FIRST!

I'm giving my first thirty(-two) pages to my writers' group and two friends.

AAACK!

I think my pages are pretty good.  As good as I can make them, anyway.  So I'm really eager to hear what everyone has to say.

My questions is: what should I do once my first thirty are as perfect as possible?

I have a complete rough draft, and am a third of the way through my second draft.  I'm wondering if, once my first fifty pages are really polished, I should start sending out queries.

was it the genes or the fertilizer that made this taste so good?

Last night I saw a (recent) Law and Order: SVU rerun.  And it was FABULOUS.

Ok, I'm so-so about Law and Order in general... mostly because the stories follow the EVIL MOTHER LEADS SON INTO A LIFE OF CRIME formula.  Which I find a little sexist, in the same old, same old Adam and Eve vain.

But I love three particular episodes, though they all follow that format. 

Two are Criminal Intent episodes, which tend toward the evil older woman motif more than the other Law and Order incarnations (sometimes branching out into evil middle-aged effeminate man).  

The first is about a woman who picks her son up from foster care and leads him into a life of drugs and pawn shop robbery-murders.  It's a super skeezy storyline, what with a dead girlfriend hidden in a trunk which becomes a table for shooting up drugs, etc.  I like because the story is INCREDIBLY skeezy, while remaining completely chaste- an unusual combination.

The second stars Stephen Colbert, and he's WONDERFUL.  In "The Saint," he's a super uptight forger who lives with his manic-depressive mother... her main problem seems to be that she's SUPER into giving to charity, so his problem is keeping her from giving away all his money/things.  I like it because Stephen Colbert is the most intense person ever.  He carries the story- he gives it pop.  I'm not an actress, so I don't know how he's doing it.  Charisma?

And the third show is from SVU, and is the one I saw last night: "Ballerina."  It was about an adopted son who lives with his mother, an actress has-been who has watched Mommie Dearest ten million times.  She's even got this weird silk turban thing to wear in bed.  People die all over the place, but the main story is- what really is the relationship between mother and son?  What would they do for each other?  

Carol Bernett is the mother, and she's suitably creepy.  But the son is WONDERFUL.  He's got these tight little gestures he uses, and he's got this really light skin that got really blotchy whenever the scene got intense.  He was SO much fun to watch.  I kept looking at the clock and thinking, 'oh no!  Only twenty minutes left!' or 'oh no!  Only ten minutes left!' etc.  Law and Order episodes are SUPER predictable, so I think that's a miracle.

And MATTHEW LILLARD plays the son.  Yes, the guy from Scream and Scooby Doo.  Weird, huh?  He obviously went balls to the wall with this Law and Order part, and he was mesmerizing.  How come his credits aren't more interesting?  I guess he just hasn't been given a fair shake.  

HEY, MATTHEW LILLARD, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I'M GONNA WRITE SOMETHING JUST FOR YOU, OK BABY?

Because it is painful to see good talent go to waste.  It's not just anybody who can make their skin go all crazy-realistic-but-not-gross-blotchy when they're actor crying.  Seriously.

OK, so I guess the real question is: I think script writing is SO important.  So why are two out of my three favorite Law and Order episodes blah script-wise and only awesome acting-wise?  

the skull beneath the skin

Re: my novel's first fifty pages

I've quit with the line edits, and am concentrating on structure.  If a line isn't in the right place, who cares if it sounds good or not?

Now my questions are: Where is the story's true beginning?  Where is the inciting incident?  Are there a bunch of different ones?  Are any status quo-esque scenes necessary?  Am I *telling* enough?  Who *are* these people?  Their lives are so freaking weird!  How could anyone hope to understand what's going on?!

(Obviously, I'm freaking out.  So more work on the spec. script until I work up the nerve to start on DROOLING ZOMBIES.  I'm breaking into a sweat just thinking about it.  Or maybe that's just from the coffee).  

I love the smell of desperation in the morning

A few days ago, "Amanda the Aspiring Television Writer" wrote a blog post on how to increase a character's likability (it's a great post- go read it!).

(by the way, literary agent Nathan Bransford has a post on a similar topic here: http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/2009/02/sympathetic-vs-unsympathetic-characters.html His blog is fantastic- read it all, if you can!)

Amanda writes that understanding the reason behind a character's motivation makes that character compelling (which is even better than likability). The easier a character's motivation is to understand, she says, the more compelling that character is. So, characters fighting for survival is super compelling, because they have a primal, explicable goal.

I disagree.

It's nice to know why somebody wants something (hence the popularity of backstory), but what makes that character and his/her goal compelling, to me, is simply that the character is desperate for it.

Ex.

Field of Dreams is a great movie, with a strong narrative drive. We get hints about why the main character wants to build a baseball field (it's a way to connect with his father), but what really pulls the story forward is that the protagonist is willing to do nearly anything to get that field. He makes a fool of himself, connects with a disconnected writer, pours money into it, strains his familial relationships- anything he has to do to get that field, he does.

He's compelling, which makes him likable.

But heroes don't often want anything *that* badly- their moral limits are what make them heroes. A hero never becomes so desperate that s/he'll stoop to *anything*, because if s/he were, s/he'd eventually stoop to villainy and would no longer be the hero. Heroes can't become *that* desperate, so they are limited in how compelling they are.

The way to get around this is to make heroes desperate for multiple things, so that their desires *seem* incredibly deep, but their limits make sense. Ie, a heroine is desperate to save herself from being eaten by a monster. The heroine is also desperate for Love Interest to love her. Her desire for survival has limits imposed upon it by her desire for love, and vice versa. The dilemma is compelling, so she is, too- without becoming a villain.

Crafting a compelling villain is easier, though, because the marks of a villain are: 1. a desire so strong they are willing to do literally ANYTHING to get it, and 2. an inability to compromise. An uncompromising, desperate character is interesting because s/he's unpredictable, and because no matter what, s/he'll keep pulling the narrative along until s/he gets what s/he wants.

The construction of a villain especially interesting in television, because on television, the villain *might* go years and years (in real time!) without getting what s/he wants. The best case scenario is that over those (frustrating!) years and years, the villain's desire gets ever deeper, her/his plots grow ever more complex, and s/he becomes ever more compelling.

But dramatic tension can't usually last for years.

Some shows try to keep the villain from getting what they want, but eventually run out of credible obstacles. In this situation, the villain keeps the same goal, but her/his obstacles change. Since a character is defined by his actions, and since his actions are all *re*actions to the circumstances, ridiculous circumstances/obstacles weaken characters. This is just the story of a show/situation slowly going stale.

