a movie that is all about robot-on-robot action.  NOTE TO FILM PRODUCERS: a fight, robocentric or not, is not over until someone has either been defeated or escaped.

So let's leave the Twins out of this.  You can throw the Twins at me all you want, and I'll just say, "So what?"  If the worst thing you can say about Transformers 2 is that two robots from outer space, who probably learned their behavior from a culture already filled with cliches and stereotypes, are somewhat racist if you want to look at it that way, then I'd agree, but not really think much of it.

No, the racism in Transformers 2 is much more subtle than that.  And when I say subtle, I really mean, not subtle at all.

Nearly every non-white, non-American character is there for comic relief.  And always, the insertion is completely unnecessary.  In other words, the writers had to think these were good ideas and that these ideas were so good that they were worth inserting into an already overlong film.

Chief among these is, of course, the Latino sidekick.  Imagine Anthony Anderson's character from the first film, but without any appreciable skills or even the ability to behave like a semi-rational human being.  At no point do we understand why this sidekick is tagging along other than to gape and moan and otherwise act like a moron because Unicron forbid we remove an unnecessary human character in a robot movie that already has way too many human characters.  NOTE TO FILM PRODUCERS:  Robots can be bankable stars.  And since they're just special effects, you can really milk them for all their worth and not worry about them saying bad things about your movie.  Optimus Prime is not a diva.

Or how about a border guard who doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.  He's not an obstacle.  Our heroes drive right past his checkpoint.  They don't outwit him.  They don't bully past him.  They just exchange a few words and go on their merry way.  Now, this might not be so bad except that A) it adds another unneeded scene to a movie that is already too long and B) he's short!  Yes, that's right.  Because if there's another group of people who don't get mocked enough, it's the vertically challenged!  Take that, short people!  You've had it too easy too long!  NOTE TO FILM PRODUCERS: Short people buy movie tickets.

And there's the funny looking foreign guy in the butcher shop.  Look!  He's funny!  He's generically foreign!  Why is he funny?  I'm not sure other than foreign people are funny.

And, really, that's the problem.  Transformers 2 isn't racist.  It isn't short-ist.  It isn't even insensitive.  It's just plain blind.  And that's worse.  Because if you're deliberately racist, then at least you're committed.  At least, you're sort of being honest.  And at least you're deliberately offending people, mocking them because you genuinely don't like them or what they stand for.

This is not the case with Transformers 2.  I doubt it ever once entered anyone's mind to tone it down a bit.  Well, it probably did enter someone's mind.  Films are a collaborative effort.  But these folks were probably quickly shouted down.  I can see the exchange now.

"Hey, guys, I know you think this is funny, but do we really need to have the border guard be short?  I mean, he should be dark-skinned and Middle Eastern, but does he have to be, like, tiny short?"

"What?  There really are very short people, aren't there?"

"Well, yeah, but you kind of make him look like an idiot."

"Well some short people are idiots, right?"

"I suppose."

"Well, there you go.  It's not stereotypical.  It's just real life.  Anyway, the scene is funny.  We need a funny scene here."

"Yeah, but why is it funny?"

"Because he's short.  Get it!  He's short and a border guard!"

"Being short isn't really that funny."

"What are you talking about?  Short people are funny.  Everyone knows that.  And short, foreign people are even funnier."

"Couldn't that be construed as a little insensitive?"

"Well, I don't honestly know how it could be.  But just to be safe, why don't we add a Latino character to the good guys' side?  He'll be like this wheeler-dealer.  And he'll mug for the camera.  That should even things out!"

At this point, the objector just admits defeat and walks away, sobbing.

The entire thing reminds me of my beloved comic books, where most of the writers and editors are so self-assured that nothing they write could be considered offensive or racist that they're completely unwilling to listen to any suggestions otherwise.  They're so certain of this that they even ignore complaints or don't take steps to avoid them.  In comics, it's largely sexism that's the problem.  Though racism gets plenty of play as well.

