Thoughts on Education

Ok, I just wanted a picture of
Betty Page somewhere on my Blog.

So, with all of this Pulp stuff rumbling through my head lately, a thought came to me. There are no classes in secondary or post-secondary education that focus on the Pulp Era of American Literature (at least not that I know of). This seems to me to be a great travesty.

Ok, lemme back up a bit and tell you where this line of thought came from.

I am in the process of registering for a Masters degree program with a new online school. I received my BS in History last August. Now, as you can imagine, a BS in History is about as useful as a man's nipple, so I either have to just eat the cost of a useless education, or expand and do something else. Right now, I have a good job with the State. And even with the cuts that my douche bag Governor has made to my benefits, it's still not a bad deal. Ok, it's about as good as I could get in the private sector. But, hey, it's a job. The point is, further education will probably not get me further in my job (only experience, or a specialized education that I don't find interesting AT ALL will do that). But, I need to defer my student loans for a bit longer until we can get more financially secure. Right now we're in that gray area, financially. We make too much for me to claim an Economic Hardship Forbearance, but we don't make enough to actually make payments on the loans yet. So, the compromise will be that I go back to study just for me. To that end, I am enrolling in a MA in History program, with the focus being Ancient Cultures. I think this will be very fun. And who knows, maybe someday they'll ask me to consult with the Stargate Program.

But the uselessness of my Bachelor's degree got me to thinking that, if I had it to do over, would I have chosen a different program of study? Probably. Maybe something more marketable, like Computer Science (though that always seemed kind of boring too). As a writer and fan of reading, I thought about a degree in English and Literature. The problem is, those classes require us to read really old crap that is no longer relevant to modern society except as historical references. None of the English and Literature classes I took ever had me reading anything remotely cool, or in a genre that I liked. Which led me to think of the fact that the Pulps are never covered.

If I were to ever teach an American Lit class, I would most likely have at least some portion of the curriculum dedicated to the Pulp Era. It was a very influential period, and much of it resonates with modern sensibilities. In my opinion, it was the last period where the Literature of the time reflected a sense of wonder and adventure. Post WWII and Cold War lit is always so depressing and doom saying. I think that's why people still love the Pulp heroes. We, as a people, need to believe in something good. Believe that it's possible to fight evil. Today, Comic Books are about as close as we get. And even there, modern comics are all about angst and darkness.

I dunno, maybe I'm just rambling now. I know I took a nice, circuitous route to get to my point. If I even had one at all. But, this is a blog, not a newspaper column. I'm not really required to make any sense, am I?

Conan Review

Watching this movie was like reading a Robert Jordan, Roland Green or John Maddox Roberts pastiche from the Tor era. The spirit of Conan was there, the basic character was there, the world was there, and as a cohesive story (even with a rehashed plot), it was perfectly fine. Sure, there were plot holes. But most movies (and many books) have those.  I guess I'm just one of those viewers who doesn't let a little thing like plot cohesiveness and plausibility get in the way of a good story.

My personal opinion is this: If, after watching this film, someone genuinely thinks it's a steaming pile of crap, they think so based on preconceived notions. As a movie, it was good. I enjoyed watching it. The action was suitably intense, the acting was fine (with a few minor foibles), and the visuals were astounding. It wasn't a movie that required you to turn anything off, other than rabid-fanboyism (regardless of what you're a fanboy of).

That being said, it was definitely made to be a rehash of the 1982 film in many ways. The revenge plot has been done, and I would have been happier without it. However, it was done well this time. Unlike the 1982 film (which I loved), the raiders who slaughtered Conan's village had a real reason to be there. Not some vague notion about "searching for steel." And in keeping with that, it provided a motivation for Conan to do what he did. Personally, assuming that the events that happened to this Conan were to happen to REH's Conan, he would have acted in the same manner. Throughout the movie, it was never a "quest to save the world." It was always personal. Just because his personal vendetta ended up saving the world, it's still just an unintended consequence.  We are shown through some narrative that Conan has been traveling and adventuring for years, without any attention given to this revenge "quest" beyond a passing thought.  Basically this movie is an origin (obviously meant to both set up the rest of the film, and also to wipe away the origin presented before) that jumps to a story that takes place in the middle of his career.  The story picks up when he sees something that brings to mind the fate of his village.  That's when it becomes a revenge tale.  And when it's all done, he moves on.  His work here is done, now on to bigger and better things.

