This is the last incarnation of the open thread using this format.  They will continue to be posted regularly (perhaps even daily) and will continue to offer a place for discussion on any topic.  They will even continue offering some interesting tidbits I’ve discovered in my daily news consumption.  But they are changing dramatically as part of a larger plan.  More on that later.

What a stunning photo!

McDonald’s is trying to claim intellectual property rights on how to make a sandwich.  You better let the kids know they can’t have peanut butter and jelly anymore unless they pay royalties to some corporate asshole.  No, not really.  It won’t fly.  I mean, come on!

This is SO disturbing.  “A three-year-old boy has been eaten alive by a neighbour’s herd of pigs on the outskirts of the Indian capital, Delhi, police say. The boy, Ajay, strayed from the family home as his parents and other family members were having lunch. When his mother went to look for him, she found the pigs chewing something and spotted bits of her son’s clothing. She threw stones at the animals but they turned on her. Her screams alerted neighbours who came to her rescue.”  Beyond the shock factor, they arrested the pig owner for “causing death due to negligence.”  What the fuck about his parents who left him outside to play while they dined lavishly inside without a thought for their son?  No, let the man go and throw the kid’s parents into jail for neglect, abuse, and wrongful death.  Let’s stop blaming everyone else for what happens to children and start pointing the finger back at the parents who think it’s the responsibility of everyone except themselves to ensure the safety and well-being of their children.

Now for something completely different.  “Scientists believe they have worked out a formula to calculate how ‘beer goggles’ affect a drinker’s vision. The drink-fuelled phenomenon is said to transform supposedly ‘ugly’ people into beauties – until the morning after. Researchers at Manchester University say while beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, the amount of alcohol consumed is not the only factor. Additional factors include the level of light in the pub or club, the drinker’s own eyesight and the room’s smokiness. The distance between two people is also a factor. They all add up to make the aesthetically-challenged more attractive, according to the formula.”  Yes, there’s a real formula and more explanation in the article.

Uh… I’m not sure what to say about this one.  “A mother was arrested on suspicion of murdering her newborn daughter by microwaving the baby in an oven. China Arnold, 26, was jailed Monday on a charge of aggravated murder, more than a year after she brought her dead month-old baby to a hospital. Bail was set Tuesday at $1 million. ‘We have reason to believe, and we have some forensic evidence that is consistent with our belief, that a microwave oven was used in this death,’ said Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County coroner’s office. He said the evidence included high-heat internal injuries and the absence of external burn marks on the baby, Paris Talley.”  Why did it take a year?  There’s a real “DUH!” factor in this quote: “Arnold was arrested soon after the baby’s death in August 2005, then was released while authorities investigated further. Betz said the case was difficult because ‘there is not a lot of scientific research and data on the effect of microwaves on human beings.'”

Some very cool science here: “Astronomers have found a gigantic cosmic ‘Rumpelstiltskin’ that is spinning light into matter and giving off lighthouse-like pulses of gamma rays. The bizarre duo responsible for this miraculous feat of physics is a giant blue star and either a black hole or a rapidly spinning neutron star.”  That’s right, poppets, matter and energy are interchangeable.  This natural phenomenon proves it and is doing it with ease (cosmologically speaking, that is).

It’s nice to see a little “checks and balances” going on, eh?  “A federal judge struck down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague. Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as ‘specially designated global terrorists’ were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said. The order gave the president ‘unfettered discretion’ to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday. The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush’s Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups.”

The rats have started leaping from the sinking ship.  Until now, Congress would not challenge anything the president did, and therefore no federal agency would disagree and instead participated in very bad things.  After the American people made clear that was not an acceptable arrangement, some rodent-like scurrying is now taking place.  “The Justice Department is launching an internal review of its participation in the Bush administration’s controversial domestic eavesdropping program, the department’s inspector general told congressional leaders on Monday. The review, which congressional Democrats have sought for nearly a year, will examine the Justice Department’s role in the warrantless domestic spying program run by the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA), Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine said.”  Considering they can no longer ignore what the Democrats want (and, therefore, the people of the United States), notice how quickly they begin questioning activities they’ve thus far justified with all manner of lies and deceit and mangling of American principles and ideals.  Let’s hope this trend continues, and let’s hope the Democrat-controlled Congress shakes up the executive branch and all of the government with sweeping oversight—just as the Constitution orders them to do and just as the Republicans have failed to do for six years.

