My NaNaWriMo Experiment

Initially I had some doubts about participating in this year's NaNoWriMo. Would I be able to do it again? Last year's story took a lot of preparation, and I basically had every small piece of it figured out months before I started writing it. I drew charts filled with all kinds of character data, gave each one of them a background, an origin story with childhood memories, a set of life experiences that explained how they became that person. And even though none of that was part of the actual storyline, it was for me to know, and to see them in my head as real persons, not stereotypes, who would act in a way that was consistent with who they were. I went for it and added trivia, such as body height, weight and hair color, even dental info and I thought about which actors would play them in a movie (knowing what they sound like helps me writing dialogue).

This year, I'm writing a prequel about the things that led up to last year's story. Some of last year's work still comes into play. But since I didn't have the time to prep for the other stuff, there is more freedom to explore what happens between crucial plot moments, and some of the new characters are developing as I write them. Some might say that that's not the way to do it. You need a plan, then write. I agree that having a plot outline isn't nearly enough. Although I like the process of winging it, some of what I write already turns out to be editor's food. I have no trouble filling those pages, but some of it lacks direction or amounts to drivel that could have been avoided. Certainly those unplanned moments can always lead to new ideas to explore for another story. And the fact that not everything is purposefully lined up is an awesome writing experience for me - if only to know that I'll never ever do it like this again. We'll see. It might very well be that on November 30th I'll end up with a lot of words, and none of them adding up to a viable story.

Elysium reviewed

Strange and partly stupid - that's how I would have summed up the experience of watching Elysium two days ago. Today I feel more reconciled with the film, and less offended by the stupid bits. After all, there are some good things to say about this flick.

Staggering audio and CGI create a realistic and raw atmosphere for a story, that takes place in the early 2100s. Not unlike District 9 this film has a suction that immediately grabbed me inwards, and I can't think of any other film being equally successful in world immersion in that short amount of time. The bustle of an overpopulated Earth, and crowded markets - it left me feeling exhausted in a really good way. The shaky camera and aesthetic stabilization techniques are spot on for those nervous moments when we get to see poorly ghetto life on Earth, and zoom in to where Matt Damon's character Max resides in his sad little hut. Director Neil Blomkamp was praised for District 9, his debut in feature film, for referencing his South African background in the movie's vibrantly unglamorous city life, and I think he did it just as well in Elysium.

As one of the themes, the film depicts diametrical life styles of different classes, possibly even modern castes, as in the rich, educated elite and the poor uneducated working class - the majority of people. The portrayal is as poignant as it is realistic, and it leaves little doubt about it being allegorical. Elysium is a space habitat built by and for the elite, and it's their retreat to get away from overpopulated and disease-ridden Earth. There is advanced technology on Elysium to achieve virtually everything; cure all kinds of diseases with one machine called Med-Pod as it works to replicate and restore the entire human gene pool. Incidentally, every house comes with one of these machines.

As my husband in his capacity as professional Scifi buff pointed out to me, having access to that kind of technology would prevent anyone from ever becoming sick, which is something to think about. Yes, yes, stomped by the science geek - so what else is new on Elysium? Maybe longevity, and a carefree existence in luxury?!

But here is where the problems start: the stylistic dichotomy of two worlds can be an interesting device to transport ideas of social change and equality, as far as it's done in a realistic manner.

In this story, it makes sense that the citizens of Elysium are afraid of their little Eden being overrun by illegals trying to plunder their houses and rob them of their fancy candle sticks. What doesn't make sense however is the rich people's refusal to share their awesome technology with everyone. I could understand it, if it were about making money off of millions of earthlings, and pharmacological studies done to provide better services to the rich. But that's not implied in the story. Humans on Earth are Elysium's sick labor slaves, and as such they are treated with contempt. With them only being a short train ride away from Elysium, that would be the ultimate recipe to soon seeing some rich heads on pikes - it's sooooo 18th century!

Everyone who has learned anything about history knows that the way to preserve the rich remaining rich is to keep laborers healthy, fed and unorganized so they'll march to their tune without turning on them - that would be the way to go.

Blomkamp's idea of exploitation is graphic, but it just isn't reasonable, at least for a science fiction film that wants to be taken seriously. I know, they needed the ultimate reason for Damon's character Max to go there, still, it doesn't excuse that they chose a stupid one.