OR, the villain's desire may change/become vague... ie, in Heroes. *What* does Sylar want? For the past couple seasons, his quests have become more and more random, pointless, and unfocused, to the point that the character feels random and pointless- and no longer all that compelling. This is the story of a villain exploding.

In order to circumvent the problem, Buffy used a new villain every season. That led to too weak villains. How scared could a viewer be when she knew Buffy would defeat that particular season's Big Bad in episode 13/22.

Heroes also started out with the one season Big Bad technique, but couldn't get rid of Sylar when he gained such a great following. Which led to too much misplaced focus on Sylar, which led to Sylar taking over the show in a horrible, weird way- with a rash of disconnected and ridiculous storylines that didn't have to do with his original desires.

Gossip Girl has (so far) had a near-miss with a similar "villains are so much more compelling than heroes that they take over the story" problem. Chuck started out as a pretty bad villain (serial wanna-be rapist in the first episode) but he proved so interesting that he was adopted into the fold. Blaire and Serena started out as equal leads, but in the past season (season 2) Serena has become queen of the C plot, and Blaire has been A all the way. Gossip Girl is so well written, however, and the characters are all so driven, complex, and have such singular POVs, that it has room to play with its dark/light dynamics in a way black-hat/white-hat Heroes can't.

Gossip Girl also has an easier time of it because all the characters have *social* goals as opposed to concrete ones. Their goals shift organically as the power dynamics shift, and with every goal-shift, the characters run into a new range of (credible, interesting) obstacles. The stories stay fresh and the desperation stays high without forcing a final confrontation.

So: desperation is great! Especially for stand alone novels, movies, or plays. It pulls the narrative forward and makes characters compelling. But how can a character keep up that level of uncompromising intensity for *years* on a television show without turning cheesy/predictable, or loosing his/her bite?

a cold and calculating soul

I'm a schemer. Which is sometimes a bad thing (hey, I'm cold and calculating because my moon sign is in Capricorn- don't blame me!)... but it's the only way I know how to be. And even if the feeling of control I get from planning is only an illusion, it's one that keeps me working hard day-to-day. It gives me focus and hope.

Maybe it'll do the same for you?

MY (ULTIMATE) GOAL:

Writing for television, of course!

How I decided on television writing: I've been OBSESSED with certain shows since before I can remember. First it was Sesame Street, then Scooby Doo, then Ghost Writer, then Happy Days, etc, etc, all the way up through Buffy and Angel, then Lost and Desperate Housewives, Heroes and Flipping Out, Burn Notice and Gossip Girl.

I dissect plots, characters, themes, dialogue styles *for fun.* I LOVE TELEVISION. So, of course, I was INCREDIBLY jealous of the people who actually got to write it. They get to decide and/or effect what happens on a show. A television writer gets to talk about characters and plots and dialogue and everyone is interested and has their own thoughtful insights. AND, a television writer GETS PAID FOR IT! Sounds like a dream job, the lucky bastards.

But hey, if they can do it, why not me?


MY PLANS:

So I thought about moving out to LA. There were a lot of practical reasons I couldn't- and regardless, when I first graduated college (when I should have gone- it's a huge regret), I got cold feet.

Plan B (SCRAPPED!): get my creative writing MFA. But the only schools that concentrated on theatrical writing were prohibitively expensive.
--> Plan B2 (SCRAPPED!): write a novel excerpt and get an MFA from a less expensive school.

Scrapped because: I doubted an MFA would help my writing or my career prospects. Plus, I'd be stuck in Southern Virginia or Baltimore for three years, only to come out broke as ever and without a publishing contract in hand. No thanks. AND that's assuming I could even get into a program.

Plan C: write a great novel. Get an agent. Get it published. Get my chops as a writer. When I was just starting out (with grad school as my goal) novel writing felt SO uncomfortable. But I kept beating away at my manuscript until I finished. And by then, I'd improved SO much I couldn't quit! So I started a couple more novel manuscripts (the first one isn't worth editing- it just isn't there). I've been beating away at those "new" manuscripts for three months now. Plan C still seems viable to me :)

Plan D: Television writing fellowship! A few of the studios/networks offer workshops that generally last the summer and are invaluable in terms of learning and networking. Disney's fellowship give the winner(s) employment for a year! Sure, an applicant's only got a 1% chance of getting in but... 1% is infinitely better than no chance at all!

Plan E: Save up enough/make enough money to go to LA and get a job at an agency (or, in a dreamworld, on a television show. As an assistant I mean- even my dreams aren't THAT big ;) ). I'd planned to go this month, but with the economy in the toilet... I've got to wait until there *are* entry level jobs in LA before I go out there and try to get one.

MY CURRENT WORK:

- write a (couple) great book(s)!!!!!
- find an agent for my novel(s).
- get the novel(s) published.
- everyone loves them! I get money/cachet, and tell great stories on *my* terms (no network notes on a novel!)
- my book agent recommends me to a literary agent out West for my screen/television writing, because she loves me work *that* much

- learn a lot about television writing by writing scripts- on deadlines (for the fellowships).
- win a fellowship!
- learn a lot about writing, and meet a lot of people during my summer/year as a workshopper/Disney writing assistant
- use my new knowledge/LA experience to get a full time job and move out West.

I don't have regrets anymore, just plans. And more plans and more plans and more plans. Sure, maybe I'll still fail, but at least I'm setting myself up to win :)

it's getting late/to give you up/took a sip/from the devil's cup/slowly IT'S TAKING OVER ME

Re-read the edited portion of my manuscript.

HATED IT.

I liked it yesterday.  Is my editing making my manuscript worse?

To try and figure that out, I read an unedited portion.  And yup, loved it.

UH-OH!

I'm freaking out.  Maybe the manuscript should go in a drawer for a while?  Maybe I've lost all perspective?

A for Effort

You remember how in math class you were supposed to check your work by plugging numbers back in and re-solving?  

And how nobody did it because nobody cared about math class?

Sadly, there aren't too many ways to plug in and re-solve with work you actually care about *cough* writing *cough*

But I've got my own personal check method, and maybe it'll be helpful to others: 

After I finish an outline (for a television episode, a novel scene, etc), I figure out each plot-thread's theme.  If each plot thread has the same general theme (ie, RESCUE, or IDENTITY), the outline's on track.  If not... there's a clunker thread someplace that needs to be rethought.

Knowing the theme helps me stay on track and on point.  It gives focus, and guides the refining process.

oscar wild lay on his deathbed in a drab parisian hotel. his last words were: "either that wallpaper goes, or I do."

