Weekend Writing Warriors: Mother Figure

Hey guys, and welcome to today's Weekend Writing Warriors. I want to continue with my short story The Imposter roughly about where I left off the last time. There are only two or three sentences in between the snippets. You can read the whole story if you want - just click on the book cover. Oh, and don't forget to say hello to the other wonderful 8sunday authors here. :)



Paul had his wits, his greatest asset, and the women he married in several states across the country loved that about him. His charms, his looks, and the way he carried himself; it was a small piece of the persona he had imagined himself to be ever since early adulthood.
The time before that was a blur of unhappy memories of parents who weren’t altogether suited to take care of their children. They did their art thing with no regard for him or his brother, and as a result they were shipped off to grandparents on many occasions. It wasn’t exactly bad times. Paul had always liked his grandmother. In many respects she had been the only real mother figure he’d ever known.

My Best Friend's Peephole

I have been meaning to write a story about two empires, one being reigned by a king, the other one ruled by a queen. The highland kingdom overlooks the valley, which is the center of the queendom. Because there is this enormous difference in altitude, the mountain tops cast large shadows across the vale. The queendom's citizens don't fear the powerful and much larger kingdom, however they are constantly aware of its presence, and in turn, the kingdom overlooks the goings-on down below.

Geographically, that could be an idea for a setting. There are a myriad of stories about the concept of overshadowing powers, and many of them manage without the help of geographical conditions. Gaining the high ground is a vital part of being in control, in stories as in real life.

Let's take history as an example. Our policies make friends and foes, and history does take note of that. In many ways history defines the bonds between all our nations by chronicling events, making them a reality, an official story, carved in stone.

Speaking of non-fictional bonds, let's talk about German-American relations for a second. In our country, culture has always provided us with material for civil opinions. Writers such as Karl May were vanguards in creating a certain fictitious view on America, one that we would all agree on as being reality. His works have left a distinct cultural imprint on the German post-war generation. To this day, it is still anchored in all of us.

So, seeing how things have been going between both our nations in recent years, it seems we're not quite friends, but not enemies either. Much of the relationship reminds me of mentorship, as in 12 Step programs, with America being the sponsor, and Germany the sponsee.

In many ways, we are an American project. We needed guidance. We're still grateful the world was nice enough to let us live after what we have done during World War II. Our nation has committed horrible crimes. However, it seems that since then, we are stuck somewhere between Step number 8 and 9 for a really long time. They are the ones about examining past errors and making amends with the people we injured. In fact, we're so busy making amends, we seem to confuse violations against our human rights as another form of reparation, as yet another valid way of paying our debts.

Because when you're worth nothing, anything goes.

Since the day I found out about the NSA grand-scale espionage I oscillate between wanting to cry on top of my keyboard and yanking it out and throwing it against the wall. I know it's not Old Typo's fault. Ever since Prism was ceremoniously unveiled about two months ago, it seems nothing is anybody's fault. Right now we're in moral zero-g. Extensive American mass surveillance on German phone and internet communication, all under the pretense of security. It doesn't stop there. Bugged embassies, EU representatives being listened in on telephone calls. And all of us civilians, listened in on. 500 million private German conversations monitored by the NSA. Per month. Why sure, NSA chief Alexander told us candidly. Now you know. As if our reluctance to believe it was some kind of insult.

Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, the services we use on a daily basis; they're all in on it, whether by force or willingly. There is Prism, Tempora, Stellarwind, Xkey, and all the while we're busy trying to figure out exactly how much our government knew about all of this, and to what extent it was involved in the down-and-dirty of our intelligence. BND and NSA in close collaboration, with one aiding the other sneak through the loop holes of their legal systems. Big Data, data mining, text mining. Don't exaggerate, our minister tells us. Surely not. We can't do anything about that, our chancellor tells us. In the meantime, my head keeps spinning. I think it might unscrew from my neck at some point.

Still I wonder why we so willingly accept the facts. We didn't sign up for any of this. Someone risked his life for us to find out the truth. The American press is so busy demonizing Edward Snowdon as a traitor, they graciously overlook the fact that he was doing what they should have done. Sadly enough it has come to the point of investigative journalism being in the hands of a few activists these days. And now? How can we remain mute? If Snowdon wasn't actively hiding right now, we would let them take care of that problem in the same way they did with Bradley Manning.

All things considered, German politicians are not the key players in this. Although I'm pretty sure they all knew, even the ones who are busy pretense-fighting right now in preparation for federal elections. It seems utterly pointless to blame those marionettes. (Well, maybe it is pre-election stasis)

Still it makes you wonder what we even need them for. As far as I'm concerned they are just hollow suits. What is our government for, if not to protect us from exactly that kind of violation. Letting it all pass makes our code of law the set up for a joke, to which our government is the punch line to. Since our politicians seem to think of themselves as the American appendix, they surely don't have our best interests in mind.