Jodie Foster plays the part of Elysian minister Delacourt, the villain who tries to keep the unprivileged people out and soon attempts a coup d'état against the Elysian council - mainly because they value human life all too much. She, on the other hand, has no objections to shoot down pods transporting illegals to Elysium. By the way, Foster's forced and put-on French accent and silver power bitch suit made horrible choices to represent elitist humans. Just sayin'.
 

Roughed up Matt Damon, on the other hand, was a tad more convincing. I enjoyed his in-your-face way of approaching desperate situations with equally desperate methods, and the sure - why not decision to get bio-medical implants did at least make me laugh. I mean, even in that day and age, it's not the same as getting your hair cut!

Similar to District 9 protagonist Wikus, Max is the unlikely hero, a cowardly and selfish guy who ultimately rises to the challenge of doing the right thing by siding with the oppressed humans. But unlike District 9, much of his world-saving seems to happen along the lines of saving himself, not by factual choice, and that does make a difference in my perception of him. And it also is not that much of a stretch, the character arc is not leading us to a reformed character with a brand new point of view.

Delacourt's go-to outlaw agent Kruger is kinda silly - sort of a caricature version of every villain in every bad movie put together, and the weird mingle-mangle of accents did make him look even more cartoonish. The fact that he is played by Sharlto Coplay makes the performance at least entertaining. And style-wise, I enjoyed the sartorial crossing of a hobo and Mad Max.

The main thing that bothered me about the film is that at some point, the Blockbuster elements took over. I think they squandered its potential. For one, they felt the need to introduce a super computer. Come on people, how likely is it that with all this safety measures, they'd have a central computer, that can be rebooted that easily? How meaningful is social change anyway, when it is brought on by a manner of pushing a reset button on a computer? More importantly, what a depressing idea that errors in bureaucracy should be accountable for the fate of billions! One superhero killing suits?! I don't know. It is a nice idea, but it doesn't seem very plausible.

I don't doubt Blomkamp's vision for Elysium. I'm guessing what it boils down to was the executives and financiers decisions to sacrifice plot and grit to make this film appealing to a large group of people, by keeping its overall message inoffensive and the character's choices largely agreeable. In many ways, it ended up marginalizing the social commentary to make it fit the Blockbuster formula. And that's where it went astray. District 9 was a dangerous movie, a defiant dark horse that merely looked with half an eye for the audience's approval. It broke with convention, and it excelled in telling a sublime story. This one however, wants to fit in with the Blockbuster crowd all too much, that's why, I'm sad to say, it doesn't stand out from it.

A trailer without any plot spoilers

Some Thoughts on Drone Warfare

There is a drone in my backyard, and I don't mean figuratively, but literally speaking! It's a very expensive vehicle, the Euro Hawk at Manching Airport, about 16 kilometers from where I live. It must be lonely there, in a hangar all by itself. This unmanned aircraft has been the cause of many a debate regarding certain advances in war technology and the moral implications of killing under modern (and improved) circumstances.

What sometimes happens in public discussion forums, besides things getting blown way out of proportion is that we're quickly getting ahead of ourselves. This particular drone is a surveillance aircraft, specifically aimed at gathering intelligence via high resolution radar and infrared sensors, it is not designed to be a killing machine. It could be one, with the proper development and investment by the ministry of defense, but the there are some other fundamental flaws until we'll get there, having to do with the flight control system, and the pending approval for air space itself.


But for the sake of argument, let's just assume, we were actually talking about an unmanned armed drone, aimed to kill people in war zones. Sure, why not.

There are several problems with the principles of a "clean" warfare, meaning operations to precisely kill targets. Firstly, the act of killing itself. My thoughts do not revolve around the wrong or right of killing, and although it oftentimes comes down to that, the whole argument shouldn't be misconstrued as pacifists versus militarists. Pacifists per definition will always find fault in killing no matter how it's done. The act of killing, to them is not a variable to consider as the deed itself is inherently amoral. I'm not sharing this point of view, but I do understand it. In my, I guess more utilitarian, world view there are military actions that are morally justified with all their consequences, but ideally with as little casualties as possible.

Killing with a gun, a knife or killing with a joystick control - are there any differences in how we feel doing it? For all it's worth, in drone warfare like in any other act of killing, there will still be someone in charge, deciding about when it is the right place and time to strike. The drone is the eyes and ears, and the trigger, at least for now, remains in the hands of a human pilot. (We'll have to talk a bit more once there will be automated combat drones) The pilot not actually being inside the vehicle and on-scene is a lot safer for him.

