Life owes you nothing

By: Joelle Charbonneau

Yep – by the title you can guess that this is not going to be a cheery post.  Or maybe it is.  Only you can decide. 

No matter where you are in life or your profession, you get up, you get out your toothbrush and toothpaste (I hope), you get dressed and begin your day.  After the sun sets, you finish your day by going to bed. 

Exciting right?  Everyone does the same thing.  Get up.  Brush your teeth. (Yes, for some reason this is very important to me.) Get dressed.  Do stuff during the day and go to bed.  Day after day.  Year after year. 

But in between those day to day tasks, we do other things.  And those other things are what defines who we are and how we see ourselves.  For some of us, we write, which in the case of the fabulous Chuck Wendig, means we might never even bother to get dressed before we start pounding away at the keyboard.  Day after day (wedged in between periods of sleeping) we add pages to the pile until finally there is an entire book.  Woo hooo!  Score!

That book should be published and make a million dollars because we created it.  We love it.  Life owes us something for all that work.

Wrong.

Life owes us nothing for getting up and writing.  It owes us nothing after hours and hours of rewriting and reworking and submitting and finding an agent.  It owes us nothing after submitting to editors and getting a contract.  It owes us nothing for going through more revisions and going through copy edits and proofing pages.  And more –life owes us nothing even after the book hits the shelves. 

Whether you go through traditional or self-publishing channels to see the book available for the reading public, you have done a lot of work.  And despite all that work, the book may barely be a blip on the reading public’s radar.  And while that is disappointing to hear, it’s the way it is.  No matter how many promotional blog posts you write and how many bookstores you visit, your book may never sell more than a handful of copies.  That book could be the best book ever written and this is still the case.  Because luck plays a part in everything and life owes us nothing.

Thousands upon thousands of books are traditionally published every year.  Thousands more are self-published.  So if you think life owes you the top of the list and a ride to the bank to cash all those royalty checks, you are probably setting yourself for disappointment.  I mean, ask yourself how many books you bought and read this past year.  Even if your reading count is high, it’s only a drop in the bucket compared to the titles which were published.  Think of how many books you never had an opportunity to hear of and know that if you write and publish a book—that could be you. 

See—I told you this post was going to be a downer.  Or is it?  Because while life doesn’t owe you the trappings of success, it does owe you the opportunity to sit down and type.  After that it is up to you.  You owe it to yourself to take advantage of that opportunity and celebrate the victories that you accomplish every day.  Writing a page.  Two pages.  Finishing a chapter.  Reaching the halfway point.  Typing The End.  Life doesn’t owe you those moments, but rather you owe them to yourself.  And when you are done writing a book, life doesn’t owe you fame and fortune.  If you are writing to achieve those things you are most likely going to find disappointment at the end of the publishing rainbow no matter what happens.  But if you go into this business remembering that life doesn’t owe you anything and that you are doing it for yourself—then each day will be a triumph and every reader who sends you a note telling you how much they enjoyed the story will make you feel as if you have found a pot of gold.

Writing is about you and the story.  A published book is about the story and the reader.  And that is the case whether life owes you anything or not.

Sherlock and Batman

by
Scott D. Parker

Comparison can be a terrible thing, you know?

CBS's "Elementary," the modern Sherlock Holmes show for American audiences, still doesn't get a lot of love. Yes, it seems to win its timeslot (don't know; haven't checked, but I watch it every week) and that will ensure its existence. But it seems to suffer by comparison with the other Sherlock Holmes versions out there, especially the modern ones.

Why? Why this particular series and this particular character when other characters don't get that heavy scrutiny?

I love Batman. Back in 1989 when the first Michael Keaton film was released, it was awesome. I had turned my back on the 1960s TV show. That wasn't a true Batman. Then, the 1990s movies pretty much proved the point. Later, with the Christian Bale version and its uber realism, the Keaton films look campy by comparison.

There's room for both interpretations, to be honest. In recent years, as the phrase "The Dark Knight" has stood in for the darker, realism of the Bale Batman, Adam West has started referring to his Batman as "the Bright Knight." His was fun. Keaton's was a direct transplant from the then comics. Bale's was "real." Even Kilmer and Clooney had parts that were, um, "memorable."