Do we have the guts to upheave? Do we dare start a riot against mommy? I have my doubts as to whether we have the strength of will to do something against the creator.

It is hard, maybe the hardest thing we'll ever have to do. But we have no choice. Our laws stand for something. In case mommy mistreats us, even if it allegedly is in our best interest, we don't have to take it. This has nothing to do with the shadows of our past. Veiling this affair under the blanket of security seems like the biggest joke of them all. This is a separate issue. And we have rights.

My Anti Spy kit

How to behave when being spied upon

They know what we're saying, so why not take advantage of that? Speak out! Spam-post, send emails, talk dirty on the phone. Throw in the occasional "listening in on private conversation gives you cancer" comment if you want. The point is to not let them silence you. Talk, comment, be verbal. Don't be a quiet mouse. Don't mistake being inconspicuous with being safe. That's the thing with mass surveillance. Grids. They may already be in operation, we have no way of knowing, or anticipating what it is they're looking for. Lucky guess: everything - anything. Don't underestimate the power of profiles. The information of who talks to whom alone can be powerful. You don't need the contents of conversations to create patterns. Holding perfectly still is a pattern as well. In regards to dot-connecting, much can be achieved with the awesome power of statistics.


How to react - as a government - to being spied upon

Spy back. Know as much as you can. Theoretically, if everyone knows everything, no one has the upper hand. And that's what this is about. Maybe weighing information against each other will be something to consider, and informational buy-outs, some potential to be the nuclear armament of our century. In any way, it can't hurt. There is no means of control over the density of their network. We can't make them stop the surveillance.


Why this is frigging important

This is our century's atom bomb. We shouldn't trust anyone with such enormous weaponry under their belt - especially when they say they need it to secure our safety. Terrorist attacks prevented: quite a few, they say. Exact numbers: conveniently classified.




I want to end this by saying: Intelligence Services, I can't do anything to make you stop watching me whenever you want, and interpret the data in any way you see fit. Hopefully you'll just want to know something about the books I buy on Amazon, but I can never be sure. In any case, if you're reading this I'll hereby throw in a couple of middle fingers - in hopes that they'll appear a blip in your statistic records.

Best regards.

Spying on spies: Dagger complex movement

Hate the Artist, Love the Art: Orson Scott Card

I like Orson Scott Card's stories. Pathfinder is the most recent novel I read, the first installment of the same-titled young-adult Scifi adventure series, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Unky Orson, that's what I used to call him, if only in my mind, yet still lovingly so. Until recent events cast a chill on my sentiments, and those initially warm feelings turned into somewhat mixed feelings.


And here is why. Orson Scott Card is an outspoken same-sex marriage opponent. However, to simply label him extremely conservative would be an understatement, because the underlying issue is way more severe. In an 2012 opinion piece he referred to homosexual attraction as a form of  "reproductive dysfunction" and legalizing gay marriage as a "leftist attempt to force anti-religious values on our children." It wasn't the first time he took up a position against homosexuality. Card is known to be a strong defender of traditional marriage, as a devout Mormon he is an outspoken homophobe.

This is what he wrote in an essay on same-sex marriage in 1990:

"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships."

Read up on one of his published essays here.


Since 2009 Card is also a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti gay-rights activist group, known for their ill-famed gathering storm PSA, proclaiming that gay marriage is a danger to traditional marriage and to the future of our children.


With all this background info about Orson Scott Card, the person, I found it increasingly hard to separate his personal views from his authorship. There is nothing remotely anti-gay about his stories, not even a pinch of homophobia in any of the ones I've read. Yes, he paints somewhat traditionalist female and male characters, but so do a lot of other authors. As far as I recollect there are no gay characters in his stories - not that that would be an imperative in Scifi/fantasy stories or indicative of anything besides that they're not there. Surely, even consciously not touching upon this subject shouldn't be detrimental to Card in any way.


Thus to some people's dismay, Card's personal views don't affect the quality of his art. According to some it would be easier to boycott him if his works were studded with homophobia. But hey, when is life ever that easy?

Trailer still credit Summit Entertainment

Anyways, now, with the upcoming Ender's Game movie and Card's involvement in the Adventures of Superman series, many people are torn between supporting OSC's art or taking a stand against him and not see the movie. What if he gives large portions of the royalties to the National Organization for Marriage and their activism? What if our money supports causes that we, the readers, don't agree with?



Here is how I see it: with our money, we pay an artist for his art, for granting us hours, weeks of great stories, things to think about, ideas to broaden our mind with. Regardless of his personal views, we pay them for that, and that alone. Hate the artist, but love the art. We don't support Bill Gate's skeet shooting or Charles Geschke's wife buying a fur coat with the money we give them for their products. We pay for the products. We don't have any means of control over any of their money spent, and it's good that we don't. It's their right to do what they want with it.


