I'm Published!

 I finally did it.  Self-publishing in my day was expensive and, to my thinking, kind of a cheat.  I always wanted the validation of a publishing house telling me I was good enough.  But my terror of rejection keeps me from submitting and digital publishing is, to quote a friend, "how it's done now".  Oldest Sister has done it and she showed me how, so there I am on Amazon.

My first ever Beta Reader was Oldest Sister.  Her gentle critiques guided me, and for a long time she was the only person to read my stuff.  Eventually some of my other siblings read and told me what they thought - one time I had a red front porch light in a story and had to be told about Red Light Districts!  

When I got to high school, I eagerly signed up for Creative Writing.  The teacher hated me even before I walked into the classroom. (My family's reputation preceded me - Mother, for all her faults, went full Mama Bear if she though the school was wronging her offspring.  She once went to war with an English teacher for punishing use of "ain't" as improper.) She allowed Destructive Criticism and even engaged in it herself.  That class devastated me.  

I did meet a peer who wrote and we became fast friends.  We planned and wrote parts of an entire series.  We went through the "Diversity for diversity's sake" stage together.  We even got picked up by a local company, but the publishing branch folded before we hit print.  

She and Oldest Sister coaxed me into a local writer's group.  I was terrified, remembering that class in high school.  I was stunned by the encouragement and advice.  They helped me in ways I cannot articulate.  I learned there, from them, that writing can be a goal in and of itself.  I joined another group, this one online and largely focused on fan fiction.   When my world collapsed around me (for non-writing reasons), some of the members of both groups were there with me, helping me through.  They celebrated with me when my muse came back.  

The two books I've published through Amazon were written after that, but the characters have roots all the way back to that disastrous class in high school.  Bits and pieces of everyone who touched my writing life are scattered throughout the stories.  I'm not going to try to name anyone, because I avoid names in this blog to protect privacy of others and also because I know I'll forget someone!  

Oldest sister set me on this road, but there are a myriad of others who kept me on it.  Some of them cheered, some corrected my course, some just loved me and never read a word.  

Oh, yeah....  Amazon search P.J. Schmidt Stillwater Farm.  That's me!  (And Oldest Sister is R. Collins My Dubois.)  

Sequel Series

 I've noticed a couple of trends: First, the number of television shows getting not so much spinoffs or reboots, but sequels.  Second, a lot of fussing about older shows that haven't "aged well".  So I'm dusting off my Entertainment Soapbox. 

A casual list I threw together while pondering this blog post includes:  Roseanne/The Conners, How I Met Your Mother/How I Met Your Father, Boy Meets World/Girl Meets World, Full House/Fuller House, That 70s Show/That 90s Show.  In the case of Big Bang Theory/Young Sheldon, we have a prequel series.  Many of the complaints I see from viewers are along the lines of "they're pushing a liberal agenda" or "they've betrayed the original".   (All writers are pushing an agenda, whether we know it of not.  See my previous rant on that subject.)

I think, at least in certain cases, these complainers are wrong.  The Conners seems very much in the spirit of the original - only the political climate has changed. It was okay for Roseanne to encourage young DJ not to be racist, but now that he's married to a black woman, that's offensive.   The character of Gina has a history with the family and seems to be as well written as any secondary sitcom character. 

A sequel series that does seem to be guilty of "pushing a liberal agenda" is That 90s show.  There's been a lot of talk among fans about timeline inaccuracies, but I don't let that bother me much because the original show's timeline was wonky as hell and because some of these questions might be explained eventually.  My problem stems from Ozzie.  The rest of the gang is as well written as the original in the first season, and are racially diverse, but poor Ozzie seems to exist simply as "the gay boy".   I'm all for diversity, folks, but I don't want it to be the entire character!

Now let's talk about the aging problem.  Personally, I think the entire sitcom genre is based on less-than-perfect characters.  We laugh at the character's faults, which are of course blown out of proportion for comedy.  We should keep this in mind when discussing what is or isn't offensive.