Most of the details that people point out as weaknesses are minor points, meant to strengthen a weak argument. My only irritation was the design of the Cimmerian swords. They were ridiculously large, and when Rose McGowan hoisted dad's sword, it looked even more ridiculous. You could see they were made of wood or aluminum. An actual iron/steel sword that big would probably weigh about 25 pounds. But, meh. It's a minor complaint. Over all, it didn't detract from the movie itself. The good thing was that they were consistent. Which was actually one of the film's strong points. For good or ill, everything was consistent.

So, there you go. The opinion of someone who was introduced to Conan through the 1982 film, started reading the Lancer/Ace editions, and then Savage Sword of Conan.  I feel I got my money's worth.

I laughed, I (almost) cried, I cringed, I cheered, and I am content.

I just wish more people would have seen it.  I would love to see a sequel with Mamoa.

Back at it again...sorta.

In light of Conan's latest release in theaters, I find myself compelled to go back to the REH Forums over at http://www.conan.com/, where I post as Reaver.  I had left that forum about a year ago, mainly due to the rampant negativity, and some of the more vocal "Purists" who would get downright confrontational and insulting if you didn't see things their way.  Not surprisingly, most of them are still there, and still doing their thing.  But, in the interim months, things have changed for me.

I've made some friends outside of those forums that I have come to realize that I already knew from there.  Small world, REH-fandom is.  I've also matured and mellowed a bit, and no longer rise to others' bait on some issues.  When the hell did I grow up?

Regardless, it's a good community of people, all fans of Robert E. Howard and his works (those who only know Conan from other mediums are quickly converted or killed...yeah, it's like Riddick in there).  It's a good place to discuss all things REH, as well as those things only peripherally related.  And I'm now testing it to see if it's a good place to bounce writing ideas off of.

Some of you may remember my idea for a "sequel" of sorts to L. Sprague DeCamp's Conan pastiches.  Particularly his creation and treatment of Conan's eldest son, Conn.  Well, after giving it some thought, based on some comments here, I have decided to do some more work on that project.  However, I am changing the names and making it an original work.  If/when it is completed, it won't be a Conan pastiche (based on another Conan pastiche).  Yet, there may be enough in there for fans of Conan to recognize the nods and homages.  I have 10 chapters outlined.  I see this being a relatively short book.  Nothing over 200 pages, for sure.  I plan to split it into two parts, with the first part being outlined already.  There is a possibility that it could go to three parts, but I still don't foresee it being much longer than 200 pages.

Why am I doing this?  Because I can.  And I like the premise of the son of a barbarian usurper taking over the throne from his father.  It will allow me to explore the possibilities of nature vs. nurture.  The Prince was born and raised in opulence, but how much of his wild father's nature did he inherit?  Of course, there will be plenty of action, sorcery, adventure, danger, excitement, and maybe even a little romance.  You know, everything that makes a book fun to read (for me anyways).

So, here I go!

Conan's Failure: Pre-viewing thoughts

This will be what I call a "Pre-review" of Conan the Barbarian (2011). Rather than focusing on the film itself (which I will do later, after I get a chance to see it), I will instead focus on why it appears to be failing in the theaters.

Bad Press
Since the day it was announced, there has been bad press circulating throughout the net. And as details were announced, such as the director and casting choices, and the initial draft of the script were revealed, the hate just got worse and worse.

Basically these "pre-haters" are divided into two camps. The first, and most vocal, yet smaller in number, are the Robert E. Howard purists. These are men and women who have dedicated a good portion of their lives to studying the works and worlds of REH. In relation to Conan, they have a passion for the character that is only rivaled by their passion for his creator. For these people nothing beyond his original stories will be good enough. They look down their noses at the pastiches, in all mediums, as lesser works, derivative of the Originals. To a certain extent, I agree with them. No other Conan can compare to REH's most excellent prose. And yet, I seem to be nearly unique in that I can separate the "original" from the pastiche, and enjoy each on their own terms. However, these purists cannot seem to do that. Rather they view anything that is not based 100% on a REH work as somehow "insulting" or "disrespectful" to the man. This is a very narrow view, and does a disservice to the character, and a large portion of his fans. More on that later.