The importance of being witty:

Yesterday a friend and I watched the show I'm spec.ing (for fun).  

In an attempt at wit, I commented on everything going on onscreen.  And discovered a bunch of previously overlooked, show-specific insights.  Ie, when a certain character is angry, he responds physically (none of the others do).

The Mystery Science Theater school of television writing, I guess.

But it's fun.  And it works.  And it's a way to obsess over your writing while being social.  

editing and outlining for the instinct-impaired

I've been editing Part 1 (out of 11) of the Zombie novel, and working on the outline for my spec. t.v. show script.

EDITING:

Since I'm at the very beginning of the manuscript, some of it has been edited already (when I was trying to figure out where to go, and to find the beginning of the story).  Still, I've been having two main problems:

1.  I'm working on the first six chapters(/scenes) (about 10K total).  Some of the chapters have a beginning/middle/end, but some feel baggy and shapeless.  I thought: maybe I should scrap these chapters?  Maybe they don't belong in the story at all?  

BUT: these chapters set up relationships that are very, very important later.  They set up/start sub-plot conflicts.  They give an intro to a pretty strange world.  Maybe during another full-manuscript read-through I'll cut them out, but for now, I think they're necessary.

2.  So, how do I give them more POP?  How do I give them better shape?

Even though I didn't have a theme in mind while I was writing, I see now that the story's theme is RESCUE.  So, I decided to put "rescue" at the center of a particular baggy chapter.

I thought about this chapter, and tried to figure out: what/who does Character 1 want to rescue?  What about Character 2?  

Once I figured that out (ie, Character 2 wants to save Character 1 from herself), I knew each character's goal in the scene (ie, Character 2 wants proof that Character 1 isn't a mess, that Character 1 has learned a lesson.  Proof that Character 1 has learned a lesson would be Character 1's gratitude towards Character 2 for teaching it.  Therefore, Character 2's goal is Character 1's gratitude).  

Then I took Character 1 (the POV character) and delineated her attempts to get what she wants from Character 2 (in pursuit of her goal).  Character 2's attempts at getting HER goal fell into place as reactions to Character 1's attempts.  

I put those attempts/reactions into traditional five-act format.

Ok, so now I knew what they were really fighting about.  The original scene had them fighting over a couple petty things, which became the cover for their real issues.  Now, the scene escalates and says something about what is driving each character.  It has momentum and is necessary to the reader's understanding of both characters' actions later in the story.  

How it played out before:  Character 1 and Charter 2 bicker.  Character 2 is inappropriately bitchy and Character 1 is super high-strung.  

This is how it plays out now: Character 1 wants respect from Character 2.  Character 2 wants gratitude from Character 1.  They fight over cookies, house-cleaning, and leaving for work as a cover for their fight over money.  The fight over money is cover for a fight over respect/gratitude.  Their respective needs for respect and gratitude inform how they deal with others when the action *really* heats up- AND, how they deal with each other.  

Even though that particular scene is still very rough, I feel A LOT better about it now, and A LOT more convinced about its place in the story.

How I'm going to edit from here:

Now that I've got a rough version of the final scene, I'm going to cut and sharpen so that each part of scene's five-act structure has the proper amount of space (ie, "act 1" shouldn't take up half the scene.  It should barely take up a fifth!).

Then, I get to do the fun stuff- clean up the dialogue, think about word choice, etc.  

Obviously, the scene *still* won't be done.  But the goal is: edit one part (out of eleven) of the novel every week.  In eleven weeks, I should have a fairly strong novel- the best I can make it, anyway.  Then, I'll put it away for a month and send out all my television fellowship applications, among other things.

When I come back and read it... well, here's hoping I'm shocked at how wonderful it is and proud to send it around to agents!  ;)

OUTLINING:

The outlining I've been doing hasn't been quite as well structured because I'm less comfortable with it.  But generally, I feel like it has been going very well, so maybe it'll be worthwhile to share my process.

-Watched every single episode of the show I'm spec.ing.  (took about a week)

-Took notes on three or four episodes.  The notes look like this:

"TITLE"

-Scene one, one-sentence/phrase description of what happens.

-Scene two, one-sentence blah blah blah

ACT BREAK!

-Scene one....

When I did this for another show, I also included the times for each scene (what time they ended, in shorthand) so that I knew how long to make each scene.  This time around, however 1.  I was watching the episodes on an iPod, so that would have been a HUGE pain.  2.  I figure that's part of my own editing process later.  I have a feel for about how long each scene should be, and how long each act is... I can nail the specifics further into the process, when I'm weighing where each scene should go in the overall story.  

-Had a random inspiration while trying to sleep.  Each character uses a crutch of some kind... what would happen if those specific crutches were taken away?

-Made a *very* rough outline (with lots of blank spaces). 

-Went back over my summary notes for those three or four episodes.  Figured out what the general structure was for the A, B, C, and D stories

(ie, a D story usually has this structure:

1.  Expo.

2. Reaction to Expo.

3. Dilemma

4. Solve the dilemma

5. Reaction to the solution)

-Wrote a *very* rough first scene.  Just to see what fell into place (I think best about writing while actually writing... or driving.  But I was on a work break at the moment, so driving wouldn't work ;) ).  

-Of course, some major elements from the show were missing from that rough scene, and writing it told me what they were.  Decided this one element (ie, person who betrays) was *essential* to moving forward, and told my brain to think of possible interesting versions of it that the show hadn't already done.

-Was reminded of a version of that element in a book a read a couple years ago.  

-Played with the book's version of the element for a while.  Came up with an interesting, modern twist on it.  

-Brainstormed: how would each character deal with this version of the modern twist?

-Decided which characters would be my A, B, C, and D story leads based on how interesting I thought their reactions would be.  

-Decided which characters would be my A, B, C and D story leads, based on how interesting I thought their reactions/goals/resolutions were.

There is still A LOT of outlining to go- I don't know a whole lot of specifics for the plot yet.  BUT, I have a very solid foundation, and the framework for a lot of interesting ideas. 

My plan now is:

-Brainstorm about one story lead at a time.  Think of the most interesting reaction/desires/obstacles they could have.  See how some of the show's other essential story elements fit.

-Outline (rough) each lead character's arc.  

-See how those outlines fit together.  Where the other characters might or might not fit.  

-Think about interesting twists.  Interesting interactions.  Unintended consequences.  

