Writer at Large

Let’s see . . .

• Total word count: 12,345 (yes, really)
• I have a title: Soul of the Machine.
• I have some main characters who are doing things, or starting to do things.
• Average daily word count for the week: 1,764

I have to admit, although it’s taken a swift kick in the adverbs to get the muse going some days (she usually decides to poke her head in around word 1,200 or so), it has been going a  bit better than I originally anticipated. Am I going to end up with a readable, interesting story out of all this?

Ask me again on December 1^st.

Tonight is October 31. In addition to it being Halloween, it is also the eve of the madness known as National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo, for short).

This year shows promise to be an interesting and challenging one. Several of my writing friends who had taken one or both of the previous two years off are returning to share in the mutual insanity. This year, I tossed my proverbial hat into the proverbial ring and picked up not one, but two newbies to serve as their mentor in all things NaNoWriMo. While it is said that writing is a solitary vice, apparently it is both contagious and highly communicable between those who are susceptible to such syndromes.

For this year's writing effort, I have an idea. Okay, I have slightly more than an idea. I also have a main character, a bit about his background, and some information about technology that he interacts with. What I don't have at this moment is a plot. What I have is the thinnest notion of an concept for a story. You know: the kind they base entire Tom Cruise movies on.

I'm really hoping that this will turn out to be one of those stories where the character drives the plot, and that events will unfold in an interesting and readable manner. Otherwise, I suspect this novel will be my personal equivalent of God Emperor of Dune. (I seem to be one of only five or so people who actually like that book in the "Dune" series, but that's a topic for another time.)

As in NaNoWriMo years past, I will post weekly reports of my progress here, as well as a summary at the end. If you're interested in reading it as it goes along, you can find it here: http://sfwriter13-nanowrimo2009.blogspot.com.

Okay, I admit it, sometimes I get it completely wrong.

When netbooks (those small, ultra-light portable computers) first arrived on the scene, I thought they were an interesting little niche product. Sure, they were compact, lightweight, and even occasionally stylish. There were also, in my opinion, woefully underpowered. Why would someone in their right mind spend that kind of money when, for a little more money, they could get a full-featured notebook computer?

Several months ago, I tried one out of curiosity. I spent probably a grand total of less than 30 minutes with it before concluding that, although it seemed fast enough, the screen was too small, the smaller-than-usual keyboard made typing on it maddeningly annoying. That, for me, seemed to be the end of it.

I completely missed the point. It wasn't about power; it was about portability. For many people, the main uses of their computer are for checking e-mail and browsing the web. Neither of these activities require a lot of computing firepower. Provide these in a computer that is not only relatively inexpensive, but also portable and, apparently, you have a winner.

Through a somewhat complex series of events, I ended up owning one of these netbook computers. Although I don't use it as primary system, I also can't imagine not having it. Its portability makes it ideal for when I need a computer along to check e-mail and perform various activities on the web. It is perfect for when I want to wonder around the house, but be available via e-mail or instant messages.

I've also discovered that it is capable of running Microsoft Office 2003 capably. (It's no speed demon in that regard, but it more than adequately handles basic word processing without me having to worry about formatting hiccups transferring files between Works and Word.)

While I'm not ready to give up my desktop system, as the price-to-performance ratio is still better there, I can now see why netbooks are all the rage. I'm even ready to believe that these systems are poised to fundamentally change the consumer personal computer market for the reasons given above.

So, yes, contrary to popular belief, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong.

I learned a long time ago that the business world is neither fair nor just.

Many, many years ago, while in high school, some friends and I decided to take our lunchtime gaming activities to the next level and petition the school to make it an official club. After jumping through all of the proverbial hoops, our application was rejected on the grounds that there was a perception that games such as Dungeons & Dungeons involved witchcraft and other possible dark arts. (It also didn't help that there had just been a heavily publicized case of a student whose disappearance had been reported to have been related to his participation in the game.) Knowing that the decision of the school management was based on misinformation, I decided to petition the students in an attempt to reverse the decision.

At the same time, I was employed by a small, family-owned office supply store. I mentioned the situation to my boss, along with my plans to appeal the school's ruling. I was told, in very clear terms, to drop the matter if I wanted to continue my employment. As the school district was a major customer, it would not be appropriate for someone recognizable as part of that business to challenge the school on such an issue. (It was also far more complex than that, as this was also a highly active Catholic area, but I'll leave the religious angles out of this discussion for some other time.)

Stunned and hurt by the lack of support, I did not further persue the issue. It was my first job; I was saving for a car and college--and it was several steps above dealing with daily grease spatters at one of the neighborhood fast food places. The lesson was well-learned though: fear of losing one's regular paycheck can trump the spirit behind many a just cause.

Flash forward to present day . . .