The other group are the Milius Fans. These are people who only know the character from the 1982 Arnold movie. To them "Arnold was Conan." Well, no, actually, he wasn't. Arnold was John Milius' Conan. Or more accurately, he was Ed Pressman's and Dino De Laurentiis' Conan. To these people, of which they are legion, no one else will be able to "fill Arnold's shoes " (if I had a dime for every time I've read THAT phrase in the past week...). Unfortunately, most professional critics fall into this group as well. They are responsible, along with the press in general, for perpetuating the myth that this movie is a "remake" rather than a "reboot." (Really? And was Nolan's Batman Begins just a remake of Tim Burton's 1989 film?) Be it known, I am a HUGE fan of the 1982 film. I still count it among my all-time favorites, and have watched it literally dozens of times since I was a teenager. That being said, I am well aware that it is a far cry from REH's creation. However, it lead me to read REH's stories, as it did for many, many people. And, if this new movie had been given a chance, perhaps it, too, could have done the same for others.

Bad marketing choices
When it was originally announced, the film's title was simply Conan.  Then some idiot in marketing decided to try and capitalize on the popularity of the 1982 film, so they added the Barbarian to the title. Big mistake. This is no doubt the main reason so many people just assume it's a remake. Add to that some of the visuals that were also designed to allude to the previous film (the sword of Conan's father is like a cartoon version of the previous movie's sword).

Conan is now more than just a Pulp Hero
Conan as a character was created in the 1930's. He was introduced to the public through the pulp magazines of the depression era, which were (and in some circles, are) considered "trash" writing. No one beyond the fans took them seriously. But Conan survived the demise of his creator, and that of his venue, thanks to many people who had a passion for him. The character has been reprinted by several publishing houses over the intervening decades. Often heavily edited, but still, it's Conan. Then there is the issue of the Comic books. Marvel comics had a Conan title in print for decades, in one form or another. And to some people, THIS is the Conan they know.

The fact is, Conan has grown well beyond his pulp roots. He is larger and more well-known than his creator. And the creators of this film knew this. So, they attempted to make a film that would appeal to the broadest swath of Conan fans. The Pulpsters, the comic book geeks, and the Arnold fans. And at the same time, they had to make a film that would appeal to the general public as well.

Were they successful? Depends on who you ask. But in the big picture, probably not. Because the very thing that they tried to do was what doomed the project to failure. The old adage of "You can't please all the people all the time" is no more fitting anywhere than it is in Hollywood. By trying to create a movie with mass appeal, they actually created mass derision. Much of it before it was even in pre-production. And all of these people who pre-hate the movie, and those who listen to the pre-haters, will go into the film with pre-conceived notions, and pre-formed opinions, whether consciously or not.

In short, there are a variety of factors that have caused this movie to do poorly. And those don't even take into account the actual film itself. The outcome of opening weekend for a film has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself. It has to do with marketing, word of mouth, and pre-conceived notions. However, everyone wants to judge a movie's quality based on that opening weekend. So, since Conan the Barbarian did relatively poorly during its opening weekend, it's already being considered a "flop." And, in my opinion, this is in large part the fault of a lot of people who need to just shut up and let a movie stand on its own. But, that will never happen. Especially now that we have the Internet, and anyone with a computer can put their opinions out there for the masses, no matter how misguided and misinformed they are.

Science Fiction anyone?

So, the other day I was perusing somewhere on the web (can't really recall where), and I saw some mention of Science Fiction needing a revival similar to what Fantasy is experiencing. And that got me to thinking about a couple of things.

First of all, could I write some good Sci Fi? I think so. In fact I have several projects underway in that genre. Granted, the majority have been "underway" for literally years. But I have experienced enough Sci Fi that I think I could write something passable. I considered trying my hand at some established IPs like Star Trek or Star Wars, but abandoned that right away. For one thing, there seems to be a glut of those two, especially Star Wars. Plus I'm that guy who is never happy with how someone else sets up their sandbox. I invariably want to change or add to the rules. So, I am probably better off working with an original setting. Of which, I have plenty in my head.

After I went down that road for a while, I also started to think about Sci Fi in general, and whether it really needed a "revival." Unlike Fantasy, Sci Fi has kind of always been around, even if only on the fringes. There have usually been scads of TV shows that run the gamut of Sci Fi, from the hardcore things like Star Trek and the Stargate shows, to the more sublime stuff like Fringe and Doctor Who. Heck, for a long time there was a whole cable channel devoted to the genre (until some clueless executives got ahold of it).  And I know that I have only scratched the surface of the sheer amount of Sci Fi that has always seemed to be present.