-THEN I'LL HAVE A GREAT OUTLINE! *fingers crossed anyway*

And if this sounds like a ton of (unnecessary?) work?  The brainstorming/outlining stuff only took two or three days, and watching your favorite television show isn't exactly work, right?!  :)  Also, I've tried to move forward on scripts without all this outlining, and I just freeze or write *TOTAL* crap.  So maybe all this stuff isn't necessary for you, but it is for me.  

Btw, I got some of these outlining ideas from Alex Epstein's Crafty TV Writing: Thinking Inside the Box, and Writing the TV Drama Series by Pamela Douglas.   Personally, I found Epstein's book especially helpful, and he's got a great blog, too: Complications Ensue.  

American Idle

I AM OFFICIALLY DONE WITH THE ROUGH DRAFT OF MY ZOMBIE NOVEL!

Maybe I'll even take the rest of the evening off?!

Just the fact that I'm considering it shows how excited I am :)

and no one even knew it was really only you

Plot Arc:

Act 1: Hook. Exposition.  Ends in a (the) turning point

Act 2: Total Confusion.  First (stupid) attempt to fix the (assumed) problem.  Ends in disaster.

Act 3: Sh*t hits the fan.  Ends when the hero(ine) discovers the *real* problem.

Act 4: Fix the *real* problem.

Act 5: WIN! (or lose).  

Epilogue: Tie up loose ends, especially sub-plots.  Add the twist, if necessary.  

I'm at the end of Act 4 right now.  And I've forgotten entirely what it felt like to be in Act 1.  I don't even really remember the nadir (at the end of Act 3).  I don't even know if there *was* a nadir.... though, the lowest point is a relative measurement so....

ANYWAY, this novel is too big for me to keep all of it in my head at once and it's easy to forget what came before the portion I'm currently working on.  I've never written anything this long or complex before.  But it has opened up a whole new world of self-doubt.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I don't remember a g*d*mned thing from the beginning or middle of the story, so I'll be able to get right cracking on the re-writes.

Yippee?

In other news: one more day before the rough draft is complete.

Now THAT is a YIPPEE!

Breaking GREAT

Lame pun, I know, I know.

ANYWAY, I was breaking a spec. story today. Was terrified of it. But last night, while I was falling asleep, I got this idea.

Every character on the show uses some kind of crutch. I wrote down their crutches on a little post-it without even turning on the nightstand light. But VOILA! I had the kernel of my story idea.

So today, I wrote a bunch of notes (a couple notebook pages, then a few computer pages). Mostly, those notes were all the things I WISH would happen on the show. Like, so-and-so should totally interact for once, because they have tons to do with one another but they're never in the same scene. Or, so-and-so should totally do this thing he ALWAYS does, but in front of a particular character, because that particular character would have an interesting/insightful take on it. Or, I wish so-and-so would catch so-and-so being lame, because she has her up on a freaking pedestal! Stuff like that.

Then, I wrote out an outline, that looked like this:

ACT 1 (5)
1. X and Y have a big fight. X gets hurt.
2. A helps B
3. C and D (and A)
4. L and M (couple? happy?)
5. J and Q (happy, not for long)

For all the acts. There were lots of blank spaces, and everything was pretty vague. Also, the "scenes" in a particular act are in no particular order. Because I'm a newbie, I also labeled the acts things like "Act 2 (Sh*t hits the fan)" or "Act 4 (BIG PLAN!)"

To fill in the blanks and to get more specific, I made a new document called "Character Arcs" and listed all the characters that'll be in this episode. Under each character, there is a line for each of the six acts of his/her story. (I'm still working on this).

I'm going to flesh out the character arcs, re-entwine them, and pump up the act outs.

And I'll have a solid outline! And it'll have everything in it that I WISH WISH WISH were on the actual show, because I think those things would be really interesting/good T.V./funny.

Hope this helps anyone else struggling through their rough drafts for the T.V. fellowship app. season :)

deep throat tells all

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

best path to stardom: eat sh*t and die

Gossip Girl Season 1:

Serena is the obvious lead, though Blaire becomes a lead in her own right fairly quickly into the season.  

v.

Gossip Girl Season 2:

Blaire is the obvious lead.  Serena is relegated to the romantic subplots, etc.

Maybe this is unfair: I've only seen about half of each season.  But I was a shocked at how important Serena was in Season 1 after "knowing" her as only the lame friend in Season 2.  (Vice versa with Chuck).  

But then I realized why Serena seems so unimportant now: when she had bad things happening to her- in all facets of her life- in Season 1, she was a lead.  In season 2, she's pretty charmed, so she's just a side-character-caricature.

Meanwhile, Blaire has had more and more bad stuff piled on her left and right.  Hence: her importance has grown.  (Same with Chuck).

So: the lead/hero is the person the bad sh*t happens to.  GOOD TO KNOW!

I also wonder: how much was planned out in advance?  

Here's Chuck's "evil" to "good" turn around so far:

Episode 1: wanna-be rapist.  DOUBLE rapist!  

Episode 3: helps Blaire, but by being a HUGE asshole 

Episode 4: saves his best friend, Nathan, from some predatory older guy

Episode 6: gets his comeuppance when Jenny (a freshman he tried to rape in ep. 1) leaves him naked on a rooftop.

Episode 7: genuinely cares about his dad (stresses over business plan, wants to prove himself)... AND Blaire (is there for her after her breakup)

Episode 8: tells Blaire he's into her, buys her a necklace, and really seals the deal.

That HAD to be thought out before the pilot was shot- it fits together SO tightly.  But I'm interested to see if Chuck's (re-)fall is as tightly plotted, or if it feels more like the writers said, "sh*t, Chuck's more fun evil."  

Wonder how the ups and downs of Chuck's fortunes has to do with his importance in the show- the more important he needs to be for the plot, the worse his "life" is?  

she's the man

There are a rash of blog posts this week about writing "characters of color" and the other, etc, etc (Moonrat on Jews in Dickens, and Megan Crewe both have interesting posts up :) ).

I don't really worry about writing about people who are different races from me.  That just sort of happens on its own, maybe because this area, and my social circle, are racially diverse.  

I do worry about class- my default is something like lower-middle, and it's tough for me to create characters who don't think about money in the "have some, need more" kind of way.  Though- maybe that's how everybody thinks of money?  

Haha, that's actually the problem, right there.  

But honestly, I just try to make money more or less important to different characters, and for them to have a range of occupations- that's the best I can do, class-wise, and I think it's good enough.  

My concentration is always on "who is this character as an individual?"