One that hasn't aged well and does have a sequel in How I Met Your Mother/Father.  The character of Barney Stinson alone gets a lot of the "not aging well" press.  Some viewers note that Ted was an unreliable narrator and had reasons to paint Barney badly. I stopped watching HIMYM when Robin and Barney divorced, and I've not seen HIMYF at all, but I hear that Barney has appeared - so maybe they can redeem him somewhat.  

The sitcom I loved that gets hate for not aging well is Friends.  Homophobia in particular is rampant in the show, but a lot of it comes from Chandler's own insecurities (remember, exaggerated for comedy).  Now, suppose they were to make a Friends: The Next Generation.  The offspring of the original gang - Erica, Jack, Emma, and Ben were all born during the run of Friends.  On his spinoff, Joey mentions that Phoebe and Mike had at least one child.  If we want racial diversity, Joey could have married or adopted any ethnicity.  If one or more of the core group is LGBT, that gives Chandler a chance to deal with his issues and redeem himself.  

I guess what I'm getting at is that these sequel series, if done well, can correct some of the problems with older shows.  But, again, these are sitcoms and by definition shouldn't be taken too seriously. 

 

Touchers

When I talk to people, I am prone to touching their arms or hands.  I've been known to ambush hug people. (Not anymore, as I've realized that's crossing a boundary.)  There is no sexual intent.  I have a very real psychological need for nonsexual touch.  I think all humans do, but some of us more than others. 

There was a teacher in my middle school who was a toucher.  He never did anything overtly sexual, but people talked because he was always touching the students.  A hand on the shoulder, things like that.  Today he'd probably be reprimanded and maybe even fired.  That makes me sad.  We all could do with more benefit of the doubt.

I've never been one to bully children into hugging me. If I ask for a hug and the child declines, I'm okay with that.  If another adult takes offense, I defend the kid.  I can't do much if the kid gets scolded later, but I do what I can.  

Why not simply forgo asking?  Because I remember being a kid and no one wanted to hug me.  I treasured visits from my great-aunts because they hugged me.  My parents had a friend who let me sit on his lap and I did that well into my teens, until someone raised the question of appropriateness.  I've allowed "bad touch" because at least it was touch.  If the child in question is like I was, my request for a hug is a boon to them.  So I ask. 

Which leads me to my point, if I even have one.  There are kind ways to request boundaries from us touchers.  We will sometimes forget, particularly if we're emotional.  Please don't scream at us.  Please don't recoil as if a snake bit you.   We are harmless.  

Being "Woke"

 One thing I notice a lot lately is people complaining about TV shows and movies "going woke".  I can understand the complaints to a point.  If the work is historical, changing the demographics of the characters can drastically reduce the engagement of an educated audience.  Gone With The Wind gets a lot of hate for racism, but change any of Scarlett's demographics and the story does not work in a historically accurate setting.   

 I've opined in previous blogs about diversity for diversity's sake.  Tokenism is another term for it.  I think this is what a lot of the complainers are referring to. As writers are building the world of their fiction, diversity can happen naturally, as it does in the real world.  It doesn't need to be shoehorned in.  

There are shows I think of as having diversity for diversity's sake.  I just don't watch them.  If asked why I don't watch them, I would avoid using the word "woke" because that's become perceived as the cry of the -ist or the -phobe.  

All "woke" really means is aware of social injustice.  Not everyone who is woke is a fanatic about it, seeing the KKK around every corner.  Not everyone who feels a show or movie is diverse for the sake of diversity is a hater.  People, talk to each other.  Communicate in a respectful manner.  You might learn something. 

(And some of these fictional worlds were woke from the get-go, there was no becoming or going about it.  Just saying.)  

The Watcher on Netflix

 I'm into the true crime thing and one case that's always fascinated me is John List.  How does that have any bearing on the Netflix show about an unrelated case, you ask?  I will explain, I promise.  Oh, yeah, and SPOILER ALERT for the movie in question. 

The Watcher is an unsolved case from 2014.  A family bought a nice new home and started getting letters from someone calling themselves "the watcher".  Knowing they were being watched even by a harmless person would be creepy enough, but these letters escalated into talking about "young blood" and "what's in the walls".  The letters also claimed that watching the house is a family tradition - the letter writer's forebears did the same thing.  DNA testing on the envelope flaps revealed the writer to be female, but nothing more is known.  They moved out of the house and that was the end of that (to the best of my knowledge).