In my opinion, what Sci Fi needs is not a revival, per se. Rather it needs a power surge, a shock to the system, a jolt of adrenaline. And in this day and age, that means a really high-profile movie, in my opinion. Something that will spark the public's imagination in a way that the Star Trek TV show did in the late 60's and that Star Wars* did in the late 70's. Something that is (perceived as) pure Science Fiction. Comic book superheroes, while generally utilizing many Sci Fi tropes and ideas, is not what Sci Fi needs. We need a movie with alien landscapes, fleets of starships, desperate heroes, hi-tech gadgetry; all presented with with high production values, and good acting. Characters who are both real and extraordinary. Aliens who are plausible and relatable, yet vastly different than humans. Technology that looks and feels just beyond what we know now, but still attainable.

We almost touched it with Starship Troopers, but alas, while I love that movie to death (never saw part 2, and part 3 was pretty good, but went direct to DVD), it had weaknesses and plot holes you could pilot a cruiser through. 2009's Star Trek did a very good job of refreshing that franchise. But that franchise is so ingrained in our psyche now, that it kind of exists in a void. Avatar, while very entertaining, and one of the most beautiful films in history, had its faults as well (mainly criticisms of the rehashed plot and overly PC tones).

What we need is something new. Something we haven't seen before. And there are literally thousands of books that would make good movies, if only they could be handled properly.

I don't know, what do you think? Is there a book or series that you think could really get people excited for Sci Fi again? And do you think a good movie is the best way to go?
 
*For the record, I understand that Star Wars is not strictly Sci Fi, but rather Space Opera.  But, in my book, it still qualifies, as it has some pretty solid (if extraordinary) Sci Fi elements, mixed in with some mysticism, and a very operatic plot and characters.  However, it should be noted that it inspired several other shows and movies, such as the Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers TV shows.

Orcs: Fantasy's Antiheroes

In recent years (well, maybe not so recent anymore) there has been a huge upswing in Antiheroes in fantasy fiction. Not to say the idea was born recently. Many feel that Robert E. Howard was doing it in the 1930's, and indeed, the pulps were full of anti-heroes like The Shadow. But the idea of an antihero, according to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt), has been around since at least the 18th century. However, the definition has always been so broad that most authors and readers have their own version of what constitutes an antihero.

For me the definition is pretty simple: Someone who uses traditionally villainous tactics in an effort to promote the greater good. That's a pretty general definition, and leads to the necessity of other definitions, which will vary from fictional work to fictional work. Such as, what constitutes the "greater good?"

Ok, so how does this all relate to Orcs? As you may know, I am working on an entry for Scott Oden's Orcs anthology. I had actually written one story where the Orcs were the antagonists, but they were kind of secondary in nature, and the story really wouldn't fit in a collection of fiction where the main focus was the Orcs. So, I set that one aside for something else, and started a new one. In this story, Mahak is an Orc, but he's also a hero. This presents certain challenges as Orcs are normally perceived as villains, and to make them heroes runs the risk of removing what differentiates them from just being "ugly humans." In other words, they need to act like Orc Heroes. And for that to happen, you have present them in the proper context.

This reminds me of the difference between Disney's Hercules and the mythological Hercules (or Heracles). In mythology, Herc was a right bastard. He killed his own wife and children in a fit of jealousy. He was often unfaithful, self-centered and generally not all that likable by modern standards. But by ancient Greek standards, he was quite heroic. He fought monsters, furthered the cause of mortals, and upheld the many virtues that ancient Greeks held as heroic. His evil deeds were just seen as his own half-human weakness, and really just normal weaknesses in general (the Greek Gods were a bunch of bastards and bitches most of the time as well). Yet the Disney version was much more innocent, forthright and had all of the qualities we deem "heroic" in modern times.

And that's why it works. The character is still there, and he still elicits the same reaction from modern viewers that the mythological version elicited from the ancient Greeks. He just does so in a different manner to appeal to different social sensibilities.

So, again, back to Orcs. In order for an Orc to be "heroic" he has to uphold the virtues that Orcs hold in high regard. This in itself can also vary from author to author. But the key, in my opinion, is to present those virtues in a positive light, and then remain consistent. An Orc hero should be proud to be an Orc, and should remain so even after the story is over. There should be no "turning to the Good Side" at that critical moment. And in the end, his chosen cause should be furthered by his actions, no matter how vile they may seem.