Strangely, in Transformers 2, sexism really isn't a big thing.  Sure, Megan Fox is in it.  And she's pretty.  And the film reminds us of that on a constant basis, but this is no different than Arnold Schwartzenneger running around with his beefy oiled up chest in Conan the Barbarian or Mathew McConneghy's (didn't spellcheck that) contractual obligation to display his killer abs for at least 20 percent of any movie he is in.  And Megan Fox's character is never once the damsel in distress.  Most the time, she carries the more traditional action hero role while Shia LeBuff (ditto spellcheck) mugs.  While Arcee doesn't get much screen time this goes back to the unwritten rule of Transformers 2 which states "Don't do too much robot stuff."  NOTE TO FILM PRODUCERS: When you create a cool motorcycle triplet bot butt-kicking robot from outer space, it's probably worth it to give her more than two lines of dialogue and perhaps a smidgeon of character development.

What's the verdict then?  Is Transformers 2 racist?  Again, I say no.  It's just oblivious.  And, to be honest, this is a step forward.  There was a time when only white guys with prosthetic teeth who squinted were allowed to play "Chinamen" on television.  There was a time when the notion of a Latin man and a caucasain woman was almost too ludicrious to base a TV show on.  And there was a time when it was controversial to suggest that non-white males could actually save the day.

But that time has passed, and a film like Transformers 2, which wouldn't have been remotely offensive to most people in the long, long, long ago decades of . . . oh, say the 70's is now turning heads.  And it's making some folks uncomfortable.  While I'm not often to pull out the racism card, I had to wince when one more "funny, foreign" guy was trotted out.

We're not expecting any miracles, but we are expecting some forethought, a little bit of awareness.  I'm not suggesting anyone write via focus group or political correctness.  But I am suggesting that if you are going to offend someone, at least know you're doing it.

Fighting the good fight, Writing the good write,

LEE  

Hey, everybody.  As a struggling comic book fan, I find it more and more difficult to discover comics worth reading.  But there’s still stuff out there worth checking out, and more and more, it’s found in the All Ages rack of your local comic book store.

While most of Marvel’s mainstream offerings are dull and / or wretched, not everything produced by this comic book giant is terrible.  Some of it is both fun and impressive in both its storytelling technique and subtlety.  That’s right.  I’m saying it right here, for the record, that Marvel’s kid’s comics are far more interesting and nuanced than anything going on in their so-called more mature comics.

But today’s recommendation is mostly fun.  It’s a digest compilation of four issues od the Marvel Adventures anthology comic.  Each issue features a different hero and tells a complete story.  So in Marvel Adventures: Thor, we’re treated to four stories of five different Marvel Heroes.

First up, Doctor Strange and Spider-Man team-up to stop an omnipotent cosmic entity from devouring the very fabric of the universe.  What’s amazing here is the amount of quality writing crammed into this single story.  Characterization, adventure, humor, and otherworldly weirdness are handled with such a deft touch that this sets a high standard for the rest of these stories to come.  In particular, the portrayal of Doctor Strange and Spider-Man (and their interplay) is just a treat.

Next up, Ant-Man!  Yes, Ant-Man!  Who doesn’t like Ant-Man?  Well, maybe a lot of people don’t.  And who can blame them?  He’s kind of a dumb superhero.  He can talk to ants.  He can shrink.  Not exactly prime superhero material.  But here, once again, we find what exceptional writing can do.  The humor is spot on, and it really shines through, making Ant-Man a worthy character after all.

Then, Thor!  I have to say that of all these stories, Thor’s is probably the weakest.  It never quite clicked in the same way as all the others, but considering how awesome the other three are, that’s not much of a slight.

Finally, we have a Captain America story, and once again, the origin of a character is told in stellar fashion.  While it’s hard to retell an origin without seeming like something we’ve seen a million times before, this one manags to give an abridged backstory of cap, bring him into the present day, introduce his sidekick Rick Jones, and have the nefarious Hydra in a flying saucer.  And there’s even a short backup story here taking place before Cap wound up frozen.  Good stuff.

At only $10, this little digest is packed with comic book reading goodness.  Highly recommended for anyone looking for some worthy comic book action.

Saw Transformers 2 this weekend.  And I find myself with a great big batch of mixed feelings.  I won't say Transformers 2 is a bad movie.  It's just not a good one.  It's neither memorable enough to remember or horrible enough to criticize in any detailed manner.  While I'm not disappointed to have seen it, I also have absolutely no desire to ever see it again.