Sometimes that individual is white, sometimes black, sometimes hispanic, sometimes Asian- whatever.  Sometimes that individual is broke, sometimes has a stable job, sometimes is ambitious.  Pretty much no one is independently wealthy, and pretty much everyone is on the lookout for more money, but that's my own little preoccupation- I hope it's an inoffensive and minor one.  

The "other" I have the most trouble with is: men.  Especially fathers.  Or interactions between men.  Close male friendships.  I concentrate on the character's individuality and do the best I can, but I suspect that I unwittingly feminize the way my male characters look at the world.  I even have trouble remembering to make the male characters physically larger or stronger than their female counterparts.  Being a man is nearly unimaginable to me, and that's a very, very bad thing.

Race and class are abstract concepts, and they don't really have to do with a person's inner being.  But sex and gender might- I don't know.  

DIY T.V.: Dollhouse

By the way, the Dollhouse episode last night was so boring I kept forgetting to pay attention.

1.  We GET IT!  Echo's a person, even if/when she's a blank slate.  Please stop pounding that in. 

2.  Stop with the procedural stuff.  Abused woman/kidnapping- blah.  Psycho boyfriend- blah.  Art heist- blah.  Personally liked the Fritney Fears body guard thing, but I know a lot of people thought that was blah, too.  And next episode is another procedural?  UGH.  

There isn't any investigation, so it's not CSI-fun.  There isn't any crazy over the top crime, so it's not Law and Order-fun.  Echo doesn't have tons of personality, so it's not Psych-fun, or even Medium-fun.  Echo's methods aren't that interesting, so it's not Burn Notice-fun.  

This cast of characters is not made for a good procedural, so PLEASE STOP concentrating on that aspect of the series.

3.  But keep the action.  Sure, I suspect a lot of the action scenes (ie, the pilot-opener motorcycle race) were demanded by the network.  But they're A GOOD IDEA.  Because when the main character isn't someone you (can) know all that well, emotionally hard-hitting scenes are near impossible- so awesome physical stunts are a must.  This past episode didn't have as much cool action as the others, and it felt the weaker for it.

4.  Throw Echo into the world!  SHE isn't interesting, because there isn't all that much "she," so Echo is only interesting in how other people react to her.  SO HAVE HER REACT WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.  Locking her in a (stolen) art gallery isn't fun.  Putting her in the midst of other people who know each other IS interesting though.  She can get into fights, and we can get the emotional stuff from the people around her. 

*She's the catalyst to stories, not center of those stories.*

5.  I don't know about the FBI guy at all, so I couldn't care less about him.  Something should be going on his life that's MORE important than the Dollhouse case, so that he feels more like a real, fully-fleshed person with his own life- and to create some tension.  

Because even though people are nasty to him all the time, his life doesn't have all that much conflict.  He wants to investigate the Dollhouse, so he does.  BORING.  And non-sensical, as is.  I suspect there's some boring backstory that will give the reason why the Dollhouse is important to him but backstory isn't all it's cracked up to, either.  Past is prologue, blah blah.  He needs a more dynamic life NOW, not some dynamic past we just missed seeing.

In short: the lives around Echo have to be more interesting, the stuff Echo does has to be more interesting, but Echo's emotional state isn't going to be all that interesting, so worry less about it.

storks don't really bring them, you know

Fun plot-twists come from:

interesting places

newspapers

advice columns

research/random facts

But for me, the only real inspiration- the place my ideas come from- is fear.

I write better when I'm unhappy.  I write best when I'm freaking terrified.  Afraid that I have no money, afraid that someone I love is sick, afraid that someone I love is dying, afraid that I'm in over my head, afraid that I can't protect the people who need protection, afraid that I can't protect myself, afraid that everything and everyone is bigger and smarter and richer than me and I'm just an idiot with bad luck.  Afraid that I'm blind.  

That's the worst one: terrified that I can't see what's happening or what will happen.  And that's where writing comes in.  Writing is a kind of practice run, and when something really bad is happening, writing becomes the escape. 

Oh,  being broke/losing someone/mental illness/being shat upon is great research!  This is TOTALLY worth it!  

The funny thing is- I guess it is.  

Sh*t

From the (2/24/09) Nerd World blog at TIME.com:

Zombies are the New Vampires

Look, Diablo Cody is making a zombie movie!  That tears it. (Takes off hat and stomps on it.)

At first I thought it was a sequel to Juno, where Dwight Schrute eats that chick's brain... my hopes are dashed.  It's an adaptation of a novel called Breathers: A Zombie's Lament:

"Breathers" centers on a recently deceased Everyman and newly minted zombie who is having trouble adjusting to his new existence.  All that changes when he goes to an Undead Anonymous meeting and finds kindred souls."

Plus, there's that zombie version of Pride & Prejudice, Marvel Zombies, World War Z... I'm just saying.  At least zombie banks aren't real.  

------

Well, I just hope zombies aren't ENTIRELY played out.  

On the PRO side: mine aren't really zombies, and it's more a techno-thriller, and the word "zombie" is never used seriously.  

On the CON side: UGH.  Also, I prefer the old school Dawn of the Dead/Shaun of the Dead story.  Is that WAYYYY too lame/boring compared to freaking Diablo Cody?

It's just- once again, my subconscious is SO predictable.  I'll always go through the same stacks in the same order at the library, have the same reactions to the same T.V. shows, get a cute purse thinking it's special just before seeing A ZILLION ugly versions of it at Macy's and like all the same horror sh*t at the same time as everybody else.  

Isn't that creepy?  Once again: UGH.

it's not how big it is, it's how you use it.

The Burn Notice season finale last night was disappointing.

-Michael, why did you jump out of that helicopter? Seriously, that's the only time you're ever going to speak to FBI "management" and you jump out halfway through the conversation, before you got a d*mn thing you wanted? Ugh.

-It seemed like Victor dying was a big(ish) deal for Michael, but they didn't deal with Fiona killing Carla AT ALL. Reactions are important! They're what make the actions important, for God's sake! Almost no one is killed on this show, so it's shocking. Fiona taking murder so perfectly in stride is seriously creepy, bizarre, AND boring.

-When is Sam going to hook up with Michael's mom? Because SERIOUSLY. Those two have Christian/Sean, Chuck/Blaire chemistry. And, obviously, I LOVE psycho teddy bear lady, so I want her happy.

-Too James Bond, not enough Jason Bourne, imo.