If you should decide not to see the movie, then that's fine. If you're not able to separate OSC's personal views from his art any longer, that's understandable. It's human nature to be intolerant of the intolerance of others. So, in case his views are as appalling as to spoil the experience of his art for you, then don't go see the film, don't buy any of his books. Stop paying him for his art. That sends a message. What it means for you is weighing your loss of experience against his financial one, really.


But in any way, be consistent; don't pirate his work. And this is important: a true point can only be made by abstaining from his work as opposed to wanting your cake and eating it, aka feeling entitled to pirating and - worst - calling upon others to do so. Saying it's OK to steal from a guy whose opinions you don't share is a moral low blow. It's a dark place, and not that far away from Nazis feeling entitled to expropriate Jews of their belongings...


Openly pirating sends a somewhat dangerous message: it says, since we don't share your opinions we feel at liberty to not validate your personal rights anymore. OSC has the right to think and say whatever he wants. And we're moving towards dangerous territory to argue that he doesn't, simply because we don't agree with him.

"Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute. Orson Scott Card"

Shame reviewed: Fantastic Filthy Fassbender

There are so many interesting little things about Michael Fassbender's face. Depending on the camera angle and lighting, you can see a glum aristocrat, a wooden android, and haggard landowner all tangled up somewhere between brow, cheeks and jaw-line. Bone structure, that's what it is! By the way, how did we ever get to the point of complimenting people on skull properties?

Anyways, Fassbender brings overwhelming facial features to the table, like several of those ancient Greek theater masks, and the camera's love for his face is at least one of the reasons why he's high in demand right now.

Also he's a great fit for the role of Brandon: a mid-thirties single guy in New York, a bit worn out; successful at his career in advertising, but less so in his personal life. Brandon is a sex addict, bouncing in between compulsive masturbation and having sex with almost every creature that walks on two legs, and very explicitly so.

Sex and porn dominate every aspect of his private life, so when a virus (due to all the heavy porn surfing!) is found on his work computer, his problem is starting to affect his work life as well.

In the beginning Brandon appears to be emotionally detached from his life, (which is exactly why Fassbender was a good choice), and you begin to wonder why he seems disinterested, even when things begin to fall apart. That's not until his sister moves in with him, creating conflict and erratic behaviours that soon lead to the inevitable breakdown.

Between him and Sissy, played by Carey Mulligan, one begins to see the family resemblance: although Sissy is not an addict, she suffers from serious mental health problems, with multiple suicide attempts in her past, bad relationships, and one can only guess what their parents' influence and upbringing must have been like. She scrapes along on singing at jazz bars and her tendency towards married men promises to be troublesome, when she casts an eye at Brandon's boss.

That, in a nutshell, is the setup for the disaster that is about the occur as their world of chaos and family baggage starts to implode on their asses. Yes, there are a lot of asses in this film. And sadly enough that is all, writer/director Steve McQueen is willing to give us; lightly clad fighting scenes between brother and sister, and vague hints and guesses as to where their damage comes from. Family inheritance, we guess, but it's in no way specified.

The film claims to deal with sexual addiction, but I can't see it doing that, aside from showing what addiction looks like. It depicts the raw ferocious nature of never getting enough in visual finesse, it allows Herrn Fassbender to explore the bottomless pit that is addiction, but sadly, it doesn't make any kind of statement. No prospects, no solutions. And I guess to some degree, that is the essence of modern storytelling in film. I didn't expect a lecture or anything, but in many ways the film lacks an objective perspective. It is all over the place, with drama and chaos, and shots of crazy.

The storyline has written personal experience all over it, which was why I wanted to see it in the first place. Honestly, I expected a little more insight. One could say that the director leaves almost everything up to the audience's imagination - besides the obvious drama. And I hate it when they do that! The narrative is not as strong as to project "ellipsis" all that well. Neither does the weird symbolism in the beginning and at the end work to advance the experience. In the end, despite its blunt depiction, the film seems rather evasive in dealing with its heavy, plot-bearing burdens. Shame, really!

Weekend Writing Warriors: A Poor Man's Car

Hey warriors, and welcome to another wonderful Sunday with Weekend Writing Warriors. I have been quite busy with editing, and sweating bullets over trying to get out some new stuff: I have so many stories, so many beginnings, but it's challenging to not only start, but finish them. Imposter is one of those short stories that I finished, and these are the first 8 sentences. Click on the cover to read the whole story. :)

The credit cards and some of the passports were next to him on the car seat. He drove an old Volvo, a 500 Dollar beat-up car, fully aware of the impression it conveyed to the outside world; metallic silver with a few spots of partly peeled off colour, bruises and bumps along the left side. It was a poor man’s car and he knew from experience, that because it was somewhat obvious for a poor man to also drive a poor man’s car, in many ways it was less suspicious than going the opposite route. No one ever suspected an imposter to actually drive a beat-up car. Imposter. He hated that word. It didn’t even come close to how he saw himself in the world. He was a good person, a likeable guy, someone who easily made friends with people; preferably women.