The more interesting question is if the fact that a pilot is not present will somehow change his feelings about the mission, or rid his sense of responsibility. Considering the act of killing, is it necessary to have someone in that piloting position who weighs the pros and cons, given that the power of command even factors in such personal considerations?


You can find answers to these questions with the help of an interesting case study which shows that the rate of both drone pilots and combat pilots suffering from the ramifications of their job, mainly PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders is roughly about the same. No matter where and when a trigger is pulled, there are similar reactions in present and absent pilots to the act of killing. It shouldn't surprise us as much as it does. As lame as that sounds, they are all humans, and as such they find it hard not to think about the moral implications of what they are doing.

That factor may not always stop them or us from doing things that may be morally questionable, but it will play a part in how we decide before we do what we do. That is how we are built. The preconception that anyone in that line of work immediately loses their conscience, or thinks they're playing a game of chess instead of what actually happens, seems ridiculous. The assumption that the physical distance to an act immediately creates emotional distance is shortsighted.

 

It's the act of killing itself that causes the (moral) response, not how it's done. But for some reason we still don't believe we're morally guided beings. Sure, our understanding of moral responsibility and the feeling of guilt are directly linked to an action and a sense of locality. We still have trouble even imagining our conscience remaining intact while our bodies are absent from the place of action. It is though.

We know what is right and wrong, even when we're physically removed from a moral realm. That's when our laws come into play. Being a tourist in a foreign country, we still retain a sense of law and right-doing, knowing that we can't commit crimes just because we're somewhere else (except for persons like Charles Manson, but he proved to have no regard for laws or morals, no matter where he went).


That moral connection remains binding for all of us non-sociopaths, no matter where we are, and it is binding for all our lives. I'm almost certain that with the help of our inbuilt compass we'll manage to safely navigate on shaky ground, through all kinds of predicaments, even the ones caused by advances in technology and warfare. But maybe that's just me, for once in my life thinking that we are not as bad as we think we are.

Weekend Writing Warriors: Do you want him?

 
Hi and welcome my brave warriors, to another round of wewriwa! This week, I'll continue with the fantasy adventure I've written for last year's NaNoWriMo, called Anoethau. 

Artie has finally arrived at Southampton, and is stretching his legs by the fountain at the town square, when an elderly woman and her French Bulldog come on the scene. The dog eyes Artie with open curiosity. All of a sudden, the woman makes a rather strange suggestion...

“Do you want him?” 

It took Artie a long second before he realized what she meant by that,

“You mean...your dog?!!” 

He waited for the old woman to indicate that she was kidding, but she didn't. When she gave him no sign other than a wholehearted nod, Artie frenetically waved his hand at her in refusal.

 

“No...no..." he stammered, "I’m just passing through to Wales.." 

“Well, that’s exactly what my Cabby likes,” she said tenderly, “a bit of an adventure.”

 

She persisted on holding the leash out to him, which made him think she wouldn't take no for an answer; and his pulse leapt.

“I don’t get around much these days - so, what do you say?”

 

@8sunday_writers Idiots and Earthquakes for #8sunday: Do you want him? idiotsearthquakes.blogspot.de/2013/04/weeken…
— Dana Renelt (@dasdanalein) April 6, 2013

Weekend Writing Warriors: Ebony Eyes

 

Hey there, writers, and welcome to another beautiful Sunday with wewriwa! I want to continue this week's snippet where I left off the last time - Artie's relaxing at the Town Square in Southampton, when a woman and her dog show up at the fountain. First, doggy gets a lift on top of the brim to quench his thirst, then walks over to inspect Artie...

On top of the brim, the dog edged his way towards Artie.

The woman smiled and lengthened the leash, 
“Ah, he likes you." 
He sniffed around the edges, then shook, and thick drops of water landed on Artie's bare arm; water and dog drool. 
His face spasmed in disgust,
“Well, what’s not to like…”

The woman laughed a hoarse laugh that quickly grew into a dry rale cough. The dog's ebony eyes were glued to his as he sat down in front of him.  
Artie reluctantly moved his hand to pet the dog’s head. 
A coat of firm bristles met his palm.

B.L.O.G. spells LOVE

2009 was the year Idiots and Earthquakes came into the picture, when I published my first ever blog post on the 6th of July. First steps, it was titled. 

I was unsure back then, as to blogging in English was such a good idea for me. First of all: blogging. Hubby and I set up this crazy vacation blog in 2007 and him and I had a blast writing it together. 

