On Writing: Star Trek: Discovery


I have other stuff to do but I blog very rarely and also there’s a new Star Trek TV show and I watched it. So. Here’s a little review/response and then a little bit about the impact of audience expectations/branding.

Real quick no spoilers review: I liked the first two episodes of Star Trek Discovery. Sonequa Martin-Green is great. Doug Jones is great. Michelle Yeoh is great. The production design is lush and manages some big budget gravitas. There are things I liked more and things I liked less. I have big picture reservations about the CBS All-Access model and the nature of the show as a prequel. I also think it’s kind of a bummer to watch so far and strains a little more than I expected against my expectations of Star Trek. I’m going to blog about more of that below.

First, the Star Trek bonafides preamble: I’ve been watching Star Trek all of my life. I grew up on the shows and the movies. I’ve seen every movie for the last 30 years on opening weekend and I’ve seen the majority of the TV episodes multiple times* (there’s an asterisk here because I really didn’t like Voyager or Enterprise). When Star Trek: Deep Space Nine first premiered it played at 11 PM on Sunday nights in my area. I was in middle school but I stayed up every Sunday until midnight to watch it and went to school bleary eyed. I’m not a convention-going Vulcan-ear-having fan but I’m more inclined to give the brand a chance than literally any other property I can think of based on the strength of my affection and nostalgia for spaceships and budget SFX and phaser sounds. That said, half of the Star Trek TV shows and movies have been pretty bad and William Shatner is not doing his legacy any favors with Twitter. I will always happily give Star Trek a shot but Star Trek: Nemesis happened, you guys, and I’ll never forget.

Here’s what you should know about Star Trek: Discovery. I’m not going to summarize the whole plot but there will be some details that you may want to avoid if you want to watch it without any advanced knowledge. The show’s titular ship, the Discovery, does not appear in the first two hours of the show. The bulk of the cast also does not appear in these first two episodes. This is not an ensemble show in the Star Trek model. It’s a show with a clear protagonist (Martin-Green’s Michael Burnham) and it seems determined to upend some of the familiar Trek conventions. The good news there is that Martin-Green is a charismatic and versatile performer and she can more than carry a show. The decision to give the show a central character and to pin the emotional and storytelling stakes on her is a good one and if the show ultimately goes on to have a long and celebrated life it will be a big part of why. The first two episodes unfold directly as a result of Burnham’s actions – and those actions are not all heroic or sympathetic. That’s a pretty significant change to the usually squeaky clean boy scout image most associated with Star Trek (mostly, to be fair, from Star Trek: the Next Generation onward). The show is steeped in interpersonal conflict and that really creates narrative possibilities we haven’t seen in this property before. I can dig it.

Here’s some other things you should know about Star Trek: Discovery. It doesn’t feel much like Star Trek yet. The characters use Star Trek words and interact with Star Trek things but despite the title it isn’t terribly interested (so far) in strange new worlds, new life, new civilizations, etc. Klingons feature very prominently in these opening two episodes (and, based on what happens, will probably be pretty involved for the rest of the first season at least) and there is some philosophical debate around inter-species contact, but more than ever before these Klingons feel particularly contemporary and familiar rather than strange and new. Where the original iteration of Klingons seemed to cast them as grumpy mustached space Russians, Discovery makes them religious nationalists eager to restore the Klingon empire to glory. That might sound familiar to viewers because we see these sorts of characters on the nightly news. This observation isn’t necessarily a criticism but it gives the show a weary cynicism. At it’s best Star Trek is buoyant and optimistic and this is a little bit dour. It may be that the show runners intend to start with dour, to show a journey through hopelessness and out the other side, but for viewers like me that could do with a little bit more aspiration it’s a little bit disappointing. There’s not really any warmth or humor or wonder. The ending of episode 2 is, frankly, pretty bleak.

There are other things that Discovery does that I liked a lot. The opening credits are beautiful and the makeup is really next level, particularly for Doug Jones’s Saru. Unfortunately, the script has some real weak points that only seem worse with further scrutiny and the pacing, especially in episode 2, is a little too decompressed. I’m also not convinced that this show needs to be a prequel or that they really needed to go back to the most famous Star Trek IP; Klingons and Vulcans. The same story and themes could be explored with new ideas. It makes the universe feel too small to me and the storytelling feel too timid. By opting to go this direction, the show necessitates comparisons with prior iterations and for a franchise that started out with all-new ideas that’s totally unnecessary.

Ultimately, I think Star Trek: Discovery is an appealing television show with a strong, interesting lead and compelling visual design. I am definitely interested in seeing more but it’s a poor fit for the Star Trek brand – especially right now. If Discovery had been released in context with other more traditional Trek content it would seem like a bold alternative and I think would be easier to embrace. But this is the first Star Trek show in 12 years. A lot of fans, and casual viewers, might rightly expect it to feel something like the franchise they know.

Branding is a powerful presence in a story (or content). “Star Trek” has a meaning for people. I show up for “Star Trek.” That’s to the property’s advantage but if they stray too far from what “Star Trek” means for people they create disappointment that they didn’t need to create. There seems to me to be a lot more latter-day Battlestar Galactica in this show than bolding going where no one has gone before. In fact, these seems to be a lot of similarities between these Klingons and Cylons. That really creates a backlash for me with the brand, I’m afraid.

Similarly, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to why I so aggressively hate the CBS All-Access distribution model and it has a lot to do with the name and the associations the name generates for me and how it forces me to compare it to other alternative services. I don’t mind paying for TV. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and HBO Go. I buy TV shows I want to watch that don’t air on those services on Amazon. I would pay up to $3 for each episode of Star Trek: Discovery and feel pretty good about it. That’s more than CBS is asking for with All-Access. My complaint isn’t about money. I value good content and I pay for it. I think that’s part of being an ethical grown up consumer. No, my reticence is about not wanting to get another user name and password, give out my credit card to another company that might will probably Equifax me on a long enough timeline, install another app, learn another UI, learn all new bugs and quirks. I don’t want that. I think most consumers are sick of that. I would probably pay for an add-on channel on Amazon or Hulu for CBS All-Access.

More than my app fatigue though, CBS All-Access does not compare favorably to its competitors. To get the commercial free version they want a comparable amount of money to HBO Go, Netflix, and Hulu and it does not compare in terms of content available even a little bit. Out of context, it seems like a pretty decent deal. I could watch Star Trek: Discovery and, uh, well, I literally would watch nothing else because CBS is not a network that makes content for me, but if I was the CBS target demo (older, whiter somehow), I could get a lot of enjoyment out of 2 Broke Girls and NCIS and all the fucking Macguyver. I assume. The thing is that Netflix and Hulu and HBO Go make content for multiple kinds of audiences so I can not watch that show with the scientologist guy from That 70s Show that doesn’t appeal to me and still watch the show with the scientologist lady from That 70s Show that does. Next to the alternatives CBS All-Access is real thin. Also, it’s CBS. My whole life CBS has been a TV station you can watch for free with an antenna and it had that comparble quality. Star Trek: Discovery seems like a real stretch in terms of budget and content for that CBS but it’s still called CBS so I expect CBS. The previews of upcoming episodes of Discovery look more like the CBS I expect – the effects look worse and there’s a lot more white dudes – so I have to wonder, are these two episodes of Discovery a bait and switch? If the service wasn’t called CBS All-Access I might be less skeptical. This is the downside of branding. I show up for “Star Trek.” I change the channel on “CBS” before Mark Harmon shows up. These two big brands crash into each other for Star Trek: Discovery and I’m not sure what to do. I want CBS All-Access to fail so it sends a message to stop making new subscription services for every damn thing maybe more than I want this cynical post-Trump new Star Trek.