The John List case happened in the 1970s but he wasn't caught for nearly twenty years.  John List was a devout Lutheran who lived with his mother, wife, and three children.  He lost his job as an accountant, but pretended to go to work rather than tell his family.  He funneled money from his mother's accounts to cover the bills.  Eventually, he made some phone calls to establish that the family was going out of town for an extended period of time.  Then shot his wife and mom.  He shot two of the kids when they got home from school, then went to the third kid's game and shot him when they got home after.  He put all the bodies in one room (except Mom, she was too heavy and on the third floor), put on gospel music, and vanished.  Oh, and he cut himself out of all the family photos.  Also bear in mind his wife was Helen and his daughter was Patricia.  After the murders were discovered, there were rumors of teenaged Patricia being in a relationship with a teacher.  Letters left behind with the bodies indicated that his motive was to save their souls -- they were falling into sinful ways.  

Both real-life cases happened in the same town, but decades apart and otherwise there is no connection.  

Now the movie:  It's a fictionalized account of the 2014 case.  It starts out sticking largely to the facts -  Dean and Nora buy the place and move in.  They plan to renovate the kitchen and basement.  They have two children and a ferret.  And the letters start arriving.  At first, they dismiss it as a prank, but then the kids start hearing music from an intercom and the ferret is found in the upstairs hall with a crushed skull.  

Suspects include two of the neighboring families, alienated by Dean's hostile response to misunderstandings, the realtor - a college friend of Nora's who keeps pushing her to sell the house she just bought, a local teacher who is into old houses, and John List  Graff.  

John Graff used to live in the house. He was a devout Lutheran who lived with his mother, wife, and two children.  He lost his job as an accountant, but pretended to go to work rather than tell his family.  He funneled money from his mother's accounts to cover the bills.  Eventually, he made some phone calls to establish that the family was going out of town for an extended period of time.  Then shot his wife and mom.  He shot daughter Patricia when they got home from school, then went to the son's game and shot him when they got home.  He put all the bodies in one room, put on classical music, and vanished.  He cut himself out of all the family photos. His wife was Helen.  At one point, it's implied that Patricia was in a relationship with a teacher.  (Said teacher is later found dead, shot by a different gun.)  I'm particularly taken with the name List becoming Graph with just a spelling change.  Both are ways of sorting information. 

When Dean discovered this news, I had to pause the show and text a friend.   From there, it just kept getting more ridiculous.  The show, not the weak attempt to hide that this dude was John List.  

Because Graff removed his face from the family photos, no one knows what he looks like.  The neighbor couple is murdered, but not really.  The Dumbwaiter guy was totally normal until the same year Graff killed his family.  There are tunnels between the houses, a remnant from the Prohibition Era.  Toss in a false confession and some family drama (teen daughter, ya know).  

Had this show been advertised as a satire or parody, it would have lived up to the hype.  But it's supposed to be a thriller.  They never solve the case and leave lots of loose ends, probably for future seasons of the show.  Honestly, I'll probably watch.  It's hilarious. 

Bans and Boycotts

 I've probably pontificated on this topic before, but I'm frankly too lazy to check, so here we go. 

With the start of the school year, there is always a crop of news stories about local districts banning books.  In most cases, all that means is that a specific book has been removed from the school library.  Alarmists will tell you that these books are removed because of a racist agenda, or as a ploy to erase history from the public mind, but research into the specifics almost always lead to a parental complaint about sexual content.  (Which speaks to our strangely puritanical attitudes about sex, but I digress.)

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again: A local regulation does not mean federal martial law is coming.  Some school somewhere doesn't want students to find out from them that Anne Frank had periods.  This does not mean that next week Joe Biden is going to kick down my door and take my copy of the book in question. 

This does not mean anyone is a Holocaust Denier or Anti-Semite.  If the book removed is Roots or Cujo, it probably isn't because of racism or a hatred of large dogs.  You won't find Twilight on my shelf, but that doesn't mean I hate any of the ethnicities or religious groups that might be in there.  