I never thought that I would have enough material to write a blog by myself and without a theme. As it turns out, life is an excellent inspiration. 

Secondly, blogging in English? Scary notion. I was adept at comprehending the language, thanks to the crazy amount of English fantasy books I had been reading, movies I had watched, and audiobooks I had listened to. 

Writing in English, I knew, was a different story, as it was a completely untrained muscle. I didn't have much practice, plus I didn't know a lot about writing. I knew I would need a lot of time.


 

Now, with close to four years of exercise under my belt, I have made some progress. I'm beginning to understand what I can and cannot do here on this blog. 





I believe that the early stage of my writing was distinguished by a more artful and spontaneous approach. 

Being green has its advantages and with time, I think I've lost some of that initial spark. I've gained some technical skills however, and I feel as though my intentions in presenting my thoughts have a better chance to come through. Still, the execution sometimes feels clunky compared to those of native speakers.

Why didn't I write in German? No snobbism. It was a question of audience more than anything else. I knew, that my German friends and family would have no problem "understanding" my English. But I didn't want to shut myself off to begin with. 

I'm still thinking about further developing a mean little political blog in German, since there is always room for debate about idiot politicians stomping around our political landscape, causing earthquakes. 

Who knows, once the amount of aggro in my rage bar hits a critical level, it might happen. For now, however, I am a happy blogger slash writer. Yes, this blog is much more than a sidekick to a possible writing career. It still is the main event.

I Got A Liebster (Yes, it's Denglish)

The Liebster award is one of those fantabulous blogger prizes given by bloggers to bloggers. Thank you Chris Kelworth for awarding me with it. Chris is a writer, a fellow Weekend Writing Warrior and a diligent blogger. Wheew, you're quite the busy bee! I think I have to award you with an Emsig; if there only was such a thing. :) I read up on the Liebster; it apparently derives from a German blogger tradition, given to "liebsten blogs" meaning "dearest" or "favorite" blogs. Awww. I'm touched. Thank you Chris. Now, in perfect Liebster tradition, I will answer 11 questions, and share 11 facts about myself.

1. Do you believe in ghosts/aliens/the supernatural? 

No, but I believe in axe murderers, rapists and mean people, hiding in the shadows out there to get me. I think I'd rather believe in aliens or a friendly little ghost...

2. Why do you blog?

I think I have stuff to say, interesting stuff. Yes, I think my brain is spectacular. And that's an understatement. Love youus, Frontal lobe!!

3. What's your favorite book series?

Hands down - His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. It's a shame that only The Golden Compass was made into a movie. I think it's one of the best fantasy series ever written.

4. If you could interview one celebrity, who and what would be your million dollar question?

The late Christopher Hitchens (on being brilliant): Is it lonely up there?

5. Pet Peeves? 

OK, I had to look up what that means. There are things I find annoying in other people, but mostly these are all things I am myself guilty of, like eating noisily, driving stupidly, or being a pain.

 6. Favorite Magazine?

The one and only magazine I ever subscribed to from mid to end 80's: Garfield!

7. Will you give me 100 $?

I'm flattered that you'd think me upper class. Stuff I could give you instead: A can of beans, a PEGI folder and/or a sparkling cat sticker.

8. Do you play any instruments?

I wish I did. Gave up playing my Bontempi organ career decades ago. And I didn't have the nerves to fully commit to learning the guitar.

9. What is the worst book you ever read?

Maybe this one.

10. What's with all the cats?! 

My cats are my children. Now leave me alone.

11. How's that 100 $ coming along?

Didn't you like the sparkling cat sticker?

+11 random facts you never wanted to know

➊ I'm a teeth grinder - at night my mouth becomes a grain mill. I wonder what it grinds. Story bits, hopefully.

➋ I once tried saving the world - me and some friends of mine reported a local drug dealer to the police when we were teens.

➌ I'm a movie nut - I like to dissect acting and story. Loudly. That's why I rarely go to cinemas. I'm banned for life.

➍ I'm a spiritual sponge - the bathroom is my place of inspiration.

➎ I'm shy - I don't like to use my phone in public.

➏ I'm a woman - but there was a time when I thought I resembled a dog.

➐ I'm German - born and raised.

➑ I can be a bit of a stalker, I was when I met my husband - Hey, I just met you. And I am crazy. Got your number: will call you daily.

➒ I prefer audiobooks to books, for the simple fact that I like being read to.