In many ways, what happened to Transformers 2 is what happens to all successful film "franchises".  Ugh, I really hate that word.  I know movies aren't always art, but there's something so utterly crass about referring to a film, even a blockbuster, in fast food terms.

I think we all know the pattern well enough by now.

An idea is brought to Hollywood.  Whether it's X-Men, Hellboy, or Transformers, and made into a successful movie.  This inevitably spawns a sequel.  The problem is that now that the idea has proven itself successful, there's a whole bunch of new people who step in and want to add their own "suggestions" to improve it.  Everyone is suddenly analyzing the previous film and trying to figure out what made it work.  And they usually screw it up.

In the case of Transformers 2, the film is just bristling with "improvements" on the source material.  Some of these I won't list because they're spoilers.  Though not big spoilers.  But others are just bad ideas.

For example, why resurrect Megatron only to have him play second banana to some villain created for the film?  Megatron bows to no one.  That's kind of his schtick.  So why is he reduced to a Darth Maul-like lackey to a hollow Emperor Palpatine wannabe?  Who thought this would be a good idea?

And why include Devastator and give him nothing interesting to do?  He sucks up some dirt then gets shot and dies.  The end.  A giant transformer the size of a pyramid and he gets maybe five minutes of screen time.  In an alternate universe somewhere, a screenwriter and director with more sense had a huge battle as Ironhide, Ratchet, Bolt, Arcee, and Optimus Prime face down this giant Decepticon deathdealer.  But not in this film.

In fact, why introduce so many new characters and then give them nothing to do?  The film starts with such promise as we watch Bolt and Arcee chase down a fleeing Decepticon.  And Prime and the military battle a huge Decepticon who barrels a path of destruction through the city streets.  This is what I'm here to see, right?

The problem with Transformers 2 is its absolute generic quality.  The final battle is largely forgettable.  A dozen or so nameless Decepticons are killed, but I don't know who they are.  They have no personality.  They're just bad guys who die in a scene very similar to X3's charge of the mutants.

Often, Transformers 2 seems to dislike its robotic stars.  Or employ them with great reluctance.  When Ravage steals a piece of the Allspark, the scene starts off well enough.  Eventually, it leads to a battle as Ravage fires rockets at tanks.  And just when it's getting going...

It stops.

It's half a scene.  Logically, the scene should only end when Ravage escapes.  This is just standard storytelling technique, gang.  But that's the problem.  The writers in this film seem afraid of the Transformers.  They are relegated to the background, standing around watching the plot advance around them.  While the first film had its human stars, it also took a moment or two to remind us that the Autobots aren't just special effects, that they have personalities and goals.  Not so in Transformers 2, where the filmmakers seem to be laboring under the assumption that spending too much time with the Transformers will somehow disappoint us.

I will say that the movie does have two memorable moments.

The first is when Optimus Prime battles Megatron in the woods.  This is a great scene because it gives us a chance to show Prime as the butt-kicking warrior he is.  This is one of the small failures of the first film, where Prime is mostly knocked around by Megatron.  But in this film, we get to see Optimus unleash some Autobot fury as he tackles Megatron and various Decepticons simultaneously.  When Prime drop kicks Starscream, grabs Megatron in a headlock, and kicks another Decepticon trying to sneak up on him, you realize why this guy is such a badass.  It's also one of the few moments of memorable dialogue, as Megatron asks, "Is our race not worth the sacrifice of one human life?"

"You'd never stop at one," says Optimus before continuing his furious assault.

Alas, this fight is too short, but at least it's exciting and memorable.

The second moment for me is when Bumblebee tackles a Decepticon bulldozer in single combat.  Again, this works because instead of being a hundred nameless good guys versus a hundred nameless bad guys, it's one on one.  And Bumblebee proves that just because he's a little guy, he's no wimp.

Another moment that almost become memorable is the Twin Autobots facing down Devastator.  Up to that point, the Twins are straying dangerously close to Jar Jar Binks territory.  But then they show that, when the chips are down, they can dole out the punishment.  They manage to do some damage to Devastator, and just when it's getting good...

The scene stops again.

Damn it, that's annoying.