I think the finale's serious problem was: there was a TON of big action (way bigger than usual)- car after car blowing up, two murders, a leap from a helicopter, etc, etc, etc- but that left little time for the characters to react... so the action just felt tedious. The show would have been better if they'd cut down on the murders, had maybe one shoot-out/explosion, and pruned the action in general so Michael's helicopter leap (which was the most important action stunt character-wise) had the space/time to create a bigger whollup. We needed time to get closer into the characters' heads (since they're what's cool about the show- any show) so the action would punch harder.

Negative space is cheap and vital!

But, of course, the show was great when played to its awesome premise: what life is like for ordinary people with extraordinary skills. I love the regular conversations and aggrevations the characters have, and the weird, cool facts and methods they use to get what they want. Can't wait until Burn Notice is back in June!

opiates rock. especially the opiate of the masses.

Today, my friend had a horrible day.

I didn't know how to cheer him up- the news he got really was crappy, and I wasn't in the greatest mood myself.

But then I started chatting about Gossip Girl, and making jokes about how ridiculous so much of it is (ie, the teenage owner of a fan-dancing (sex?) club drugs his schoolmate, steals his shoes, and abandons in him NYC- wtf?).  And that led to talking about the Star Wars prequels and all the fun we've had watching them.  And that led to The Watchman, and the reviews it had gotten, and the problems critics were having, and where and when we should see it....

And that led back to real life, and how to make his horrible day happier.  By then, we could talk about it, because in the midst of all those jokes and chatter and T.V./movie talk, he's gotten a lot cheerier.

Escapism and T.V. and storytelling are important.  Good stories make life better, they make people happier.  

Stories aren't about all the plotting and dialogue and break-down, where are the strings?-type stuff us writers concentrate on.  They're about making people a part of something better and brighter and more fun than the crappy lives they've (we've) got.  

Just a reminder why writing is important and beautiful.  Why it's worth it, even when it's tough.

B: some men tried to get into the house. S: well, are they still there? B: I'm not sure. We've shut the curtains.

ZOMBIE RULE OF THUMB: in the end, the zombies always win.

The fun/scary part is seeing how close the heroes come, and what trips them up in the end.

FUNNY EXAMPLE:

Shaun of the Dead is fun and funny, because the band of loser "heroes" seems so destined to fail- they're distracted by pettiness!  they just want to hang out at the bar!  and maybe hook up!  and PHILIP IS NOT MY DAD!- yet, they squeak by using their silly, average, commonplace tools and common sense.

SCARY EXAMPLE:

The heroes in Dawn of the Dead (another great movie, btw, but not my absolute fav in the entire world) seem so much more competent.  Every interaction with the zombies seems like a tiny slip down the slope of ZOMBIES WIN!, so the movie is scary but not too funny- or as fun.

My story is definitely more like Shaun of the Dead than Dawn of the Dead...  though a little different from both, because the zombies aren't actually dead.  They're just sick, a la 28 Days Later.

The problem I'm having now is, if the ZOMBIES ALWAYS WIN!, and the hero and villain are pretty recognizable, and the character stories are all kind of heavy (hey, I'm the girl who went ON and ON and ON about Anakin Skywalker's angst- of course the character stories are all kind of heavy).... where's the suspense?

Does suspense come from not knowing what's going to happen (hope not), or not knowing *how* it's going to happen (hope so).  I'm worried that I'm telegraphing who is going die.  But then again- maybe I'm just WAY too familiar with my own story to judge.

Ok, ZOMBIE TROPES:

1.  The zombies always win (check)

2.  They always do it in the most violent way possible (check)

3.  They always look funky doing it (check)

4.  It's ok to hurt them (I switch this up, but acknowledge it, so check)

5.  They go for the brain.  (WHY?  Mine go for the neck or the belly.  They're really really hungry and the neck (full of blood) and the belly (full of fat) seem like good places to feed.  Also good: thighs).

6.  They roam in packs (WHY?  Why don't they eat each other, by the way?)

7.  They NEVER FILL UP (Why do they stay perpetually hungry?  Mine have a physiological reason why they constantly feel hungry but... you can only eat so much before your stomach explodes)

8.  They only go after humans (WHY?  Because eating pets is too gross, and eating farm animals too commonplace?)

9.  They walk funny (check)

10.  They are stupid/unfeeling (WHY?  Especially if they're alive, like in 28 Days Later?  I'm thinking about changing this up a little)

11. They moan, but don't speak (WHY?)

12.  They turn VERY QUICKLY (as opposed to vampires, etc.) (sort of check- mine have a certain physiological trigger).

Any tropes I'm forgetting?  Which of these "rules" are the most/least important?

My particular story is more techno-thriller than horror-fest, so there's a lot of science, etc, and the zombies are sort of a sub-plot.  I know, I know, no fun.  But since zombies are dumb, unfeeling, mute, and not bit on individuality, how much time do I want to spend on them anyway?

THOUGH- I'd love to see a sweet, loving movie a la The Red Balloon about a zombie's journey.  Maybe sniffing out fresh meat or something.  But, you know, existential-like.

i need a f*cking epidural!

Today I entered the last quarter of the ZOMBIE book.  

-Turns out the villain is really a hero.  And the hero is really a (the?) villain.  Who'd have thought?

-I sort of don't want to finish, because rewriting scares the HELL out of me.

-The story has exploded, and every scene from here on in is pretty intense.  That means I can't write thousands upon thousands of words a day.

Last night, I was EXHAUSTED, from writing 4K worth of fights, deaths, people falling in love, etc.  I drank too much and whined to my friends and missed the season finale of Nip/Tuck.  That'll teach me.  Today, I only wrote about 2.5 K and watched WAY too much Gossip Girl.  BUT, I didn't make a fool out of myself, so all the better.  

It's kind of like, I'm coming to the end of my pregnancy.  And these last days are scary and tough.  But the shit's really going to hit the fan once I actually give birth, because then I'll have a goddamned infant to mold and turn into an independent, beautiful thing. 

What if she's not good enough?  What if no one likes her?  What if she's all ugly and stupid and I don't even like her?  AAACK!  

But Jesus, Sasha- buck up!  And stop with the bad language.  

There.  

Now back to Gossip Girl.  If only they had more knife-fights, etc, it really would be the best show ever made.

commercials make TV better!

Here's the link, though you may have to cut and paste:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/health/03mind.html?_r=1

And here's the most interesting quote:

"In two new studies, researchers who study consumer behavior argue that interrupting an experience, whether dreary or pleasant, can make it significantly more intense.

" 'The punch line is that commercials make TV programs more enjoyable to watch.  Even bad commercials,' said Leif Nelson, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of the new research.  'When I tell people this, they just kind of stare at me, in disbelief.  The findings are simultaneously implausible and empirically coherent.'"