The same is true for Sherlock Holmes. The BBC Sherlock is the one for Holmsian geeks. It's a direct retelling of the classic stories as if they were being told in our century. It's an update rather than a different twist. The BBC stayed more in the spirit of the canon than has Elementary. The BBC asks the question "What if Sherlock Holmes's stories took place in the 21st Century?" Elementary asks a different question: What if Sherlock Holmes existed in 21st Century New York? See the distinction? "Took place" vs. "Existed." That's how I see the different versions.

And it makes all the difference for me. I can geek-out with the BBC and catch all the Easter eggs thrown our way, but I can also watch Elementary and be just as entertained and see their own Easter eggs. Bees anyone?

Batman always gets reinvented every generation or so. Just last year, with the Court of Owls story arc, the writer, Scott Snyder, brought something completely fresh and heretofore unknown to the 70-year-plus franchise. Elementary is doing the same thing. So is Downey. So is the BBC.

Sherlock Holmes is an even older franchise and I, for one, am glad to be living in an era where we have two TV versions and a movie version. And I'm looking forward to see what kind of episode CBS puts on after the Super Bowl. I'd love to see Elementary gain some more viewers and ensure its longevity.

Book Signing Event:

For anyone in Houston today, our very own Joelle is going to be at Murder by the Book this afternoon with Dean "Miranda" James. Come on by and say hello to two DSDers.

3D or not 3D

By Russel D McLean

When we went to see Peter Jackson’s Hobbit lately, both myself and the Literary Critic were rather taken with the idea of seeing it in Imax. That huge screen, that incredible sound system. But in the end, we didn’t, not because it wasn’t on, but because it was in 3D. In fact, we had a hell of a job finding a regular screening at a decent time.

And its not the first time this has happened of late.

3D is probably one of those tools that movie creators think are amazing. It allows you create something “immersive”. Except 3D is rarely immersive. And more than that its headache inducing in a lot of people (myself included).

The only 3D film that had my jaw drop was Judge Dredd. Yeah, I never thought that would happen either, but there you go. The Slo-Mo sequences (Slo Mo being the drug that is the movie’s MacGuffin) were great to watch and absolutely stunning. But, yeah, that’s about it. For the most part, 3D is a distraction because the planes of depth feel wrong. For me its more like watching various layers slatted together - - yes there’s a sense of depth, but its artificial and not at all real, more often that not taking you right out of the movie. And, sure, once or twice you shrink back because something comes at the right angle to scare you, but overall, its adding nothing to the movie going experience and if anything makes the world presented on screen seem even more artificial. Although I won’t deny that one day they may overcome the problems of slatted-layers and headache-inducing glasses, I still wonder if theres any point. Do 3D movies tell stories better or do they merely disguise the poorer qualities of the stories being told by blinding the audience with spectacle? You’re so busy thinking, “cool, that meteor just flew past my head” that you’re not thinking, “Hey, that meteor had no business in the story other than flying past my head”

I watched Prometheus in both 3D and 2D. The 2D experience was better. The frights were there, and I wasn’t spending the whole time aware that I was watching a movie (although I concede it wasn’t a great movie; in fact, there was an awful lot wrong with it given the pedigree) so much as I was just allowing myself to sink into the story and the characters.

3D is something that should be used sparingly. Its something that should be used in the service of the story. Its not something merely to be applied because it will look “cool”. That most movies come in a 2D version tells you how superfluous the technology really is. They’re saying, “Hey, the story works even without the 3D”, and its true. Although the 3D serves as a distraction from the fact the story is mince whichever way you see it.

I’m sounding like a curmudgeon here about 3D, but enough is enough. Its not enough to merely make a film in 3D. It has to have a reason for existing as such. It needs to be a damn fine story on its own terms. If you can make a film that makes it worth the headache, I’ll see it. But frankly, all of the efforts so far seem pointless. Yes, even The Hobbit, which worked just damn fine in 2D on the big screen.