There is one big liberty with the entire Transformers concept that is just poorly concieved and unfortunate.  I'm sure anyone who has seen the film will know what I'm talking about, but I'll hold back on talking about it in detail until a little more time passes.  Needless to say, it violates the entire concept of Transformers and gives the Decepticons such a powerful weapon at their disposal that one has to wonder why they bother trying to battle us directly at all.

After all this, I suppose you would think I hated Transformers 2.  But it's not worth hating.  It's a mostly bland piece of entertainment.  There are bright moments, here and there, but the film is a victim of its own excesses and doubtlessly an unhealthy dose of Executive Meddling.  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExecutiveMeddling
 
Is it disappointing?  Yes.  Is it surprising?  Not really.

On my last discussion panel at Apollocon, the topic was Mythology, Schmythology.  It was about myths and how much research does one need to do to write a good story?  It was also about Campbell's Hero's Journey, and how relevant it is to writing a good story.

My thoughts: Not very.

The Hero's Journey might be relevant.  It might not be.  But even Campbell himself remarked that the journey has to be a byproduct of the story, not the intent.  In other words, following a plot outline, no matter how well established, is a surefire way to write a bad story.  That's how I feel anyway.

One of the panelists remarked that in general it was important to respect the culture that you take the mythology from.  And that you should treat the mythology with reverence.  Not sure I believe this either.

The universe is not a vacuum.  Everything touches everything else.  That's just the way it is.  And no culture is immune from influencing and being influenced by other cultures.  There is no hierarchy, no definitive cultural default.  Any perception as such stems from a lack of imagination in my humble opinion.

Another panelist, Joe Mckinney (a heck of a cool guy, I might add) said that myths are not dead.  They continue to evolve and grow and change.  We aren't guarding sacred, inalterable artifacts.  We're carrying the past forward, altering it just by doing so.  I'd never thought of it like that, but damn, if he isn't right.

The modern Arthurian legend is not the original Arthurian legend.  And the "original" Arthurian legend is inspired and cobbled from bits of older legends.  And those legends are much the same.  These stories didn't spring from nothingness, fully formed.  They grew and evolved and changed over time.  Because they have to.  If they don't, then they aren't relevant.  Because we are not the same people we once were.  The culture of today is not the culture of yesterday.  And the civilization of tomorrow will not be the civilization of today.

Too often we forget this.  We think of the world, in all its glorious messiness, as a perfectly formed default that sprang into existence with our birth.  And we often imagine that it will simply cease to be once we're dead.  Or at least, never change into anything unrecognizable.

And that simply isn't true.

When someone remarked that you had to follow some rules.  That if you were going to use, say Odin, in a story, you had to make sure he was missing an eye and that he was wise and that he had two crows, I said, why?  Why does Odin need to be missing an eye?  Why does he need two crows?  He's imaginary.  He's whatever the hell I want him to be.

"Because people used to believe that," was the reply, more or less.

But so what?  Who cares?  It's not being disrespectful to change Odin to fit my needs.  Far from it.  It seems to me to be sadder if we leave Odin behind because we refuse to change him, refuse to let him continue his growth as a story and a character.  It's like a beautiful piece of art, left in the dirt because we're afraid to touch it.  But it's only by touching it that we bring it to life.

Life is about change.  The universe is in a constant state of flux.  The people in the past don't have ownership of their stories.  Those stories stopped being in anyone's control the moment they entered the world.  And to think otherwise is just a mistake.

Now, you can change something so much that it become unrecognizable.  If you give Odin two eyes, take away his ravens, his goat-driven chariot, his runes, make him mortal, and drop him in New Jersey and call him Murray...well...you've kind of lost the point in having him be Odin.  But even this is inevitable.  And it happens all the time.

The Santa Claus we know and love in America is little bits and pieces stolen from other stories then sold to us via Coca Cola ads.  And maybe there was a real St. Nick, but he's irrelevant at this point.  We could lose all the history any real history to St. Nick tomorrow, and Santa would remain.  And he wouldn't be lessened because no one remembered the original.

Icons and ideas that refuse to change over time are just dead.  Plain and simple.  Mickey Mouse might sell a lot of T-shirts, but he is almost culturally irrelevant.  Because Mickey Mouse, by virtue of his Disney lords and masters, is unchangeable.  He's an anachronism, a charming bit of nostalgia.  But he is no longer alive.  He lost his soul a long time ago.