Their proof was: people rated an episode of "Taxi."  Some watched it with (the original) commercials, some without.  The people who watched it with, always rated it higher than the people who'd watched it without.

Here's the reason why:

" 'We tend to adapt to a variety of experiences, as they're happening," Dr. Nelson said.  'Listening to a song, watching a TV program, having a massage: these all start out very enjoyable, but within a few minutes we get used to it.  Interruptions break that up.'"

So it's YAY COMMERCIALS, except:

"Interruption hardly improves all pleasurable activities.  Dr. Nelson and his colleagues have found that people do not habituate to shows or stories that are particularly demanding- with unexpected plot twists- and that interruptions can snap the thread, souring the experience."

Sorry, Joss.

S: I was here. K: How do you know? *cue creepy music* S: Because I remember

That was the exchange that officially ended my time as a Heroes viewer.  

Ok, that's a lie because I have a Heroes spec that I need to keep fairly current.  (I know, I know- Heroes is a terrible show to spec because it's serialized and on the bubble.  But it's hard to find a show with a lot of fighting, and it's the only show in which people can use their mind control powers or their flying or super-freeze or whatever during that fighting.  Plus, like I wrote yesterday, I think Sylar could be a cool character.)  

But since when is memory a superpower?  And none of the plot-lines make sense!  Whatever, I'm not going to vent about it now.  But if any of you have stuck with Heroes, please feel free to do the venting for me :)

Anyway, tonight's the Nip/Tuck in which Christian decides to be a vampire.  Yes.  Seriously.  Or, at least that's how it looked on the pro-mo.  But those guys know what they're doing- I'm going to watch, for sure.

And, I NEEEEEED to get caught up on Gossip Girl.  At first I didn't watch because I'm not into those 90210 shows- just not my thing.  But I've caught a few by accident, and they're REALLY good (and more like a hard-hitting Nip/Tuck than 90210 anyway).  So good that last night, I watched the re-run, even though that was one of the three episodes I'd seen before.

Reasons to love Gossip Girl:

1.  Emotions make sense.  Nobody does anything without a good reason.  People try to be good.  But when they need to protect themselves or feel hurt, they lash out.  

2.  It takes place in an alternate reality in which a kid can both sign adoption papers and have a cocktail at the opera- at the same time.  Though, to be fair, I wouldn't card Chuck Bass, either.

3.  The scenes are exactly the right length.  Which sounds stupid- but is VERY difficult to get right.  The scenes move quickly, without feeling like it gives anyone the short shrift.  They throw the right characters together at the right moments (a lot of shows, ie Lost and Heroes, make HUGE problems for themselves because they don't bring characters together so we can see their reactions to the things happening around them.  The reaction is just as important as the action!  When we can't witness reactions, it creates a disconnect between the characters and the audience, and the characters and each other.  

And the scenes multi-task.  For example- in last night's episode, Blaire gets a phone call and decides she has to apologize to a teacher RIGHT THEN, so she leaves the opera hall right before the show gets started.  The next scene is with Chuck at the hall's bar.  His scene gets started, and a few seconds in, we see Blaire run past in the background.  So, we know what's happening with Blaire and what's happening with Chuck, and where everyone is physically- but in the most elegant, efficient possible way.  

The show is very well paced all-together, which I love because I'm a twitchy, restless person who yells at the T.V. and wonders off and etc.  

4.  And, obviously, everything looks great- the cast, the clothes, the photography.

my shallow heart's the only thing that's beating

A movie (traditionally) has a single major climax: a life-defining, a moment of supreme victory and/or supreme defeat.  That's why vengeance stories work so well as movies (ie, Die Hard).

A television show starts with a character or group of characters in an especially trying situation.  Every week, that situation tries the character(s) in a different way- a way that is especially trying.  The characters on a T.V. show are tested every week, with no end- or reward- in sight.  That's why redemption stories work so well as T.V. shows (ie, Angel).

Ok, ok, so a woman turned Angel evil.  Another woman made him good again- until she had sex with him.  After that, he was evil again, so she killed him.  But he came back and they could be together- and he could be good- as long as they NEVER HAD SEX AGAIN.  A little gross.  I know Joss Whedon is a feminist and blah blah blah, but... still, a little gross.  

Strangely enough, Sylar on Heroes has a similar story:

1. Cute blond goads him into murder.

2. Goes on a spree.

3. Tries to stop, so OF COURSE, turns to a woman for help (only with him, it was his mother).

4. And with him, she was the one who got killed.

5. But of course, he tried to be good for ANOTHER woman (thought she was his biological mother).

6. Went on another spree when it turned out she lied.  

With Angel, it was sex that set him off.  With Sylar it's lying, I guess.

YET.  

Angel worked, I think.  At times, his quest for redemption had a material goal: to become human.  Ultimately, the journey was the goal in and of itself.  

Sylar just sort of switches back and forth- between "I'm a murder!"  and "I'm not a murderer!"  Maybe over time, his story will become more subtle and less obviously goal-oriented.   He's the last remaining saving grace on Heroes, in my opinion, though his character has gotten a serious bludgeoning this season.

Which is why I'm excited for the new episode tonight, I guess.  Despite how infuriating that show is, and how I can't get through an episode without one or two drinks.  

Maybe I'm just excited for those one or two drinks.

But I keep watching because I think Sylar has real potential to be interesting.  Once again, he's a character with a REAL dilemma.  He can either be a murderous "somebody" or a moral "nobody." (unlike Claire and her- I'm immortal!  But that sucks!  "dilemma," etc.).  Even if I don't agree with how the Heroes writers are dealing with Sylar's redemption story, I am always curious.

Which reminds me:

I put a post-it up on my mirror that says "Dilemma!  Paradox!  Compromise of self!" because I don't want to forget the stuff I learned from watching hour upon hour of Star Wars.  Which, btw, I'm still thinking about buying.  Worth it?  I dunno.

LIFE IS AN STD, ALWAYS FATAL (paraphrased from the New York Times)

How hard do you like to work when reading a book?

I don't like to work at all.  I read books for entertainment, and when someone reads my work, I want them to be entertained.

To me, writing is like engineering a roller coaster or dancing ballet.  If the audience can see you sweat, you've gone wrong.  The performance must look as effortless and be as thrilling as magic.

But why do other people read books?  Because the last major free-standing book review in the country doesn't seem to have the same reading/writing philosophy as I do.  

I live near Washington, D.C., which recently got rid of its Sunday book review section.  So, I've been reading the New York Times Sunday review more faithfully.  