On Memos: A Memo About the Memos About the Google Memo

So there’s this Google Memo you might have heard about. As someone that has strong opinions on diversity and someone that has spent and still spends a lot of professional time in the tech sector, I have a point of view on this. Specifically, to get my bias out upfront, I think it’s an MRA-influenced garbage fire of toxic ideas and deeply shitty intentions. But MRA-influenced garbage fires aren’t new and I don’t have time to write blogs about all of them. What really gets under my skin and has spurred me to write this, are the think pieces that have come out of the woodwork defending the memo while patronizing and gaslighting anyone that’s disgusted by it. The Google Memo was written by one guy but now media outlets like the Atlantic, Washington Post, and CNN are now saying “hold on a second, maybe this fella has some good ideas.”

Nah. Fuck nah.

So, I’m responding not to the singular dude that started this but to the hot takes that have defended it. I’m going to do my best to split up my memo to those memos about the memo into discreet arguments I’ve seen or heard people make defending the MRA-influenced garbage fire.

Have you even read the whole thing?

Oh boy. So this is a pretty common tactic to dismiss people’s opinions about something on the internet. First it implies that no one could possibly object to the Google Memo if they just read it and let the Google Memo’s totally rational rationality and science wash over them. If you have read the whole thing, you probably read it wrong, right?

“Which insecure man baby though?”

Disclosure: I’ve read the Google Memo. I wish I hadn’t. It made me sad and irritable and I’ve ranted about it a lot to my friends and my wife. Somehow despite the very soul-shaking terror of impending nuclear annihilation from an insecure man-baby with a bad haircut, this still really upset me.

But there’s more to this argument than just insulting the intelligence of everyone that disagrees with you. There’s an implication that you somehow owe shitty people a chance to finish their shitty arguments and that’s not how it works. If a crazy person comes up to me and starts screaming crazy bullshit in my face, I’m not waiting for the crazy person to finish so I can have an informed conversation about the crazy bullshit. I’m going to walk away. When it’s clear that someone is full of crazy shit, it’s okay to say fuck that crazy shit and walk away especially if you’ve heard a lot of crazy shit and that crazy shit is demeaning and hurtful. The idea that anyone has an obligation to just sit tight and listen to anything is a notion better suited for abusive relationships than open dialogues.

So how about this: if the memo’s author wanted people to have an open mind and read the whole thing before criticizing it, he should not have loaded it with crazy bullshit that literally starts with the title of the memo; “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” That title, a thinly veiled dog whistle using familiar terms and language for anyone that’s had to endure right-wing bullshit, is a pretty clear indication of what’s going to follow. Right there at the title I could have stopped reading it. He could have titled it, “Ideas to Improve Diversity at Google” (because apparently that’s his ultimate goal, you guys) or “I’m Totally Not an MRA Racist (*wink, wink*)” and that might have worked better. So if some folks just saw that title and said, nah, fuck nah, I think that’s totally valid. But if we go deeper, the first line says “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.” Raise your hand if an argument that started with “I’m not a racist or sexist but…” ever went anywhere not awful. Again, this is dog whistle shit. He’s saying what MRAs and white nationalists and the whole contingent of privileged white dudes with opinions about people that are not privileged white dudes always say.


Again, you could be forgiven if you read that, had a bad feeling, and said nah, fuck nah and that’s valid. It doesn’t make you a snowflake or intolerant. It makes you a person that has enough self-respect to set appropriate boundaries and leave an argument when you feel you have had enough of it. And sometimes, you guys, that’s before the argument even gets fucking started.

I could go on, bit by bit through this memo and really highlight all the shitty places where a person might tap out that are ALL perfectly reasonable places to stop reading and draw a conclusion but I need to move on.

Pretty, pretty gaslight

Actually, it’s not a screed – he’s being quite reasonable.

This is the close relative of the argument above. I’m going to dive back into my college courses on reason and logical to reply to this shit. First and foremost this argument suggests that if the memo is reasonable than objections to it are probably not reasonable. This argument is a very thinly veiled attack on people that disagree. It also seeks to dehumanize a topic to make it about the validity of an argument structure rather than the validity of the argument itself. It’s argumentative misdirection. Instead of legitimately reviewing the merits of the memo author’s points, the conversation is reframed to make you discuss the style of the argument. The way this works is that once you agree (which you shouldn’t) that the argument is seems reasonable, you find yourself halfway to an MRA rally.

*cough* Insert Godwin’s Law here *cough*

It’s true that the memo author isn’t dropping F-bombs (that’s a polite way to say FUCK, you guys) and is generally delivering his point of view in a very formal and precise way using what seems like very well-considered college educated words but, and this might blow your mind, presentation <> reasonableness. A lot of really awful people with really awful ideas have presented them in a very polished way..

To determine overall reasonableness, I think we need to figure out what the author’s intention is with this memo and I’m going to jump ahead here but that intention seems to be to get Google to change or eliminate their current programs that encourage diversity. He has some other ideas but I think even people that think the Google Memo author should get a high five can agree that what he’s really going after. Is that reasonable? Some people might think so. They might think, as the memo author does, that the existing diversity programs are discriminatory or unnecessary or ill-considered in some way. But I don’t it’s reasonable. I think it’s shitty. Reasonableness is not a verifiable thing. It’s an opinion. STFU about reasonableness and just say your opinion on the argument.

Actually, the Memo is right because Science.

I’m just going to tackle this whole thing in one place: no, the Memo is not right. It’s an MRA-influenced garbage fire full of incredibly toxic, awful concepts. The worst of these concepts you’ve probably seen in the think pieces that have condemned the author but I am going to dig into them and comment a bit more here.

Quick side note: I’m not going to refute the sources of the Actually, Science arguments because I’m just one person and don’t that kind of time and also because I understand science well enough to know that science is not a record of FACTS set in stone, it’s a constantly evolving and dueling set of hypotheses. A lot of assholes that want to prove their Actually, Science bullshit are hiding behind a wall of links and organized data. This is a distraction. I don’t mean that research and knowledge is a distraction in and of itself but if you find yourself not arguing about the intrinsic wrongness of the assertion that women are biologically less able to code software but instead are passing sources back and forth, you’ve already lost.

The worst ideas come in the section of the memo that’s titled “Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech.” This is where the MRA-influenced garbage fire really starts to heat up. The first point about this section, and most of the Memo, is how it cleverly tries to shift the narrative to Actually, Science, you guys, as if invoking Science as a grand concept somehow makes the ideas less repugnant and more valid. Except science has been used to justify and explain all kinds of bullshit thinking so it’s important to establish upfront that just because you call it science A) doesn’t make it actually science and B) doesn’t make it right. I mean, look at that cat picture up there. LOOK AT IT. We’ve had wars against people that used “science” as evidence for the superiority/inferiority of certain people.

Did you know that Climate Change is a hoax? 100% of the scientists at Right-Wing Think Tank Science University of Des Moises, IA agree!