Thanks to xocobra for sending this to me.  “The longstanding advice to “sit up straight” has been turned on its head by a new study that suggests leaning back is a much better posture. Researchers analyzed different postures and concluded that the strain of sitting upright for long hours is a perpetrator of chronic back problems.”  Apparently, sitting back at 135 degrees is the best biomechanical position for relieving all unnecessary strain on the back.  And xocobra’s right: We don’t call it sitting up ‘straight’ as that seems terribly biased against gays; instead, it should be called sitting up ‘gayly erect’—although that communicates a very different connotation.  Sounds like a fun position, yes?

Who says there’s no honor among thieves?  “A thief broke into a home, stole a video camera and found images of child porn on it. The thief called police after finding the camera, with images of child pornography and said the camera would be left on the steps of a church. Police retrieved the camera and soon realized the burglar had videotaped a computer monitor displaying images of child pornography. The thief printed the address of where he stole the camera on a note with the camera and the police went there and seized computer equipment containing 13,315 pornographic images.”  The burglar is still at large, but I think that crime is better left unsolved.  [via Michael at Gay Orbit]

Boycott Iceland and all of its products and services.  That’s the country responsible for stopping a U.N. ban on deep-sea trawling, a most destructive kind of fishing that is devastating the oceanic ecosystems (and remember, seafood will be gone by 2048 if things like this don’t stop).  See the article for details and products you should avoid.

Via Wayne comes this very cool site where you can view Earth from any of the public satellites in orbit (by ‘public’ I mean those providing imagery and information open to general consumption; no, you can’t tap into spy satellites… at least not easily).  There are some fantastic views to be enjoyed with this little tool.

I have no idea what I did to my back…  But it hurts like hell!  It started yesterday when I woke up.  Although getting through the day was painful, it was not overwhelmingly so.  Today started out with more pain that continues growing worse as the hours move by me.  Standing is the most difficult position of all, not to mention walking, and I fear I look like a decrepit geezer who should be using a walker.  I can’t stand upright without significant discomfort.  I find it easier to remain bent forward a small degree.

But these times are not often long-lived and represent no serious health problem.  It’s nothing more than a residual of my 1996 back surgery and the “unnatural” configuration of my lumbar spine.  I either slept, sat, stood, twisted or turned, or otherwise moved incorrectly, something I must admit can be accomplished with great ease and no intent.

With the promise of thunderstorms this afternoon, evening, and overnight, and with promises of wintry precipitation beginning early in the morning and lasting through the afternoon tomorrow, all nestled within a dramatic plunge of temperatures, I already planned to stay home tonight and tomorrow.  With this unwelcome problem with my back, I now have greater impetus to do so.

I want to share some of the multitude of changes taking place with the manuscript as opposed to what you already saw.  They are many; they are vast.

Descriptive language
Much of the original short story was, as a draft, written in haste.  I’ll agree it included descriptive language.  You might remember some of that centering around things like the darkness itself and how it acted in the porch scene, as well as what Margaret and Helene looked like (and, to a lesser degree, what Joe and George looked like).  Because it developed in a short time and because it was a draft, I didn’t focus much on telling you what you should be seeing and hearing, what people looked like, what Carr Beholden looked like, what kinds of trees were in the surrounding woodlands, and so on.  That is a big part of the rewrite.  Readers need to see what I see, hear what I hear, and even smell what I smell.  Nothing can be of greater importance to a writer than to transport the audience to the place imagined, and they must experience it solely through the text.  Part of that, however, is to ensure the reader is not overwhelmed with descriptive text that leaves no room for interpretation.  It should engage the imagination, not override it.