The Times review is A LOT different from the Post's Book World.  I disliked some of those differences as a teenager but like them now; Times reviewers are more likely to use bold language, be unequivical in their judgments, give bad reviews.  But one of my dislikes still holds up; the Times reviewers also tend to like more cerebral books.  Books that, to me, don't sound like any fun- that don't sound enchanting.

Example: in a review about Lowboy, a book about a schizophrenic teenager, the reviewer says,

"One of the novel's many pleasures is just going along: putting yourself fully in the hands of the story and its author, being drawn in, gradually immersed, making connections, appreciating those seeds as they bloom into the tale's developing complexity, danger and tragedy.  By the time it all falls into place, the reader is long hooked and turning back is not an option."

This is from a favorable review, for a supposedly exciting book.  But STILL, the reviewer wants to be tricked into reading it, into liking it?  

I also like to give myself over the writer and go into a kind of waking dream- that's what's so fun about reading!  But being gradually immersed, consciously making connections, appreciating the novel as you're reading it: those joys sound to me like an English major making the best of assigned reading, not a reader lost in a new world.  (I've been an English major, so I know ;) ).

Where's the joy?

don't worry, we'll have R2 with us. ha. ha.

Correction:

Watched Burn Notice yesterday, and a lot of the scenes DID cut out on time... but the back and forth *during* the scenes was sometimes very slow, which made things awkward.  Which I blame on the directing, not the editing- esp., because it's worse in some episodes than in others, depending on who is directing.  

Maybe this is a new style?  Because I felt the same way watching Twilight.  During on-screen conversations that are supposed to be really meaningful and sweet, etc, there would be all these loooong (awkward) pauses that made me (though apparently not anyone else?) twitchy.  

Back to our regularly scheduled programming:

I (used to) play The Force Game.  How to play: watch Star Wars episodes 2 or 3 (2 AND 3 if you're really feeling brave).  Every time the word "force" is said, you take a drink.  

So usually when I watch episodes 2 or 3, I'm really just "watching" and making my own versions of the sound effects and doing other *sshole things with my friends.  But last weekend, I happened to rent Episode 2 (ahem).  The other day, I was talking to a friend about the force game and how ridiculous certain parts of the movie are, so I turned it on to show her... and ended up being sucked in and watching it all.

LOVED IT.  Not "this dialogue is so corny I'm going to choke on my taquitos" loved it- seriously, "wanted to cry when Anakin killed those sand-people and maybe actually shed a tear or two but don't tell anybody" loved it.  WHY?

Today I watched it with commentary to try and figure out how a movie that clumsy, that wooden, managed to suck me in and angst the hell out of me.  But I still couldn't get it (because half the commentary is from the special effects guys, and the other half is exultation of the great god Star Wars Seventies Version).

Later tonight, Episode 3 came on TV and I got sucked into watching it TOO even though I should have tried a LITTLE harder to earn some cool points by doing ANYTHING else.

WHY??? Why would I feel the need to watch these movies over and over?  Why would I think about buying them?  How can I sit through three hours of children's sci-fi when I can't get through ANY OTHER MOVIE SHOWN ON TELEVISION?

What's their hook?  Episode 2: whiny adolescent boy falls in love, while his mentor unsuccessfully hunts a wanna-be assassin.  Episode 3: whiny, teary man betrays everybody while his mentor(s) turn against him.  

And listening to George Lucas on the commentary: these more recent movies were obviously vanity projects.  Every scene is meant to lead up to or echo something from the 70s movies, every decision seems to have been made with those movies in mind.  The more recent three movies seem to have been pulled wholesale from Lucas's fantasy/dream life, with all the boring repetition and senseless symbolism inherent in that.  They are (expensive!) fan-fiction.

YET.  Something works.  Something IS compelling, even amongst all the mess.  What IS that diamond in the rough?

It damn sure isn't the dialogue.  (Here's a representative sample: in Episode 3 when Anakin and Padme are arguing- as ever- about some boring stuff.  Out of nowhere, she says: "Hold me.  Like you did by the lake on Naboo.  So long ago, when there was nothing but our love.  No politics, no plotting, no war.")

It's not the action (for once), because that's pretty much: REALLY long chase (boring), or REALLY long light-saber battle (interesting, but repetitive)

It's not the structure.  From the commentary, it seemed that Lucas had ALL KINDS of world-building he wanted to do, and ALL KINDS of loose ends he wanted to tie up- to the point, where it seemed every scene was just exposition (to him).  

Besides, I couldn't care less about all that trade federation/republic/politics stuff, and many viewings later I still can't really follow it- and that was supposed to be the scary/adventure part of the story- the plot's meat.  According to Lucas, the love story between Anakin and Padme was just a side plot, and that love story didn't make TONS of sense anyway.  

Honestly (from the commentary), his approach seemed very heavy on the structure, at the expense of play and freshness.  And maybe because he's SO close to the material, plot-wise, his priorities seemed out of whack.

So what plot lines are we really following?  The only one that sticks out to me is: Anakin's descent into the "dark side." 

I think it's the character of Anakin that sells Episodes 2 and 3.  He's got a compelling dilemma.  He loves people (ie, his mother, his wife, his mentor/surrogate father Obi Won).  Yet Jedi Knights must be selfless, and think only of the group- they can't have attachments, and they can't let people become attached to them.  

If Anakin keeps love in his life- if he stays a part of life at all- he can't be a Jedi anymore... but if he isn't a Jedi anymore, he no longer deserves his friend's/family's love.  

That character and his story ARE compelling, despite the awkward dialogue and hair-pieces.  

To me, his struggle is between his ability/need to give all of himself (to love, to ambition, etc) and the healthful rationality of temperance, moderation, reserve- and that's a struggle I relate to a lot.  Just as, I guess a lot of people relate to Bella's struggle in Twilight, between keeping her man but changing herself, or losing her man but staying true to herself.  

In both Anakin's and Bella's stories, the dilemma is: how much of myself should I compromise?  How much can I compromise and remain me?  

Lucas and Meyer both seem to think compromise to become one with the Jedi/Edward is necessary.  Anakin stayed true to himself and his passions, and look what happened with THAT.  Meanwhile, Bella 2.0 is frolicking around the world with the love of her....death.  

Jeez, really?  Don't compromise and you're evil, compromise and you're dead?

Regardless, both Twilight and Star Wars are carried by a single character with a compelling dilemma.  Wow.  

Makes me think: what are my characters' dilemmas?  God, how can I make them that awesome?