Where the memo author really starts making me want to yell at him is when he starts talking about biology. Really, there are fewer women in tech because of prenatal testosterone, he suggests. Women have a harder time learning Javascript and you would understand why if you studied  “evolutionary psychology.” Quick digression on evolutionary psychology – it sounds kind of innocuous and boring but it’s not. It is, at it’s core more of a philosophy or scientific approach that seeks to find evidence for its existing conclusions. It is inherently Right on the political spectrum. It’s also a buzzword for, you guessed it, MRAs.

Anyway, the memo author goes on and writes about women (on average, he’s real careful to clarify it’s not all women – actually, some of his best friends are women, you guys) and how they have (on average, seriously, he’s not a misogynist) lower tolerance for stress and higher anxiety than men. This, our author tells us, can be see anecdotally by reading women’s comments on internal systems. I guess, the possibility that a fucking bro was writing a manifesto about women being prone to anxiety because of Science might make women uncomfortable wasn’t considered another plausible explanation by our reasonable author or that men, on average according to studies I could probably find because there’s a niche study for most things, are less likely to communicate their emotional state in a constructive way?

There’s even a quote he offers from the Totally Definitive And Absolutely Settled Science (Probably Sourced from an MRA Reddit) about how even if there was “greater nation-level gender equity” a gender personality gap would widen because, Actually, Science. His quotes definitely sound like they came from somewhere that makes an effort to seem “reasonable.” I’ll give him that.

There was a book some of you might remember from the early 90s called the Bell Curve. It was really popular with a lot of the same folks that think this Memo is “reasonable.” It used “science” to demonstrate that some races are not as intelligent as others. It was bullshit too.

Oh, and because the author thinks it’s important to verify his Actually, Science by suggesting that the gender gap in tech must be biological, he says that the gap is universal across the world. It’s not. And it wasn’t always like that here. The gender gap is a cultural one and if you disagree you probably haven’t read both of those links and thousands of other studies that support it so you’re point of view is invalid. #ReasonableArgument

But again, all of this science talk is just parlor tricks. It gets us away from the truth: there aren’t more women or people of color in tech because there aren’t more women or people of color in tech. This isn’t an Ouraboros or paradox, it’s how society works. To get into a particular industry you need mentors and connections and peers. Even if you don’t get a leg up on an internship because your uncle works at the tech firm, you can ask your uncle advice on the interview. If you don’t have someone like that to talk to, you’re at a real disadvantage. If you don’t have peers you can’t ask them “hey, is this normal or fucked up?” or “how much money do you make a year?” These are typical conversations I can have and have had with my male peers in tech. Even if I can’t talk to my male peers in tech for advice or leverage their presence to get opportunities, they are still role-models. That NPR Planet Money piece I linked to up above that showed the presence of women dropping precipitously in technology can be directly correlated to how media and 20th Century culture determined that computer were “boy stuff” and presented almost exclusively male role models for tech in movies, TV, etc. If there were more women and POC in tech, they could be mentors, peers, and role-models. You know, just like the ones that help the Memo Author get where he is today. The Actually, Science stuff is just pompous bunk.

Ultimately, I’ve written coded for a living. This author, and unfortunately many others in tech that don’t agree with this author, make tech seem really, super hard. They make software coding seem like you can only do it if you’ve got a PhD and you’re in MENSA. That’s not really true. Coding is a lot more like learning a foreign language than it is doing algebra in your head all day like a math prodigy. Yes, it requires learning a lot of stuff but so do a lot of things. Nurses have to know what drugs will fucking kill you but that’s women’s work and coding Google Maps is real genius stuff, right? There’s a long history of our toxic male-dominated economy devaluing certain kinds of work that women do and deifying work that men do. This Memo Author wants to make it seem like his skills are so super duper rare and amazing (and I’m sure he’s a smart, competent bro) but he’s just not as special as he wants us to think he is. And when he sits down in front of his computer, his penis has no impact on whether or not he does his job properly.

But Diversity Programs Just Lower the Bar and Stuff – or – WHAT ABOUT THE QUALIFIED WHITE MALE CANDIDATES?!?!?

This is a straw man that needs to be thrown into that fucking garbage fire. There aren’t qualified competent men in tech that can’t get good jobs because of diversity programs. That’s a bed time story used to scare insecure bros. It seems to taken as a given by people that believe this is happening that companies, like Google, are choosing because a qualified white male candidate and a completely unqualified diversity candidate and because of the SJWs and Obama they have to choose the unqualified diversity one and the Christmas Party is going to get cancelled because Muslim. That’s the Affirmative Action bogeyman that conservatives have been leaning on for decades and it’s not real. It’s the brother-in-law of the Cadillac Welfare Queen. It’s an excuse for blatant racism and discrimination as an argument about protecting all the qualified white men that are being left out of it all. If a company has a diversity program or an Affirmative Action program it’s there not to hire unqualified candidates but to give opportunities to diverse candidates when they have reasonably equivalent skills and traits for the job. Does anyone really think that the world is full of companies that are so clueless that they will damage their profitability because of PC Culture? And if you think that have you considered that maybe you’re an idiot?

Yeah, I’m sure there are plenty of anecdotal stories about qualified white men that didn’t get the thing they wanted to get that one time but guess what? There are A FUCK TON more stories about women and POC being discriminated against for HUNDREDS of years in this country and also RIGHT NOW. Why is Chad McMayonnaise’s sad story the only one that rates? Sometimes systems don’t work and sometimes, even *GASP!* qualified white men do not get what they want every time. Life sometimes isn’t fair. You know women and POC know a lot about that and they could help counsel these disaffected qualified white men.

Back to the memo specifically there’s one bit that’s worth unpacking in detail. Under the author’s section on the harm of Google’s Biases there’s a bullet point that reads: “Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate.” This is the most egregiously offensive part of the whole memo to me and it plays into the BUT THE WHITE MEN argument. The Memo Author is implicitly suggesting that “diversity” candidates haven’t earned their place at Google like the white men have. This “lower the bar” language is super coded racist and sexist terminology that goes way back. The bar is a subjective and a moving one. Who decides what the bar is and where it should be set? Seems like right now the white men have claimed that bar and, shockingly, they meet it perfectly but diversity candidates would require it to be lowered. Maybe it was set to disproportionately benefit white men and that bar wasn’t even necessary or appropriate for the job at hand? Ultimately, THIS is the heart of the memo author’s argument. Diversity candidates have slipped into Google through the backdoor and they don’t deserve to be there.

In Conclusion.

There are a lot more of these bad takes out there but I’ll leave it with this: there is a clear political and cultural divide in the US right now. It’s between the people that think that all you need to do is grab onto your bootstraps and Ronald Reagan up into your cowboy saddle. People enamored with that American Dream of independence and grit and desert vistas and homesteading and self-made men. The confidence in that idea of American Exceptionalism is so unshakeable, so core to the identity of some people, that to suggest there is systemic inequality in our country and to propose means to solve for it that don’t involve everyone just teeth gritting and pledging allegiance to the flag is anathema. That’s one part of the divide. Everyone else is on the other side.

Throughout this blog post I’ve referenced the memo author but haven’t given his name. That’s partially because my arguments are more with the larger conversation around this memo than the memo itself. But it’s worth thinking about James Damore for a just a little bit. By all accounts he seems intelligent and well-educated. He grew up in a town called Romeoville that has a poverty rate of 1.9% (versus the national 14.3%). He went to one of the top 10 public schools for math and science in the nation. He was a chess master as a kid. He was a graduate student at Harvard. And, obviously, he landed a job at Google, a very competitive and desirable employer. What I’m wondering is when he pulled himself up by bootstraps exactly? Was it in his affluent hometown? Or his local top 10 math and science public school? Maybe he never really had to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Maybe James Damore was born above the bar he wrote about diversity candidates lowering.