Last week, I was greeted by this report by CNN. Let me share just a brief excerpt, but please read the rest on your own later:

(CNN) -- Blog fans in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, saw PittGirl as their masked superhero -- a comedian and local commentator who jibed the mayor without reserve and ranted freely about her hatred of pigeons.

But despite her effort to keep her real name secret, people started to figure out who PittGirl was.

Feeling pressure to take control of her identity before someone else outed her, PittGirl on Wednesday posted pictures of herself on her blog and introduced readers to her real-world self: Virginia Montanez, a 35-year-old married mother of two who worked in the nonprofit sector.

On Thursday morning, Montanez was fired from her job because of her online persona, she said.

What I find interesting about this article is that in none of the cases does it state, specifically, the reason why the individuals were fired other than for espousing their opinions online under pseudonyms. It is not stated whether those opinions were at odds with those of the organizations they had been part of, whether their remarks were potentially legally actionable against both the individual or the organization, or whether the actions taken were the collective result of other factors entirely.

Although I might be reading more into it than there is, the message I get from it is this: If you work for any organization, don't go public with your opinions--any opinions. If you do so anonymously, they can and will find out. In fact, there is even a statement in the article that goes as far to say (and I paraphrase on purpose here) that to hide behind an online pseudonym is akin to cowardice.

Now while I definitely agree that people should take care about the opinions they provide on public online forums, particularly if they involve bad-mouthing their employers. That strikes me as just good common sense. However, this feels to me like a serious blurring between an individual's professional and personal lives (and heaven knows that organizations are already trying to claim more than their fair share of one's time).

In this time of constant fear over losing one's employment, I see this as yet one more tool in a company's arsenal of tools for maintaining control (and, I would even daresay, ownership) over its employees. No longer are an inidividual's personal opinions and activities their own, but they can now come--legally--under scrutiny and subject to possible retalitory action by the companies that employ them.

I wish I had something concrete to recommend here other than expressing your outrage (and then possibly putting yourself at the same risk as those mentioned in the article). In a country that prides itself for having Freedom of Speech, I find what this article reports (and what it doesn't say) alarming.

Side Note: I happened to see this article at the same time that I was struggling with the future direction of this blog—and whether there was even going to be one. Part of me was prepared to toss reserve and caution to the proverbial wind and begin putting out my opinions as I had not done before. I'm not saying that I won't still do so, but the coincidence of the appearance of the article was unsettling.

This blog has been neglected for several months (not that anyone has noticed, I suspect). There are several reasons for this:

1. Although I created this blog as a means to express my personal opinions on matters, I had failed so far to find a sufficiently interesting slant that might be of interest to others. There are innumerable blogs espousing opinions on political, social, and corporate matters. While I could offer my perspective to that sea of words, the odds are that they would be lost in that ocean of voices.
2. Blogging on matters of writing alone feels a bit egotistical and self-serving with only one published book to my credit, and that one out of print.
3. I have no desire to use my blog as a public diary. My personal life is just that—personal. I have little wish to share its intimate details with the online masses, nor does my ego support the supposition that my day-to-day activities might be of even remote interest to anyone other than close friends and family (and that's even doubtful).

All that said, I found myself unable to simply delete this blog and move on. So, I tidied up a bit, dusted away the digital cobwebs, and added a fresh coat of paint.

We'll see what happens.

For a variety of reason, both personal and literary, I've been doing some thinking about the characters of ship captains, particularly in science fiction.

For the most part, captains are the leaders of their vessel or stations, burdened with all the pressures of command. They are almost universally expected to be paragons. Although human, they are never allowed to be "human". Mistakes, any kinds of perceived weakness, are not permitted.

Who, then, can these people turn to when they need to be "human"? To expresses their fears, doubt—their feelings in general?

In thinking about it, I find it interesting that the majority are the confidantes that these captains have are, in fact, not human. Kirk has Spock, Janeway has Tuvok, Sisko had Dax. In my own stories, Devereux has Hope.

I'm not claiming that this is a universal character situation, but I found the recurring theme interesting. It does make sense in a way, though. Having an alien confidante would allow a captain to express human feelings without being judged by human standards.

Non-human insights also play a strong role in these relationships, providing the captain a point of view that he or she might not have considered.

I wonder if this is why we are often drawn toward people who are also unlike ourselves in some ways. Are we seeking the same insights about the world and about ourselves that only an "outside" opinion can provide?

Perhaps this is not the stuff of which great drama is made, but it does make for something worth watching and reading.

Total words: 20,018
Average words per day: 664

No, I didn't hit 50,000 words. Yes, I did hit 20,000 (20,018 to be exact). And an average of 664 words per day is much greater than the usual 250-word goal I set for myself each day.

I didn't "win", but I did hit my personal goal. I doubt that I'll ever put in a performance like last year, but you never know. And I did get 20,000 words done for a new novel.

There's always 2009 . . . :)