Batman, however, is very much alive.  Just take a look at decades of comics and see how different he is, how many incarnations he's had.  And, if he is to remain relevant, I think it's safe to say that the Batman of the next decade will probably not be the Batman of today.

Hands off legends?  The devil with that!  Touch 'em.  Screw with 'em.  Get 'em dirty and messy.  Write bad stories with them.  And good stories.  And every story in-between.  Hold them as sacred traditions.  Or fiddle with them like some demented mad scientist.  Above all, have fun.  And realize that no matter what you do with them, no matter how sacred they are to you, you're just holding onto them temporarily.

Transformers 2 is getting some cruel reviews.  But who really gives a damn?  I'll withhold judgment until I see it myself.

It's easy to bash Transformers.  It's a "blockbuster".  It's a Michael Bay Film.  It has explosions, giant robots, and more explosions.  And it's based on a line of toys.  The entire concept of robots from outer space who shape-shift into everyday objects is absolutely absurd.

Not everyone is going to like Transformers.  That's cool.  I've never seen Titanic or Terms of Endearment or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  These are not my kind of movies.  I wouldn't say they're bad.  I just don't have any interest in them.  I'm a hard sell.

But giant robots...easy sell.  I admit this.  I want to like Transformers 2.  Because I enjoy giant robots bashing each other to pieces.  I have a fondness not just for the concept, but for the characters.  Optimus Prime and Megatron and Starscream are as familiar and beloved by me as those chicks from Pride & Prejudice are to people who like Pride & Prejudice.

One of the complaints I hear is that Transformers 2 has great action, but is just okay in every other department.  But this seems silly.  Aren't I there for the action?  Am I there to watch the Autobots and Decepticons talk over their differences?  Do I want to see an hour long stretch of plot development when, really, the meat of this film is (say it with me) giant robots fighting?

It reminds me of Jackson's King Kong.  Here's a sort of loose transcript of my thoughts while watching that film.  (I watched it on DVD.)

"Okay, I know this is a little slow.  Think I'll start it and go to the bathroom, maybe make a sandwich.  No rush."

"Well, they got on the boat fast.  That's a good sign."

"Dear Robot King, they're still on the boat?  It can't be much longer."

"Get off the @#$% boat already."

"Oh, good.  Another boring scene between two boring characters.  Where's the giant ape I paid to see?"

"Hey, they're on the island!  Kong's gotta show up soon!"

"Ooof, not sure if I'm offended by these native characters or just annoyed by the terrible direction.  Somebody needs to take away Jackson's slo-mo button."

"Where the hell is that @#!$ ape?"

"Okay, this is stupid.  King Kong is here, and it's stull dill as hell.  How can you have a giant ape on an island full of dinosaurs and be so freakin' boring?"

"I wish Michael Bay had made this movie.  He'd probably have exploded twenty dinosaurs by now."

"Holy crap!  Those dinosaurs really want to eat that woman!  Doesn't really make much sense though.  Why would you work so hard for such a little bite?  Ah, who cares?  Movie dinosaurs can't resist the sweet, sweet taste of human."

"Wow!  Kong just wasted three dinosaurs!  Badass!  Maybe this movie isn't so bad after all."

"Ugh, this bug scene is ridiculous, even for a giant ape movie.  Kind of tedious too.  And how the hell does a guy shoot bugs off another guy using a machinegun?"

"Okay, boring.  Maybe I should just rewatch the t-rex fight a couple of more times and call it a night."

I didn't, and not a day goes by that I don't regret that decision.

So MONSTER is doing pretty well, and in some sort of retroactive magic is working its way through my other books, all of which have gotten a little sales boost.  GIL'S ALL FRIGHT DINER and THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE seem to be benefiting immensely, though even my less popular books have gotten a bump as well.

This isn't unusual.  While I have fans (and I have the e-mails to prove it), I'm also gaining exposure to new readers.  Just having MONSTER at the front of the store or face out on a shelf or mentioned in a popular website will benefit not just MONSTER, but every other book as well.  And so I'm on the verge of being vaguely less obscure than I was only a few months before.