Post-posting Edit: There’s a strong chance I will edit this blog post for typos and maybe even add addenda. Don’t freak out. Also, if you like this a great compliment is sharing it with your social networks. 

On Writing: Past Prologues and the Lie of Scarcity


I was doing some picking up and light reorganization in my living room when I found a black binder behind some things on a bookshelf. When I pulled it out I found that it was a printed copy of a manuscript I wrote more than 10 years ago called Blue. Blue was envisioned as a big family drama heavily inspired by episodes of “Six Feet Under” and Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections. I don’t think I have a digital copy of this book anymore. I lost a hard drive in late ’06 and then another a few years later so most of my work from this time period is lost. Over the last week or so I’ve been reading sections from it aloud to my wife before bed and boy, do I have some thoughts about it now. It almost seems unfair that my wife gets this perfectly preserved window into who I was when I was 24 years old. More than a photo album, this book- a great big emo time capsule overcrowded with song quotes from early 21st century indie bands- says a lot about who I was then and what I thought life was all about. It also gives me a lot of insight into my evolution as a writer and, in it’s raw poorly edited form, highlights my biggest creative Achilles Heel.

vincent-adultmanFirst off, on a very personal level, there are a lot of funny 24 old delusions that I see now in Blue and they make me laugh. Like how all of the “mature” characters were accountants. I thought I really understood stuff back then and wrote characters that were 10, 20, or 30 years older with the kind of confidence that only idiots and fools can manage. At 24 I was barely out of college and literally started writing this book while I was staying with my mom. I barely had a real job let alone a career. I had more debt than income and I don’t think I owned a piece of furniture that wasn’t very second hand. But I was damn sure I knew what the inner life of a 60 year old woman was all about.



I was also surprised to discover that there was a lot of doing it happening in the book and by doing it I mean the sex which I was clearly an absolute master of at 24, as all 24 year old are. The truth of course is that I started writing this on Valentine’s Day after going out stag to a party that depressed the shit out of me because I was nursing a relatively fresh heartbreak. I remember that I sat in my car in the parking lot in my mother’s apartment complex after bailing on that party either waiting for her- that haunting 24 year old her- to call or pick up her phone or say what I wanted her to say or say something at all and she didn’t. I took all that rejection and awkward longing and I started writing this book. So, it’s not surprising that it’s crazy thick with sexual and romantic frustration but back then I thought that was subtext. I thought I hid my feelings the way writers can in thoughtfully obscured characters and plots but reading it now it reads like a business cat emoji, self-conscious tear stains, Neutral Milk Hotel songs, a dirty cartoon of stick figures doing it, and a tiny note scrawled in the margins that says “but why didn’t the pretty girl…?”

Anyway, as satisfying as it is to kick my younger self around a little bit for being young, the constructive thing I’m getting out of re-reading Blue is seeing a really bad writing habit on full display without any hint of self-consciousness. It’s like my creative super-villain is just hanging out in that book, totally not hiding at all, kind of waving at me and pretending we’re best friends. Part of me is like, “dang 24 year old Erik, he was right fucking there and you just invited him over to watch Gilmore Girls WTF?” and the another part of me sees the value in getting to know my enemy, the Lie of Scarcity.

The Lie of Scarcity is the lie that creators tell themselves when they are convinced that the thing they are making needs to have everything in there because there will never be another opportunity to create a thing ever. It’s a lie that there’s a finite number of creations you can create, a scarcity of creative output, and therefore you better stuff it all in there whether it fits or doesn’t fit. It’s a lie I catch myself believing all the time. It’s a lie I find myself whispering right now. “Put more in this blog post, Erik. ALL THE JOKES. ALL THE THEMES. MORE PICTURES OF OTTERS.” I have to say no, shut up, this blog post has enough in it, and otters don’t even have anything to do with this so why would I put them in here? But in Blue, I did not say no. I gathered up my feelings and experiences and reflections of my entire life and I put them on the page and I’m telling you guys, that make the page pretty crowded.


god damn it

In no particular order here are some of the big ticket plot points in Blue (SPOILERS): mental illness, cancer, bad sex, alcoholism, the death of a spouse, sex addiction, bulimia, coming out as gay to friends and family for the first time, suicide, good sex, abortion, chemotherapy, Catholicism, puritanism, drugs (obviously), weird sex, turning 30, 12 step programs, genital lice, homophobia, divorce, and kind of boring sex. I’m probably missing some of the sex in there and some of the other drama but you get the general idea that there was not a life event I knew anything about that wasn’t included. I was clearly ambitious but in a book that was around 400 pages long there was nowhere near enough room to cover each of these elements (and the NINE main characters) with appropriate care and consideration. Some things came out as well-thought out, if a bit lacking in depth and wisdom, and others were well under half-baked. I got feedback that it was challenging to keep track of everyone and everything that was going on back then but I discounted it. I couldn’t imagine the narrative working without all the switchbacks and subplots and reading it now, I know I was right. The narrative wouldn’t work which is why I needed to fundamentally reconsider the narrative itself. I needed to get past that Lie of Scarcity, tell my anxious writer brain that wants to write every writing thing every time I write, and find the beating heart of the story, the part of the story that was true and necessary and personal. I know now, and I knew then, what that was but I complicated it. It would have been better to write 3 books with some elbow room in them than to write 1 standing room only but I guess when I was 24 the only future I could imagine was becoming an accountant and I needed to say what I had to say before the accountant truck picked me and took me to the business things store to get my ties and highlighters.

No kids! It's a trap! The Post-It Notes are a TRAP!

No kids! It’s a trap! The Post-It Notes are a TRAP!

I wish that I could read this book now and not relate to the anxious urgency 24 year old Erik felt writing it but I can’t. I still feel it. I don’t know what story will be my first to break through, to be my published success story. As I write this, it’s the one year anniversary of my literary agent expressing interest in representing me. A year ago, I was sure that was it. I was sure I was on the fast-track to my dreams. But I’m still writing. Will the book that initially got my agent’s attention be the one? Will the next one I wrote? Will the one I’m working on right now? Those questions are with me when I sit down to write and the Lie of Scarcity tells me I better be sure I’m writing enough. I never know what story will be my first impression and I never know which one will be my last. No writer ever does. It’s why the Lie of Scarcity can be so insidious. It’s also why you should keep your old shitty writing to remind yourself what’s at stake.

On Writing: Censorship and Book Deals for Trolls

F*ckin kittens

F*ckin kittens

There’s a media personality popular with a certain kinds of internet folks and the alt-right political movement that got a book deal and it’s all over the news. I’m not going to name him because he’s built a reputation of galvanizing a lot of shitty people to do a lot of shitty things to people that criticize him online. It’s not that I’m afraid of Pepe the Frog loving “u mad?” bros- it’s that I have a lot of other better things to do with my time and don’t want to give this fellow any more publicity than he already has. Anyway, this book deal he’s made with an imprint of Simon & Schuster known for incendiary political nonsense is worth some money and has led to a lot progressives calling for public shame and a boycott for the publisher. To counter this, the fans of Mr. If Women Don’t Like Being Harassed Online They Should Quit the Internet have cried out CENSORSHIP CENSORSHIP FREE SPEECH U MAD? and come out of the woodwork to find every social media or news post with a comments section discussing this to argue about how the SJWs are persecuting them etc. This is exactly what the provocateur and the marketing people at the publisher want. It would be sad funny if it wasn’t so sad cynical.