Too much ‘to be’
One common failing of most writers is overuse of ‘to be’ verbs.  For instance, when referring to what someone was doing in the past, it’s rarely appropriate to say “they were doing this thing” even when speaking in passive tense (as appropriate).  ‘To be’ is a cheap verb, a common verb, a very plebeian use of language that takes away from the story.  There’s certainly a use for it.  You can’t really say what someone was doing when you did something without it.  For instance, if I want to say someone was on location and doing something when I arrived, I can’t well say “I arrived and he tried to open the door.”  That’s a responsive use and not an ongoing use.  Did he only try to open the door because I arrived?  That’s what that sentence infers.  If he was already in the middle of the action when I arrived, then it should say “I arrived and he was trying to open the door.”  Even in that sense, it would be better to say something akin to “I arrived and found him trying to open the door,” a better phrase that drops cheap ‘to be’ usage and instead offers more robust verbs.  Instances where it’s appropriate are generally rare, yet English vernacular has made such usage common for conversational purposes.  In writing, however, it’s cheap and paltry.  Verbs should be descriptive.  Instead of saying “He was wishing he had gone home,” it should be said “He wished he had gone home.”  It carries the same connotation yet does so with more depth and clarity.  That’s assuming it’s not an ongoing action while describing another action as stated above.  Anyway, limiting use of ‘to be’ is important.

Repeats
Words or phrases are repeated often in general conversation.  That’s fine when talking (although not entirely proper or creative).  In writing, on the other hand, it’s very bad.  Whether it’s overuse of “actually” or “‘insert quote,’ he/she/they said,” phrasing and vocabulary are everything.  It’s imperative that redundancies be minimized so as not to bore or alienate readers.  Quotes should be introduced or clarified in as many descriptive ways as possible (some before, some after, some said, some replied, some responded, some offered, some clarified, and on it goes).  Common phrases, colloquialisms, and “favorite words” should be limited.  Similarly, using the same word when mentioning something throughout the manuscript will be off-putting.  An immediate representation of this from Dreamdarkers is in regards to the woodlands.  Using ‘trees’ or ‘forest’ (or both) becomes grating and tedious; instead, you’ll find ‘trees,’ ‘woodlands,’ ‘forest,’ ‘woods,’ and ‘timberland’ used interchangeably to keep it from sounding like an echo.

Meaningless use of adverbs (a.k.a. empty adverbs)
Have you ever considered the word ‘actually’?  Do you use it?  Popular linguistic mechanics has made the word a normal part of English vernacular.  “What did you do?”  “I actually went to the store.”  In that sense, ‘actually’ is empty and meaningless gibberish.  If you went to the store, that’s action enough.  ‘Actually’ is used when it qualifies something less than believable or clear.  “She looks like she’s 20 years old.”  “She’s actually thirty-six.”  In that sense, it’s proper, but in writing a book, even then it’s questionable.  The emphasis should be on the fact and not on qualifying to make it a fact (although there are times, especially in dialogue, when it’s appropriate).  Another example is “The dog immediately leaped to his feet.”  Leaping is a sudden movement.  One does not leap slowly.  One does not leap later unless one says so.  Therefore, it’s a gratuitous adverb and should be replaced with something more meaningful (like “excitedly” or “clumsily”) or dropped altogether.  I’m notorious for empty adverbs in some cases (although more for meaningful adverbs in overabundance).  Tempering their use makes them a more powerful tool, and excluding empty uses makes the narrative clearer.

Mundane lists
More than two or three items (no matter what they are) become boring.  When used, they should be ramped up with descriptive language to make the list seem less like… well… less like a list and more like an experience.  E-mails are one thing; web posts are another; a novel is in a class by itself.  I didn’t use many list-like phrases in the original, but I employed a few.  They will either be scaled back or turned into sensory encounters.