I am fortunate in that the subject of my story lends itself easily to this line of thought. But I can see that other authors may have more of a struggle with this if they want to make the protagonist an Orc. Orcs are a violent, generally nasty lot. So, how does one make them sympathetic without stripping them of their heritage?

Reflections on Gaming

This past weekend was GenCon. I'm Facebook friends with many people in the gaming industry, and a lot of them talked about their experiences over the last few days. I have been to one GenCon, and that was a few years ago, as a vendor. I worked for the second largest game-distributor in the country, and I spent my weekend mostly in meetings with game companies; talking about what was coming up, how we could best serve them, and generally trying to cultivate working relationships. Of course, I was fired a couple of months later, but that's neither here nor there. I enjoyed the experience, and kind of miss having an inside track on the industry.

My only regret was that I was unable to just experience the Con as a gamer. My wife was allowed to come with me, and she got to view a lot more than I did. But, neither of us got to participate in any games, or sit in on any panels. We were hoping to make it this year, but money and the economy...well, you can probably see where that went.

The plan is to try to make it next year, and hopefully make a road-trip to DragonCon in Atlanta as well.

This is how it all started.

As always, the presence of GenCon and DragonCon gets me to thinking about my gaming experiences; past, present and future. I was introduced to the hobby, like many of us, through D&D. In 1981, I moved from Kansas back to my hometown in California. I was just entering the 6th grade. One of my new friends there asked me one day "Do you play D&D?" I responded with "What's that?" And thus a lifetime of gaming was born.

Throughout high school I played a large variety of games. D&D, AD&D, Marvel Super Heroes, DC Super Heroes, Star Frontiers, James Bond...the list is rather exhaustive. I even still have some of those old games in my collection. While in the Army, the hobby continued. A lot of Champions (and various other HERO games), AD&D 2E and Call of Cthulhu.

When I got out of the Army, we moved to San Diego, and I started school at a junior college in 1996. While there, I was reading a Forgotten Realms novel before class. This guy noticed and asked if I played. And thus began a friendship that has lasted for years, and has lead to a lot of new friends. And indirectly, it lead to my current marriage, and my moving to Wisconsin (through the City of Heroes MMO).

The pseudo-medieval settings of D&D lead me to explore history, which lead me (and continues to lead me) academically. The interactive story-telling of RP-sessions has lead me to pursue writing. The games I have played have fired my imagination on so many levels, and lead me to read books and see movies I might never have experienced otherwise.

Sometimes it's kind of amazing to think of how much my life has been influenced, directly and indirectly, by Role-Playing Games. I can't even imagine what life would be like if my friend hadn't asked me if I played D&D back in 6th grade.

The First Avenger

So, I finally got to see my dream movie last night, and I was not disappointed in the least. Captain America: The First Avenger was everything I had hoped it would be and more. I had very few complaints, and those were only minor.

Rather than do a full-on review, I think I will focus on what they changed/added to the story, and why it all works.

*SPOILER WARNING*

If you have not seen the movie yet, you may not want to read the following.

Howard Stark

I know that the character was mainly added as a way to tie this movie together with the rest of the Avengerverse movies. However, the character added so much to the movie. He was comic relief at times, that element of the unpredictable at others, and made a great foil for many of the other characters. I loved the shades of Tony Stark (especially the first time you see him) and the fact that he seems to be everything Steve is not when it comes to women.

James “Bucky” Barnes
In the original comics, Bucky was a 15-year old kid. He was basically Robin to Captain America’s Batman. His death in the comics was much different than in the movie, as was the character himself. In my opinion, the movie version was better. First off, the idea of sending a teenager into combat is kind of ludicrous, especially in WWII. So, making him a peer of Steve was a good move. His death actually served a very good purpose, IMHO. In the original comics Bucky died during the same incident that dumped Steve in the Arctic. However, having him die during a different mission allowed Steve to have more of a focused motivation in his quest to get to the Red Skull. It also allowed the climactic battle to focus on the showdown between Cap and the Skull, making the fight that much more personal. In hindsight, they might have been able to make Bucky’s death a bit more heroic, though he did die as a result of saving Steve. So, I’m happy with how it was portrayed.

The Red Skull
Is there anything Hugo Weaving can’t do? His Red Skull was simply amazing. Perfect. The fact that they separated Hydra from the Nazis the way they did, made him that much better of a villain. He was more evil than Hitler. And you just don’t get more villainous than that. The scene where the two characters meet for the first time is so iconic.