This whole debacle is an interesting prism to consider what free speech means and doesn’t mean. First, the primary source for many of these arguments in the US is the First Amendment in the Constitution. It reads a little something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first key takeaway from this, really, the first word, is that this is about Congress and/or the federal government. Congress can’t take away your condescending Willy Wonka memes because that’s a violation of the First Amendment but if you post one of them in a comment on my webpage, I can delete the fuck out of it. This extends to other people’s web pages, and yeah, it includes stuff like Twitter and Google. There is no constitutional protection for being an asshole on webpages you don’t own and/or host on the internet. This extends further to other private industries. Coca-Cola has no obligation to print that Coca-Cola tastes like brown pee on their cans just because I have opinions and want them to and book publishers have no legal obligation to publish my erotic sasquatch Battlestar Galactica versus Sharknado fan fiction even though they obviously should because C’MON. This means that Captain Fat-Shaming Works and his just tellin’ like it is sycophants are not having their legal First Amendment rights violated if any website, book publisher, or crazy sign carrying street masturbator decline to peddle their smug shitty propaganda.

So that’s it! Argument over! … Well, not quite.

There’s a big chasm between what is legally okay or not okay and what is morally okay and not okay. There’s a famous (misattributed) quote from my second favorite Frenchman, Voltaire that reads:

My #1 Frenchman (obviously)

My #1 Frenchman (obviously)

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Now despite all the gifs you’ll find with this quote and Voltaire’s 18th century French mug this quote is a paraphrase or possibly even a completely invented sentiment. That doesn’t mean that it’s not worth thinking about. Free speech remains free because people fight and suffer for it’s freedom. I don’t like anything about this particular Purveyor of Mean-Spirited Fart Noises Translated into English but if his free speech is being impinged, I’ll (reluctantly, gosh) stand up for him.

Phew. Well, there’s a reversal. And… scene! … Nope.

u mad?

Boycotting and protest are also free speech and they should not be curtailed or denigrated by your racist cousin or misguided college friend who unironically call people SJWs on Facebook. So, if the meticulous coiffed cretin upsets you (he should, he really should – he’s awful), I think it’s not only legal and right but totally awesome to boycott him and make fun of him as often as possible. Free speech is messy and it’s supposed to be messy. We want to hear dissenting opinions. We also want to be able to tell those weird hateful dissenting opinions to shut up and leave Leslie Jones alone because the Ghostbusters remake was a pretty good movie that was only really hampered by audience expectations and the typical big budget movie foibles and god dammit I want to see a sequel because that cast is cool.

That’s it. That’s really it. Unless the government itself tells Author X he can’t write his ugly snarky poke-the-libruls-because-LOL dreck, it’s all fair for criticism and think pieces and protesting (though -again- you know this is what he wants, right?). I’ve read some people get upset that student groups got organized and got him uninvited or even banned (THE HORROR) from college campuses and I think those are slightly murkier waters as those institutions are paid, in part, by federal dollars, but most schools empower the student body to make choices for themselves. If enough students say they don’t want a lousy troll oil salesman to come and insult women, minorities, or people with the temerity to not be skinny, then that’s also freedom. So shut up about it. I mean, you can still complain about it, legally, but it would be really nice of you to just do it into a pillow in your closet so that the rest of us don’t have to listen to it all the time. Maybe if you tried doing that people wouldn’t hate you so much and they might even invite you to parties that have chips and dip. Just a thought.

My second least favorite meme after Lipton Kermit.

The real question to me is should we let this guy get under our skin? He wants to get under our skin. That’s his promotion engine and for every voice of outrage there’s some petty butt hole that latches on to it to believe he’s being marginalized when really it’s just that no one likes him because he’s a petty butt hole. Calling him out is the definition of feeding the trolls and we all know that’s not a good idea from the prescient documentary on the matter Gremlins 2: the New Batch. But not calling him out allows him and his ilk to normalize. We’re seeing the alt-right go mainstream in our media and politics right now. We’re seeing people who would have been marginal whackos elevated and placed next to normal, reasonable people as if they are equivalent (I’m looking at you, Alex Jones) and if reasonable people don’t say, “hey that guy is literally a neo-Nazi!” than we could have some real big problems coming up.

So I think people, especially young people who have the energy to stay up until past 10 o’clock at night on Tuesdays like super heroes, should engage and speak their minds. Sometimes that’s going to sound, to outsiders, like it’s overly sensitive or even shame police-y. I get that. You can’t write content for anywhere and not be aware that it’s pretty easy to offend someone these days and that there are a lot ways for that offense to explode and become a story that overshadows the intention of what you wanted to write. I’ll be honest and say it’s not ideal. I wish I didn’t have to worry so much about it and I wish that if I offended someone they would give me the benefit of the doubt that it was unintentional and not necessarily representative of everything I’ve ever done or will do but that’s not where we’re at. If/when people find my screeds about sending all double-jointed mutant freaks back to Minnesota where their cursed kind escaped from the Devil’s North Wind, I’ll just have to face that criticism like a professional. As much as all of these alt-right acolytes think that “political correctness” has run amok and we need to get back to the good old days when a comedian could just tell a rape joke and have people slap knees and say, “god dang, sex assault is HILARIOUS!” we’re not going to go back to that. Personally, I’m okay with that trade. I can be more careful with what I say if historically oppressed groups get a chance to recover from millennia of self-centered straight white dudes running the show. Just so long as we don’t let any of those double-jointers get into positions of power. They can’t be trusted because ropes can never hold them.

So in conclusion, I don’t have the answers to how we should interact with and push back against people like My Little Racist Pony and the great news for me (and the world frankly) is that I don’t need to have an answer. I’m not supposed to have an answer. No one needs to have an answer because we all get to express our version of our answer however we like because freedom of speech, you guys. Open dialog is important and with ideas bouncing off of other ideas, I have confidence that we’ll sort it out

But seriously. Not Otis is a real fermented sack of vomit and hair product, right? Can someone please make me a Chrome plugin for me that replaces his name with a smiling poop emoji and a great sucking sound as if all worthwhile conversation and human decency has left the room?

Looking for Uriel – A Personal Essay

When I was 18 years old I met a monster. His name was Adam*. He was a few years older than I was and had an apartment with his girlfriend Amy* near the University of Oregon campus. He was charming and funny and he convinced me to take my first shot of straight everclear and one time, when he was beating up Amy, he broke her arm.

I met Adam through a Werewolf: the Apocalypse role-playing game group run by an old friend of mine. I’m pretty sure I was told that Adam and Amy joined the  group through an ad at Emerald City Comics or maybe they were friends of someone else that saw that ad or maybe there’s some other sequence of events. I don’t remember exactly how it happened but I got along with Adam and Amy and they invited me to other games and other events at their apartment and pretty quickly I started spending most of my free time there. Adam and Amy’s apartment was a hub and most times there were a bunch of different people there. I was new to the city and new to living on my own. Adam and Amy were my first new adult college friends. They were both smart and nothing like most of the people I’d ever known in my small town growing up. Amy could speak a little bit of Japanese and Adam had stories about going to a small liberal arts college in Vermont where he met Chloe Sevigny, a story so oddly specific and obscure that I’ve always assumed it was true even though there’s no reference to Chloe ever going to a small liberal arts college in Vermont on her Wikipedia page.