Tight dialogue
A novel is a description.  Very few can fly as dialogue-driven works.  Even fewer can rely on dialogue that translates to something better described than said (i.e., what the author should have told in the narrative versus making a character say it).  I found a few pieces in the original that didn’t flow smoothly as believable conversations, although none of it was false in the sense that it reiterated something I’d already said.  Nevertheless, a significant amount of dialogue has been added (still much less than the narration by Dave) and it’s all being tweaked to ensure it’s appropriate.  Dialogue should reveal something (e.g., a character trait that would flop if simply described, or an important fact that is more believable when coming from the original source rather than third-party translation).

Flat narrative
A novel should be robust and flow like honey from the mind’s lips.  For instance, you probably remember this from the short story: “The dogs stood at the screen door waiting for their chance to leap from the porch and dash out into the world. Dad reached them first and pushed the door open. Both dogs bolted out, made the sharp turn northward toward the lake, and ran excitedly to the pier.”  Yawn.  For a short story moving at a pace similar to Darkness Comes to Kingswell, that was fine to a degree, especially true given the text was posted as soon as it was written.  A draft is not necessarily the best place to strive for excellent literary interpretations.  That’s even more true when it’s “stream of consciousness” like that one (spilling from mind to digital paper with little direct interference).  That’s the bases for most writing, but especially for fictional writing.  Put the story on paper first, and then go back and clean it up and fill it in.  For the three sentences above, you might remember its expanded version seen here where two paragraphs filled the same period of time.  That text has since changed, but the version seen in that post is a good indicator of what it looks like now (minor changes and clarifications have been made).  I’m still on the first rewrite of the short story, so a lot more will happen once I work through the second and third rewrites.  But is it already better?  You bet!  Again, the original was a draft and written in haste (it took me about two weeks to pump out ~100 pages), but I wrote it that way to get the story out of my head.  Manipulating and massaging it could come later, just as I’m doing now, and a major part of that is to ensure it’s not a dull, humdrum narration like Ben Stein’s character in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

Style
If you read the original web exercise, you might remember it was full of extremely casual language.  Much of the narrative was peppered with “I’d” and “she’ll” and “won’t” and “didn’t” and other common contractions.  All of those are now relegated to dialogue only.  The tale itself is tighter and a wee bit more formal, although the examples posted thus far (this one and this one) probably clarify the still conversational tone sans the overly informal essence that pervaded the original work.  I am striving to keep the tome from being too abstruse while equally attempting to keep it from being too pedestrian.  I hope I am striking a reasonable balance between the two.  It is a comfortable writing style for me; that makes it easy to develop.  Likewise, I can easily slip into an esoteric style that undoubtedly would be too highbrow for many (most? perhaps…).

Vocabulary
To some extent, the book will contain some of my extended vocabulary.  I am intentionally limiting that to the most appropriate places or where I am forced to delve into various ways of saying the same thing (for example, when speaking of the screened-in and front porches, I bounce between ‘portico,’ ‘veranda,’ and ‘porch’).  I also utilize less common phrases and words to enable the descriptive sense without relying on common dialect that presents a boring picture.  A certain amount of this stems from my desire to avoid repeats as I mentioned above.  Using the same word or phrase throughout the novel will generate a mundane feel.  I want to circumvent that as much as possible.  However, if forcing a particular style or limiting its depth discomfits me in any way, the story will suffer and readers will dislike the results.

Let me expound yet another phrase I use regularly.

to wit (to wit): / to WIT /
idiom; adverb

(1) that is to say (idiomatic)
(2) namely (adverbial)

[From the archaic verb ‘to wit’ meaning “to know or be aware of,” from the Middle English verb ‘to witen’ from the Old English verb ‘to witan’ meaning “to know.” General usage of the phrase is adverbial in nature and assumed to be synonymous between “namely” and “that is to say.”]

Usage: I told her there was one major reason she should not go, to wit, it would be too dangerous.