And this is almost always how it works with writing novels.  Oh, sure, sometimes someone bursts onto the scene with a megasuccessful first novel, but those are the exception, not the rule.  Harry Potter really only caught on in the fourth book of the series.  It's easy to forget that now, but the fact was Potter didn't really take off right away.  It took time to build its audience.  And now my audience is building too.  And that's cool.  It means that I'm moving up in the literary world, gathering word of mouth, building reputation.

The best part?

I didn't have to write a series to do it.

There's a lot of pressure to do that.  It's not a bad thing.  Plenty of fans want me to write sequels because they love a particular story or character.  And that's a fantastic compliment.  And I can't blame publishers for wanting sequels either.  It's a competative business and series do sell.  Heck, even I sometimes wondered if I wasn't hindering my career more than helping it by writing standalone novels that don't even take place in the same universe.

And now it looks like I wasn't.  And that's awesome.  It's vindicating to some degree.  I've always believed that the audience is out there for what I write.  It's not as if people have always bought series.  Many popular science fiction / fantasy writers of the past didn't write series.  Series are great.  I have nothing against them.  But I also believe that it can't hurt to offer an alternative.  Variety is a great way to reach a wider audience.

And it seems to be working.  People are buying my books.  Maybe not every book.  And I can't deny that I'd get a bigger boost in sales for all my books if MONSTER was sixth in the series.  I don't doubt that there are people who loved MONSTER who aren't going to pick up A NAMELESS WITCH or THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE or any of my other books because they just aren't interested.  But I think the cost is small compared to the gain.

The point is that I make a living doing this (so far) by writing stories I want to write.  And that's a small miracle.  Don't think I don't realize that.  Because, as I've said before, I write to get paid.  I have the luxury of writing what I write because I've been fortunate enough to earn more than I really should for making up stories.

Would I be more successful if I wrote series?  I'm not so sure anymore.  But I do know that I'm successful enough that I don't doubt that a non-series writer has a shot in this biz.

And as I end this, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who makes my career possible.  The editors and publishers, the artists and marketing experts, the bloggers, the people who spread the word, Mom and the DFWWW, and The Mighty Robot King.

Peace out, y'all.

So MONSTER is doing pretty well, and in some sort of retroactive magic is working its way through my other books, all of which have gotten a little sales boost.  GIL'S ALL FRIGHT DINER and THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE seem to be benefiting immensely, though even my less popular books have gotten a bump as well.

This isn't unusual.  While I have fans (and I have the e-mails to prove it), I'm also gaining exposure to new readers.  Just having MONSTER at the front of the store or face out on a shelf or mentioned in a popular website will benefit not just MONSTER, but every other book as well.  And so I'm on the verge of being vaguely less obscure than I was only a few months before.

And this is almost always how it works with writing novels.  Oh, sure, sometimes someone bursts onto the scene with a megasuccessful first novel, but those are the exception, not the rule.  Harry Potter really only caught on in the fourth book of the series.  It's easy to forget that now, but the fact was Potter didn't really take off right away.  It took time to build its audience.  And now my audience is building too.  And that's cool.  It means that I'm moving up in the literary world, gathering word of mouth, building reputation.

The best part?

I didn't have to write a series to do it.

There's a lot of pressure to do that.  It's not a bad thing.  Plenty of fans want me to write sequels because they love a particular story or character.  And that's a fantastic compliment.  And I can't blame publishers for wanting sequels either.  It's a competative business and series do sell.  Heck, even I sometimes wondered if I wasn't hindering my career more than helping it by writing standalone novels that don't even take place in the same universe.

And now it looks like I wasn't.  And that's awesome.  It's vindicating to some degree.  I've always believed that the audience is out there for what I write.  It's not as if people have always bought series.  Many popular science fiction / fantasy writers of the past didn't write series.  Series are great.  I have nothing against them.  But I also believe that it can't hurt to offer an alternative.  Variety is a great way to reach a wider audience.

And it seems to be working.  People are buying my books.  Maybe not every book.  And I can't deny that I'd get a bigger boost in sales for all my books if MONSTER was sixth in the series.  I don't doubt that there are people who loved MONSTER who aren't going to pick up A NAMELESS WITCH or THE AUTOMATIC DETECTIVE or any of my other books because they just aren't interested.  But I think the cost is small compared to the gain.