In the months that followed I developed the kind of close intense friendships with both of them that only seem possible when you’re 18 and staying up all night talking about video games or vampire clans. Amy was the first grown up woman that I’d really gotten to know very well that wasn’t a parent or teacher. She was creative and just needed to get a few things sorted out so she could get enrolled back at the university. She made ramen noodles with all kinds of different ingredients and she smoked just enough pot that it seemed casual and contrary to the horror stories spread by drug abuse pamphlets. I remember that Amy had great taste in music and I remember thinking that someday I would like to date a girl like Amy, someone that seemed so fully-formed and so independent. Adam meanwhile fit into the role of proxy older brother. I looked up to him and, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, I mimicked him. When he teased or made mean-spirited jokes about Dave*, a friendly, sincere mutual friend of ours who had done nothing to deserve it, I teased and made jokes too because Adam was cool and I wanted to be like that. All these years later when I look back on it I see myself following Adam around like a lost puppy and it makes me sick and ashamed.

The signs of Adam’s abuse were always there. If anything, they were too obvious, and because they were so on-the-nose, I presumed they were bullshit. One time Amy had big visible bruises and she said she got them falling down the stairs from their loft bedroom. It was like a line right out of an after school special. I joked about it. Sure, Amy. Fell down the stairs- onto Adam’s fist. And she joked back. I don’t actually know for sure that Amy falling down the stairs was a cover-up. She might have literally fallen down the stairs that time but in context with everything else, everything that followed, it sure seems suspicious and I wish I’d done more than make jokes about it.

One time a few of us went to Amy when she was alone and asked her sincerely if she was okay. We asked her if Adam hurt her. She insisted that he didn’t and that she was okay and she was convincing and we believed her because she was Amy and Amy seemed so fully-formed and so independent.It’s easy in a situation like that for everyone to just lie if the lie feels better than the truth. I felt consoled by Amy’s insistence that there was nothing wrong. I felt like I’d done the right thing and there was nothing more I could do and if there was something more to it, that was on Amy and my hands were clean. That’s the lie that makes me feel better.

Adam was, to put it generously, a dominant presence in any social setting. To put it less generously he was a bully. He was a massive guy, standing several inches taller than me with plenty of muscle. He had long dark hair that he pulled back into a ponytail and a beard. He had dark eyes and sometimes he would just glower at you with this displeased intensity that would make you feel really uncomfortable. He had a potent combination of charisma, confidence, wit, and physical presence that made him difficult to resist. He also had a temper, a temper unlike anything I’d ever seen before.

In our Werewolf: the Apocalypse game we were all playing a pack of eco-warrior werewolves defending our territory in central Oregon from evil. At some point our pack needed a new designated leader, or alpha. I had been playing in this game for the better part of a year and had been engineering my character to have an arc that led to him becoming the pack alpha so when this opportunity presented itself, I volunteered to take it. Adam, who had joined up very recently, decided he wanted his character to be alpha. He picked up his dice and locked me in his glare and he rolled and he beat me. His character was the pack alpha and I don’t think he even really cared about it. I think he did it because he knew I wanted it. I think he did it to show me, not my werewolf character but real life insecure 18 year old me, that he was the alpha.

Adam seemed to pick favorite people and for a while that person would always be on Adam’s good side. He would say flattering things. He would make little gestures or give little gifts. He would plan things around you. He’d call to check on you if he hadn’t seen you in a while. He would talk about you when you weren’t there and make everyone else feel insecure. After he took pack alpha, I was his favorite person for a couple of months. But Adam’s favor didn’t last and he would take it away just when you were getting used to it, just when you were feeling special to him.

The first time I really saw Adam’s temper I was already drifting out of his limelight. I had made some other friends that I spent time with away from him and Amy and pushed back a little harder on some of his behavior. One time when I wasn’t at Adam and Amy’s, Dave stood up for himself one time too many and Adam roared at him to get out. Not long after that I was over at their apartment, walking on egg shells to avoid making Adam mad. Sometimes Adam had bad days, Amy explained to us. It was low blood sugar or he had a headache. Those days he was mean to just about everyone just about all the time and it was a bad idea to be around him. Amy told me to leave once because Adam was in one of his moods. That day Adam must have had low blood sugar or a headache or some other explanation that Amy would rattle off. He was impatient and snippy. I was supposed to just be there for a couple hours before Adam had to go to work but he decided to call in sick and that we would all spend the day together. The afternoon didn’t really go the way Adam wanted it to – I can’t even remember why because it was pointless then and even more pointless now. He started snapping at people for ruining his day and reminding them that he had called in sick to work to spend time with all of them. Everyone was quiet and miserable and Adam kept jabbing. Finally, I told him that no one had done anything to ruin his day and that he had made the choice to call in sick to work and we didn’t ask him to do it. Adam stood up from his chair and stepped toward me, furious. Amy shouted out, “don’t you hit him, Adam!” and I realized that’s exactly what he was going to do. It had never even occurred to me that he might just hit me for talking back. Adam was a giant and he was angry and he wanted to hit me for having the temerity to question him. Amy’s intervention stopped him. Instead of hitting me, Adam shouted that I needed to get out of his apartment and I got my things and left. I found Dave and we kind of laughed and felt like we were in a club of people Adam had thrown out. We shared horror stories about Adam’s shitty temper and we walked around the neighborhood and I almost felt energized by it, I almost felt good about myself. After months of being timid, I stood up to him. I poked the bear and the bear was ultimately toothless. Of course the bear wasn’t toothless. I know that now just like I know that it must have been terrifying for Amy to be left alone with him after my valiant social stand. A day or two later, I found Amy and asked her if it was safe to return, if Adam had calmed down. She said he had and I came back to the apartment like nothing had happened.

When the summer came I had to move back home and fell out of contact with Amy and Adam. I saw them once or twice on weekends but the longer I was outside of the circle the easier it was to just not go back. I got a new apartment only a half dozen blocks away from theirs but Adam and Amy never came over. Adam seemed reluctant to go anywhere outside of his apartment or his job at the campus convenience store and that made it simple to avoid him. Dave, to his credit, never went back after he was thrown out the first time, and that Fall I started spending a lot more time with Dave and Dave’s friends. When I did go back to Amy and Adam’s I wasn’t a favored son anymore, I was just a visitor. Adam wasn’t mean to me but he wasn’t kind either. I felt anonymous in the crowd of new kids at their apartment and, passively as possible, I just detached and we weren’t friends anymore.

I had a friend or two that still went over there and sometimes I would get gossip about what was happening at Adam and Amy’s. It was through that gossip that I found out when Adam broke Amy’s arm. The story that was I told was that he just grabbed it and snapped it, like he was breaking a twig. I believed the story immediately and remembered every sign, every hint, that anticipated it. The days Amy just seemed scared. The way that she knew what Adam getting up to hit someone would look like. I don’t know if he hit her often or rarely. I don’t know exactly how Amy’s arm was broken. I’ve seen police reports online and saw Amy once, fleetingly, in a supermarket with a cast, so I know her arm was broken and cops were called but most of it is just terrible speculation. Even if Adam didn’t hit her regularly, he controlled her like he tried to control the rest of us, like he succeeded for a while in controlling me. When I saw Amy that one final time she said she had moved out and she seemed happy like I hadn’t seen her before. I realized that the Amy I had known had been dimmed the whole time. I can’t even really imagine what that was like for her. I totally understand why she dated Adam, why she moved in with him. Most of the time he could be a great person, he could make you feel like a great person. For years Adam groomed her to accept his episodes, to cover for him and advocate for him. He gave her a giant spotlight and then shattered it and came in to help her pick up the pieces.