The Howling Commandos
When this movie first came out, I was both excited and disheartened by their appearance. Mainly because I knew they wouldn’t include Sgt. Fury. But they managed to blend the characters into Cap’s story seamlessly, and the fact that Nick was not present was not even a problem once the movie go going. It was awesome to see “Dum Dum” Duggan, with his signature Bowler hat. Some of the other characters were straight out of the comic book, while others were added to give the team a very diversified feel. And it worked.

The “death” of Captain America
In the original comics, Captain America falls into the Arctic after Bucky is unable to diffuse a bomb on a plane. So, Cap’s death is imposed on him. He is unable to stop the inevitable, and in the end, he dies. However, in the movie, his death is a choice. It’s a conscious decision to sacrifice himself to save the lives of millions. This is very Captain America.

I know they probably changed and added a lot more things that I am not thinking of right now. And I’m sure they will come to me when I see it again…and again.

Suffice it to say that this movie is now my all-time favorite super hero movie. Sure, I’m biased. So what? I am a firm believer that comic book movies (and really any movie based on an established IP) should be made first and foremost for the fans. And this movie was just that. There are subtleties and details that only fans will “get” when they see them. But they are wrapped lovingly in a rollicking good film that anyone can enjoy (except for many film critics, who obviously just don’t “get” movies anyways). Was it predictable? Yes. But it’s Captain America, for Christ’s sake! If you went into this movie expecting something new and different, you completely missed the point. A friend of mine said he was disappointed that there was no “wow” moment. Honestly, the whole movie was one big “wow” moment for me.

My only real complaint about this film was that it had to end. I cannot wait for The Avengers next year.

Obstacles

I HATED this thing!

When I was in the Army, I ran a few obstacle courses. Oddly enough, I didn’t do one in Basic like most soldiers do (my MOS training kept me away from that particular day, along with bayonet training and the big, long road march at the end). But, during my second enlistment, my platoon would occasionally utilize the rickety old obstacle course at Ft. Polk, LA. There were about 10-15 stations, and only a couple of them were in such disrepair that they were deemed unsafe (scary, I know). When running this course, it was for time, and you got :30 added for any obstacle you bypassed. I think we were only allowed to do so on one or two. For me, there was one that I routinely bypassed. Imagine a house roof without the top, just the rafter beams set about two feet apart, and going up to an apex and down. The point was to go over the first beam, and under the next, and then repeat all the way up and down. For some reason, I could never do it. So, I got to where I would just run up the beams and down, and take a hit on my time.

Why do I bring this up? Mainly because I like remembering some of my experiences in the Army. But also because it seems relevant to other areas of my life. Particularly writing. To me, writing can be like an obstacle course.  There's usually a time-limit (deadline), there are intangible obstacles that will hinder your progress that you must conquer (fear of heights/writer's block), and there are certain steps that should be adhered to, and if you bypass any, there will most likly be consequences.  But in the end, when you cross that finish line, you can look back and feel a sense of accomplishment.

As of now, I have crossed only a couple of finish lines.  For me, the first was to write a complete story.  Believe it or not, that part has always been very difficult.  I'm great off the starting line, but I tend to stumble sometime after the opening scene.  I can see the finish line, but there is so much in my way.  And even though I have conquered that first step (completing a story), each new project seems to be plagued with new obstacles.  Right now, they are mostly external.

My home-life is not conducive to writing; I am beseiged by small children who demand so much attention, personal obligations (both mine and others') get in the way, not to mention working full-time, and now looking at a new Grad School.  There are even physical barriers.  My desk is built in such a way that typing is uncomfortable.  I don't have a reliable mobile writing platform (ie: laptop).  In short, sometimes I feel that Fate is trying to tell me to give it up.

Screw you, Fate.  Kiss my ass.  Suck it.  I'm not quitting.  Even if I never make a dime from writing, or even finish a major project, I will continue to work on doing so when I can, however I can.  Why?  Because I like it.  It's in my blood.  I can't see a movie poster, or a book cover, or a painting, or even some interesting person on the street, without wondering what the story behind that is (or could be).  And I feel compelled to explore the possibilities through writing.

I've become a semi-habitual blogger.  And I think this is a good way for me to become a better writer.  I get in the habit of writing a blog, and it will only be a short hop over to getting into the habit of writing fiction.

So, what obstacles do you have?