➓ I get Tobey Maguire and Elijah Wood confused on a regular basis. I think they share more than a similarity in demeanor, I bet it's the exact same whiny DNA!!

➊➊ I don't have 100 Dollars.


As you may know I do have my very own special tagging tradition for awards. We should all have fun doing these things and be free and willing to participate, not feel forced due to being nominated. If you read this, and you haven't gotten a Liebster award - consider yourself tagged!

Six Sentence Sunday: Farewell

What a bittersweet Sunday this is, the departure from our beloved Six Sentence Sunday. It has been a heck of a ride. A big thank you to the organizers and all the hard work and effort they put in to make SSS a unique opportunity for writers and fans of writing, as well as a wonderful Sunday tradition. For this special occasion I'll share the very same excerpt, the first excerpt I ever posted for Six Sentence Sunday, including six sentences from Spellbloom, the epic fantasy adventure, and my first unfinished novel ever. Yay! ;) Have a great Sunday!

 

She came to realize that Nian and his friends truly were the voiceless of this world, dispossessed and completely stripped of their rights as human beings. As she thought about the inequity of the very system she was about to become a part of, her strides turned into furious stomps.
They reached the grove at noon and found a shady site amidst the trees where Kaley leaned against a mighty stem. Her feet were sore from walking, and she felt the bark clinging to her from behind, providing some much needed relief to her back. 

Nian sat down across from her, huddling up against a bulky stub of a tree. He didn't look tired, just hungry, and once again Kaley marvelled at his resilience against physical strain. 

I'm not very good at drawing, but that never stopped me from sketching all the major waypoints. This is where Kaley and Nian will be going next. 

Guilty! Pleasure!

What, Mesdames et Monsieurs, does a guilty pleasure consist of? Wikipedia says it is something one enjoys despite feeling guilty for enjoying it. It's an activity that entails both a feeling of joy and shame, pleasure and pain. Those two complement each other rather well don't you think? 

I guess everyone who ever managed to eat a whole cake all by his or her lonesome knows the horribly wonderful feeling. As you're happily eating away, frosting to bottom, the feeling of shame usually doesn't set in until later. But once it arrives, that moment you find yourself staring at the empty platter with a few small crumbs left, it hits you, and it hits you hard, and that is what I am talking about. 

Unlike binge eating cake, the guilty pleasure I am referring to is an indulgence of brain more than it is one of stomach. Correction: lower part of brain. Shame is a big part of it, fueling the dangerous enjoyment/~embarrassment conglomerate. I am somewhat embarrassed to admit to it in writing; my rabbi should know about it, the weird and kinky that says so much about me that I don't want anyone to ever find out. It makes me feel deviant, and oh so low on the human scale that I would even enjoy such a thing... 

But I have to come clean at some point. There is some other questionable stuff I like, despite my better judgement. Let's get the other stuff out of the way, and ease into it. I like reading the Bild Zeitung (tabloid equal to The Sun), and I like that they write stuff like cars, banging into one another on the freeway. The reports are refreshingly un-journalistic and lecherous, openly affiliating news to sensationalism.

I like junk food, the extra greasy kind. I like eating salad with the salad cutlery, and drinking salad dressing with the ladle. Oh, and cake. I like all kinds of things that are supposedly bad for your health, things that make you fat and stupid. 

But it's not in the same category as admitting to that other thing, the dark spot on my conscience. Admitting that I like The Jungle Camp is as good as a full confession that I'm a murderer. Because this program, no matter how you look at it, is definitely killing something. And unlike junk food it is without any hidden nutritional value. I would feel much better and healthier if I didn't like it, but there is something about it that I just can't resist. 

It's not that different from reality shows such as Survivor, but with d-list celebrities suffering the horrors of being publicly humiliated for the camera. And I'm right there to watch them starve and make a fool of themselves. Those poor suckers do it for the money, or fame or whatever sad reasons. But hey, they are not the ones to blame here. Those sick weirdos in front of the TV, however, are. 

The concept of the show is not that different from the idea of slaves being used as humanoid torches in ancient Rome, except that the contestants on TV are burnt slower and more painfully. The modern version of panem et circenses (bread and games) is less lethal, but then again nowhere near as humane as having the relief of sweet sweet death in your near future. So why would I even like this piece of junk, me and 7 million (!) other viewers? 
Tell me. Is it morally acceptable to enjoy watching a daily broadcast of torture? I don't think so.