When I was 10 I had to stay with my uncle and younger cousins for a little while. While I was there my uncle talked to me and showered me with me praise until I upset him right after my cousins went to sleep for an afternoon nap. He chased me down the stairs and knocked me to the ground. He grabbed a wooden chair and held it over me menacingly, his face red and terrifying. He shouted things at me that I couldn’t really hear or process. I hyperventilated and felt dizzy. He put the chair down and told me to go upstairs to his room. He explained that we were going to take a nap. He put out a cot and started to undress and then the door bell rang. He went downstairs and I stayed behind in his bedroom, shaking, sobbing, terrified. I looked across the hall to my cousins and they looked back at me, awake but frozen. I looked out the window and imagined jumping out. I wondered how much it would hurt to land from the two story drop and if I could climb over the wrought iron fence and get to a pay phone to call for help. I was so paralyzed and so afraid. I knew something awful was going to happen to me if my uncle came back. Finally, I decided to go down the front stairs and see if I could get out the front door. When I got to the bottom of the stairs my uncle called over to me, sweet and kind as he had been ever other moment. He was sitting with his priest and asked if I’d like some lemonade. When I told my mom about what happened on the phone later, I explained it was all a misunderstanding. My uncle hadn’t knocked me down. I tripped on the rug. He hadn’t threatened me with the chair, he had moved it to stop me from hitting my head. My mom did not believe me or the stories my uncle convinced me were true and made sure I was immediately taken out of my uncle’s house.

Adam is what an abuser looks like, it’s what an abuser acts like. Funny, social, likeable. The kind of guy who could convince you to take a shot of everclear and laugh with you when it came out your nose and you couldn’t stop crying. The images I’d seen of abusers before Adam were all scary looking greasy men that may as well have been carry signs announcing their villainy. Adam was more complicated. The scariest monsters always are. I’ve wondered if he struggled with mental illness, if maybe his mood swings were a manifestation of a mood disorder or other chemical imbalance. I’ve wondered what his life must have been like to make him into what he was. And I’ve wondered if things with him and Amy maybe weren’t so simple, if maybe her arm was broken on accident or if she had been violent with him too. Most of me hates him without reservation, loathes him for what he did to Amy and also, selfishly, for what he did to me, for making me feel so stupid, for tricking me and making me complicit in his abuse. But a tiny part of me misses him. That’s the worst part of an abuser. To be really hurt, you have to really care and caring lingers even if you don’t want it to.

While I was friends with Adam, I started running my own role-playing game, a Vampire: the Masquerade game, and Adam played a character in it named Uriel. Adam knew the mechanics of the system very well and carefully constructed this character to be a nightmare. Uriel was, on paper, sickly and small, but Adam had given him vampiric super powers that allowed him to instantly become an impossible force. Uriel wore heavy kevlar armor and carried around double-barreled shotguns that he could fire one-handed. He was virtually unstoppable and for every absurd feat Adam could point to a line in a rulebook that said that’s how it was supposed to work. Uriel intimidated everyone in the game. He intimidated the other players to the extent that people told me privately they didn’t want to come anymore. After I stopped inviting Adam to come to the games, I took over Uriel and made him into a villain for the other players to fight. I played Uriel as cold and cruel and simply evil. I made him an avatar for Adam. I made him simple and terrible and when he was defeated heroically it felt like catharsis.

I never saw my uncle again after I stayed with him when I was 10 but I did hear that several years later my cousins ran away. They went to the police and explained that they had been beaten and sexually abused for years. Now when I know people who are going to Kentucky, I always joke that they should find my uncle and beat him with a baseball bat, beat him bloody, beat him broken, beat him until he can’t move, and he feels a fraction of how scared it feels to be a kid trapped by him. It’s not as much of a joke as it should be.

Some time after Amy left Adam I ran into Adam once and it was the last time I’ve seem him. He rode by me on a bicycle and made some token motion of recognition but kept going. I never got to confront him. I never got to be the white knight that said, “don’t fucking touch Amy, you piece of shit!” For years I’ve stewed in the guilt and the shame and the speculation of what I could or should have done differently both to help Amy and to be more like the strong person I envision myself to be. Seventeen plus years later and I find myself Googling Adam, trying to find signs of him. Maybe he’s a grocer in a Portland neighborhood now. Maybe he went to high school with a colleague my wife used to know that I’m Facebook friends with. I remember exactly what he looked like, the kind of shoes he wore even, and I remember his middle and last name and details about his background, where he grew up, stories about his mom. I remember much less about Amy. I have to admit to myself that despite these vivid surface details, I hardly knew the real Adam, and looking for him on Google isn’t about confronting him about what he did or who he was. It’s barely even about him at all. It’s about me wanting to turn this story into something that makes sense, into a narrative where there’s a hero and a villain, where I’m a hero, and not a dumb kid that should have known better, a dumb kid that believed his uncle more than he believed his own memories, that believed Amy fell down those stairs. It’s about a lie that will make me feel better.

(*These names are changed but the story is as true as my memories)

On Writing: Of Galaxies Far Away and a Long Time Ago

star-wars-posterI’m a writer because of Star Wars. Those laser swords and space ships exploded my childhood imagination and created a gateway into a fantastic world where heroes win because the Force is with them and even the most terrible monster can be brought back from the Dark Side. I adore the mythology and the imagery and the simple earnestness of it. There’s a little bit of it in every story I’ve ever written.

The element of Star Wars that I think is the most important, and the most glaring when it’s missing, is hope and ultimately the realization of that hope. When times are dour, when the good guys are outnumbered by the bad, there is always the corny certainty of hope. I’ve written a lot of blogs about writing and expressed a lot of different points of view on this site but this is a message that’s central and critical and most personal to me: do it with hope, always. Write. Live. Watch the news. Buy a movie ticket for another Star Wars movie and hope it doesn’t have Jar Jar Binks and poo jokes in it. Do it all with hope.

That’s it’s for now. More soon. Happy Life Day everybody!


PS: Rogue One was pretty, pretty sweet, you guys. STAR WAR!

On Writing: The Audacity of Sincerity

baby-monkey-2Babies are the worst. They’re loud and needy and smell terrible. And I’m not just talking about human babies here. Dog babies and cat babies and otter babies and deer babies and little monkey babies – all babies are awful. They ruin everything and we should really be doing something about it. I think the only good baby is a chicken baby that’s still in the egg because you can use that baby to make an omelette. Basically the only good baby is an edible baby. People are always so excited to show off babies in pictures and in person and all I can think is, if we had gotten to that baby sooner we could have made it into a pie.

Sorry. I got some troll in my throat. Where was I? Oh, yeah. A writing blog.

Surprise is an essential element of creating a story. If you can catch the audience off guard you can heighten the emotional impact of a moment. A scare that is unanticipated is scarier. A joke you don’t see coming is funnier. A defeat that catches you off guard is more crushing. Surprise isn’t much of a reaction on it’s own though. For example, it’d be pretty surprising if you were reading this and I just





Surprise for it’s own sake might be novel. I mean, it is by definition surprising. But what’s the value in that? It’s not particularly entertaining for the audience and it doesn’t really do much to improve a story. Honestly, surprise for no good reason is mostly just a great way to irritate people.