The bans these news articles are talking about aren't even really bans.  The library doesn't have it, but no one is likely to punish a student who gets a copy from Grandma.  Even if he totes it into the school and reads it at lunch. 

Closer to an actual ban is the thing they're calling Cancel Culture.  I know I've pontificated about this before, but it bears repeating.  We should totally boycott an entire entertainment franchise or store chain because its creator or CEO has committed an act we disapprove of?  I don't think so.

Religion (defined here as a personal belief system) and business should not mix - for either the company or the consumer.  For example, a certain company is known to support homophobic causes. Suppose we run them out of business.  Yay, we showed the homophobic CEO!  Then what happens?  How many people are going to be unemployed?  How many of those people are or have loved ones in the LBG+ community?  Boycotts hurt more than they help. 

I am not burning my books and merch from the franchises I love because the creator proves to be less than admirable.  For one thing, they already got my money when I bought the things, so I wouldn't be hurting them any! Consider the Harry Potter franchise - JKR has been running around saying some hateful things for quite some time.  Should we refuse to buy anything HP-related ever again?  Most of the movie cast has come forward and refuted her words - should they be punished by a loss of income?  Should we ignore the otherwise inclusive and inspiring message in the books?    I don't think so. 

Flawed people can make great art.  History is full of examples - most of the greats were some kind of hater, especially by modern standards. Sexual perversion is nothing new.  And there's always the question of context.   I'm not making excuses for hate - that's never cool when directed at entire groups.  I'm just saying that, if I boycott every business or franchise that's been linked to a jerk... I'd have to go live in a cave and live off roots and berries. 

Student Loans

 With all the fuss and bother going on about forgiving student loans, I feel the need to share my own student loan story.  I went "back to school" in my late twenties, majoring in Human/Social Services Technology.  It's a two year degree, meaning I could be working a decent job by the time I was 30. 

When I left high school, it was a time when the minimum wage was reasonably close to a sustainable lifestyle.  I had no shame in being a janitor, or a dishwasher, or a cashier.  It's all honest work and I believed I'd be able to make ends meet. 

I was trying to find the job where my work ethic would actually get me promotions and raises, instead of one where the dude who partied with the boss got promoted over me.  Meanwhile, in the larger world, the gap between a livable wage and the minimum wage kept growing.    My morale was high every time I started a new job, but favoritism and customer abuse killed it quickly.  (I'm not saying I'm totally blameless here - my Dysthymia had manifested itself and fed on job stress.  I made a lot of mistakes.)

When I finally got medication and therapy that let me cope, I decided that college would get me the sort of job I wanted.  Social Work seemed a good fit, and there was a two-year program at the nearby campus.  So I signed up, agreed to the loans needed (totally intending to pay them when the time came), and earned that degree.

My first job after college was washing dishes in a steakhouse.  While working, I applied for every social services job I could.  Some of those interviews took me into seedy neighborhoods (once a man tried to get into my car and I ran a red light to get away from him) and none of them hired me.  I was back to the minimum wage grind, but now I had a debt to pay.  I tried.  

I tried.  When I was making enough money to have anything left over after rent, I sent them something.  Something was never enough.  At one point, after having my hours cut, I had to have the bank block payments because they ignored my messages.  They knew my situation - I told them the truth, filled out all the forms for a payment plan, everything, but no.  "You make 500 a month?  Send us 400 or it's going into default."  Still, I had every intention of paying them somehow someday.  Most of my job-hopping was a constant quest to make enough money to pay the loan!  

Eventually, I was declared totally and permanently disabled.  I would receive monthly payments to live off of.  The first debtor I contacted was the Student Loan people, intending to set up a payment plan I could finally afford.  They canceled the loan.  Think about that:  The only way I could get out from under the loans for a two year degree was to become legally disabled.  A two year degree.  Only two years.  

At the time of my cancellation, most of what I owed was compounded interest.  Had they worked with me because I was un- or under-employed, I would have owed a small percentage of that total.  They could have allowed me to pay what I could, they could have suspended interest, something, but no.  What they did was call me at least once a day for over a decade.  What they did was accuse me of malingering.  So, yes, I support the forgiveness of student loans.  Had they treated me with anything resembling dignity and respect, I might think differently.