The point is that I make a living doing this (so far) by writing stories I want to write.  And that's a small miracle.  Don't think I don't realize that.  Because, as I've said before, I write to get paid.  I have the luxury of writing what I write because I've been fortunate enough to earn more than I really should for making up stories.

Would I be more successful if I wrote series?  I'm not so sure anymore.  But I do know that I'm successful enough that I don't doubt that a non-series writer has a shot in this biz.

And as I end this, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who makes my career possible.  The editors and publishers, the artists and marketing experts, the bloggers, the people who spread the word, Mom and the DFWWW, and The Mighty Robot King.

Peac out, y'all.

I know I'm just a semi-famous novelologist, gang, but I'd like to take a moment to share some deeper thoughts today.  Feel free to ignore this one because I'm going to talk about pro-life, pro-choice, torture, and probably robots.  Because, hey, it wouldn't be an A. Lee Martinez blog without some talk about robots, right?

These are complicated issues.  I won't pretend to know the answers to them.  I think the debate rages for a reason.  Because we're still figuring these things out.  Sure, I lean a bit on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, but I don't think it's as simple as "a woman's body is her own" either.

Damn.  Hard to nail down, isn't it?

Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show last week, and he boiled the abortion debate down to "all life is sacred".  And on the surface, it's hard to argue against respecting the sanctity of life.  And in a perfect universe, where only women who wanted to get pregnant got pregnant, where every pregnancy was safe and without risk, and where all children were born flawless and loved, I think pro-life would be a no-brainer.

Too bad we don't live in that world.

Abortion isn't always a bad decision.  It's not always a cruel decision.  And it's not always an irresponsible decision.  I remember when Sarah Palin was asked about a hypothetical woman, raped by her own brother, giving birth to her own incestuous offspring through no fault of her own.  The "all life is sacred" argument seemed resoundingly hollow then.

But let's get something straight here.  I think a lot of unnecessary abortions are happening too.  Too many irresponsible men and women are resorting to this solution to unwanted pregnancies.  And I don't think there's any denying it.  "A person's body is their own" sounds great, but it doesn't necessarily give one unfettered control over everything that happens to it.  If a person drinks too much and then kills someone while behind the wheel of a car, the notion that they can put anything in their body they want doesn't negate the death.  An obscure and strained example, but hopefully, you get the idea.

Personally, I believe that until we actually abandon our archaic abstinence only, anti-condom philosophy, we really can't even begin to discuss abortion in any genuine terms.  As long as we keep telling teenagers to not have sex (despite knowing they will) and then tell them that condoms don't work (despite knowing that they do) and then tell them that they're too young to have children and it will ruin their lives (which it often does), how the heck can we expect anything else than the tortured, conflicted system we have?

And speaking of torture...

I'm pretty much against it.  I have a couple of reasons for it.  The most obvious is that in the history of the world torture has never actually been used to extract useful information.  It's always been used to get people to say what you want them to say.  From The Spanish Inquisition to the KGB to the Salem Witch Trials, torture isn't about gathering information.  It's about justifying the acts you want to commit.

Of course, if it were that simple, life would be easier.  But you can't just say you're anti-torture.  As a thought experiment, imagine a man who knows where a bomb is planted that will kill 100 people.  You know this man knows this.  And you know the only way he'll give you the info is to torture him.  Now maybe 100 people isn't enough for you.  What about 1,000?  Or 10,000?  Or 100,000?  Eventually, a number will be high enough that only the most extreme anti-torture advocate would say not to twist the thumbscrews.

This is just a thought experiment.  Real life doesn't work that way.  But hypotheticals show us just how tricky life can be.  While I'm anti-torture (and I don't think the above situation is even remotely realistic in its assumptions), you can't just dismiss it.  Or maybe you can.  Maybe you're luckier than me and can see the world in black-and-white.

Good for you, I guess.

So what the hell does it all mean?  Beats me.  I'm not offering any answers.  I'm not telling anyone what to think.  I'm just suggesting, in my own roundabout way, that living your life through catch phrases and single-sentence philosophies is a sure way to miss out on the nuances of life.  And it's the nuances that make our experience richer and our lives worth living.

Oh, and by the way, robots kick ass.  And that's a single-sentence philosophy we can all agree on.  So I guess there's an exception to every rule.

There.  Now I can legally end this blog entry.  Thanks for your time.