Which is where we’re at now as a culture. In the 21st century, in modern America, being contrary because it’s unexpected, being a knee jerk Devil’s Advocate, has been elevated to a celebrated pastime. I do it sometimes. We all do it sometimes. We have allowed this lazy cynical childish nonsense to take over our discourse, our media, and even our political leaders. If you find an ugly hat, you should put it on because who would wear an ugly hat OH MY GOD? If you see a lot of people enjoying a television show or movie or band or ugly hat you should definitely go up and well, actually because liking a thing just because you do is so gauche. If it’s not ironic, if it’s not done for LOLs, it’s not worth doing, right?


Male privilege and casual misogyny included!

I obviously take a dim view of this trend and yeah, I’m pretty impatient with it now. There’s a whole spectrum of contrary smugness from the trucker hatted hipster drinking cheap beer that’s not really hurting anyone (except wine cooler “vintners” and beret milliners) to the predictably shitty goblins that are attracted to every comment section on every website to that piece of human excrement that sicced a horde of cretins with keyboards on Leslie Jones because of something about an old B-movie and lady on the internet. I’m painting it all with the same brush here and that might not be fair but fuck it. I’ve seen too many links to listicles explaining the top 10 reasons why X is overrated or Y is not as cool as you thought it was. I’ve had too many arguments about whether incendiary rhetoric is sincere or just trolling. Just trolling. This is a thing we have to wonder now. Is the creep that sends a barrage of rape threats to a female comedian a serious threat or “just a troll?” Is the spray-painted swastika for real? And what the hell locker room is all that talking happening in? Is it a magical wink, wink, no for real though, boys will be boys locker room where you can just say things you don’t mean because the lockers are full of bullshit excuses to avoid taking personal accountability?



I know there has always been hyperbole and there will always be some jerk that throws a rock at the pretty girl and some oddball eccentric that will try to convince us that Vegemite isn’t salty hate sewage and that like most things the internet and mass media proliferation has just put a magnifying on it but I can’t help but feel it’s still more than that. I’ve seen some argue that the increase in trolling is in response to “Social Justice Warriors”, the new term for the straw man “PC Police” (the 90s are back, you guys). The argument is that everyone is so sensitive and so serious -remember the Joker’s catchphrase? trolls love the Joker- that the trolls just have to take them down a notch. Really they’re the heroes here. This is where my ability to write really fails me because I don’t know the right word that captures the sound of a wet shit and an eye roll and a middle finger and pure undiluted contempt that I think is the appropriate response to that. I mean, there’s so much wrong with that idea that it gets caught in my throat while I’m shame vomiting that I struggle to even have to respond to it. I’ll try to distill it though. These people that the trolls are trying to take down are mostly from communities that are already down several pegs or are speaking out in favor of those communities and the trolls are most often the ones already privileged above everyone else. Trolls aren’t fighting the power. They are the power. They aren’t standing up to the Man. They are pushing down folks that are already down because they’re petty, pathetic, monster people. And that’s it. That’s all the nuance they deserve. Fuck them. You know. For LOLs.

I think I understand trolls just a little bit and that understanding all goes back to big surprises in a story. When there’s a plot twist in one of my stories I’m always really excited to know if a reader saw it coming. 99% this is because I want to know if the story works, if it entertains or evokes the emotion I want it to evoke, if the surprise manages to sneak around their defenses and bring along my real point. But 1% of it, I’m ashamed to admit, is about just knowing if I pulled it off. Did the trick work? Not the deeper narrative stuff, no – I want to know, did I get you? And if I did, I know it means I understood you a little bit and there’s a tiny sense of control and satisfaction in that. Me fooling you in a story is my version of me outrunning you on a football field. It’s a momentary jolt that for just that moment, for just that thing, I was better and I won. I think every ironically tacky fashion accessory, every sorry/not sorry, every Top 10 Reasons Why Alf Was the WORST buzzfeed post, every racist troll comment is about them getting you. People have become addicted to surprise and the rush of shocking someone else.

We live in an era where we are always social, where we are always being broadcast. The sense of private self is shrinking. This is an unintended side effect of social media and our internet connected lives in general, I think. It’s this world, like we’re all characters on the Truman Show, that creates the addiction to surprise and shock. It’s a distorted Hawthorne Effect ; we are observed and we feel a compulsion to reject the observers. But the observers are literally everyone. There are billions of Big Brothers now. So, I get it. There’s a certain punk rock refutation of the status quo going on here but at a certain point when everyone is a punk rocker, isn’t it most punk rock to be Pat Boone? When irony is no longer surprising, I certainly hope we will see a resurgence of sincerity.


On Writing: What Happens Next – Or – Send in the Clowns

Say, theoretically, something unexpectedly bad happens to you, your family, your world and you’re stunned and you’re trying to figure out what happens next. Here’s what happens next: next happens next. It just does and you won’t be completely sure what next is going to look like but it’s going to happen and then it’s going to happen again. There’s an inescapable gravity to next. It takes you kicking and screaming toward the future and doesn’t always do it politely.

What you feel, what you think, what you need, it’s going to vary based on the situation, the person, and the likelihood, however remote, of a new Tom Waits album. But you’ll need a next and fighting against it or expecting it to be different than it is for you or others, well, it’s as futile as fighting against the sunset. So the first thing you do is accept your next and if someone else is there with you and they’re also spun around upside down scared/sad/hurt/freaked out, you accept their next too.

And next will lead to next and that will lead to next again and I think you get the picture.

I’m in a philosophical mood about unexpected twist and turns and nexts tonight so I hope you’ll indulge me a bit. I don’t mean to be obtuse or to obfuscate the source of this mood. Yesterday was our Election Day and while I don’t like to get overly political here I think most people that know me or have read my work can guess I was With Her and I was pretty decidedly Not With Him. Anyway, the election is resolved and it didn’t go down the way I expected or wanted and about a half of us are now pretty stunned and maybe a little afraid. Maybe we’re a lot afraid. So I’m writing this for all of us but really I’m writing it for me. Writing this down reminds me.

I know it’s just politics but I also know a lot of people, myself included, feel this an awful lot.

There are commonly quoted stages of grief but I don’t necessarily put all my confidence in them. We’re not commonly quoted people and oftentimes commonly quoted wisdom just doesn’t fit right. What I do have confidence in is that sooner or later you’re going to want to stop with all the fucking nexts, all the thinking, and all the feeling, and you’re just going to need something that takes your mind off of things and that’s not only totally acceptable, it’s completely healthy. This is why we have troubadours and storytellers. This is why we have Channing Tatum.

That’s why, in this last part of a strange rambling blog, I’m calling on all of you. We comedians so work on your jokes. We need songs so practice your instruments. We need men in capes so sharpen your pencils and draw them. We need storytellers so tell us a good one.

I’ve been introspective and I’ve been depressed. I’ve been looking for my purpose and at least for now I’ve remembered what it is. I’m a clown and I swear I’m gonna go all out to make you laugh. I’m a storyteller and I’m going to do my best to earn your attention, to earn your distraction.

Take care of yourselves and the world around you. Be patient with yourself and with everyone else. Accept next on next’s terms because next isn’t going to negotiate with you. And when you’re ready, put on a big red nose and some silly shoes and help get the world back to normal.

And if right now you’re over the moon and celebratory because things went your way? Well, not everyone is and we’d all appreciate it if you were gracious and patient with us.