"There is nothing on which it is so hard as...

...poverty, and there is nothing it professes to condemn with such severity as the pursuit of wealth." ~Ebenezer Scrooge (Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, 1843)

A Christmas Carol: Reviewed

 Ghost of Christmas Past by ftongl:

Some of my fellow writers/critiquers have read this story several times. I'm not sure I ever read it in its entirety. I think I only ever saw the various films or plays based on the novel. So, perhaps unlike many of my friends who have read tale this before, I took particular joy in soaking up the prose.     

While the language and writing of the period were difficult (and sometimes cumbersome) to read, I found the prose very visual. I think if I had not seen the films and/or the plays, this story would have played out in my mind much like the many renditions of it were portrayed.

The descriptions of Scrooge, Jacob Marley on the face of the door knocker, the exclamation 'humbug', and the description of Marley's ghost wrapped in chains and various cash-boxes were consistent all around. I found it pleasant to read what I'd 'seen' before, in part, because of the consistency the story and the films carried along with them.

Some things I noted that differed from the movies/plays:

Scrooge took his evening meal in a Tavern and not at home. I used to wonder about this as I watched the movies because I couldn't fathom Scrooge fixing dinner for himself, cleaning his own dishes or paying for a maid to clean his home. And I didn't know that he lived in Jacob Marley's old home. Cinema made it look as if Scrooge lived in a large wealthy house (albeit austere) but the book leads the reader to believe he had a modest residence.

I found it interesting that at the beginning of the book, Bob Cratchit's name was not used. In film, and in plays, his name is used to define and describe the character but at the beginning of the story it is not used, almost as if to emphasize how little Ebenezer cared to focus on the 'personal' of life of others.

As the Ghost of Christmas Past takes Scrooge out to where he had once been a boy, Charles Dickens takes a moment to describe the numerous smells that Ebenezer encountered which I thought was brilliant. Film does not portray this, but it is significant because our human memories are strongly linked to the sense of smell.

The Cratchit house and events were more elaborately described in the novel, and the descriptions of the miners and the men at sea were additional pieces I'd not seen/heard before. And the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come is initially titled a Phantom, which is an eerie name to use for the spectral figure compared to what I've heard the Spirit called before.

Ghost of Christmas Present by shaungwen

These are just a few examples, but I do want to say that although the writing is a reflection of the timeperiod, and sometimes difficult to follow, I thought the overall text was extremely well written. Dickens placed very clear images in my head with most of his paragraphs/descriptions, and I was amazed how he did this with (seemingly) very little effort.

I didn't expect to enjoy this book. So many films, so many plays, led me to think I would find the narrative boring or uninteresting. But the novel was far from my expectations.  Tiny Tim made me cry, my heart went out to Ebenezer despite his 'humbug' self, and in the end I realized that it is never too late for any of us to change as long as we have our very last breath to take in this world.

So, whether we believe in god, or a goddess, or take refuge in the Buddha, or whether we follow a prophet or simply hug our own humanity...our compassion toward each other can be found inside ourselves whenever we choose to see it. And whenever we open our eyes to a brand new day, we are given the opportunity to change and make change. It is only 'choice' that keeps us from growing, or allows us to reach out and grasp a new beginning.

And so that is what it means to me when Tim says, "God bless us, everyone!" 

~Cin

Ghost of Christmas Past by verreaux

"We came, we saw...

...we kicked its ass! (Dr. Peter Venkman/Ghostbusters)

Ghostbusters (1984): Film Review 

 

     In 1984, I was serving the second of what would eventually be many years in the U.S. Navy. My childhood was fairly subdued. My brother and I grew up largely sheltered from the inappropriate evils of the world such as Saturday Night Live T.V. and Monty Python films. When I went to see the movie (I believe I was in Millington Tennessee at the time) I found Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd extremely entertaining even though I had no idea who they were.  For the day and age in which it was made, Ghostbusters included what I thought was fun computer technology and special effects...and I'm a sucker for special effects. Couple the effects with my love of bizarre story lines (the Giant Stay-PuftMarshmallow Man really reeled me in) and I was hooked.

    I sat down in front of the T.V. a few nights ago and watched the movie again, per our assignment.  I noted how far our computer graphics and special effects have come in just over twenty years.  I still enjoyed the movie, although my enjoyment was on a more primitive level. Instead of extolling the virtues of the excellent special effects on the screen, I merely sat back and enjoyed the non-sensical story.  And I did enjoy it, I am afraid to say.  I'm sure many of you readers will call me nuts. 

     Why did I enjoy it? Well, Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd by themselves are quite entertaining, not to mention Rick Moranis has a stupid lovable quality about him that I enjoy hating. I had a good time watching the various ghosts as they popped up and seeing how they got sucked up into the 'ghost' trap of a vacuum cleaner. It reminded me of how much I used to go after spiders hanging from the corner of the ceiling in our living room in order to clear them from the house. (Now, I'm usually a bit more humane and escort them out). 

And I am a sucker for the slapstick, horror-bizarro story tale.  I mean seriously; a giant marshmallow man, a keymaster, a gatekeeper, a refrigerator that holds the palace of Zuul inside and a vacuum cleaner trapper-thing that cleans up ghosts?  What is NOT to love about this story?

Oh, yes, I realize it IS a cheezy flick. But the cheese is what made it fun for me. 

Would I watch the film again, right now, this minute? Not unless I had to. There are too many movies, theater plays, Broadway shows and T.V. series I've yet to watch and Ghostbusters doesn't rate on my top ten "really wanna see that film again" chart. Still, it was a fun 'blast from the past' and my son enjoyed taking time to watch the movie with me.  Family hours well spent with some laughter, some discussions on how my son used to love to make 'slime/goo' in the kitchen and then some firm remonstrations for him to never do it again while he protested that he thought it was the perfect time to create more. 

Good times. Good times. Boo!

~Cin

"Mamma, do angels...

...talk?" (Missy. The Amityville Horror (1977) by Jay Anson)

A Review of "The Amityville Horror"

     I'd seen the movie, and I was hoping for an interesting read as I picked up this novel and started reading through the pages.  The novel, I thought, was supposed to be fiction. It wasn't until after I completed reading it that I found out the controversy behind it. Reflecting on it, whether intended or not, the controversy was genius. The story was touted by the author, and by George and Kathy Lutz. to be true.  And although the accounts in the novel are lauded as a hoax for various reasons, both George and Kathy maintained they were true, and passed a polygraph to the fact.

     Am I convinced one way or another? No. Do I believe everything happened that was written in the book? No.  Is some of it plausible? I believe so. Yes. And it is from this starting point that I will discuss my opinion of the novel.

     In most novels I read, when I'm in critiquing mode, I read from two basic vantage points.  The first reader in me looks at 'structure' of the manuscript. Entrance into the story, design of the story, and things like tense, grammar, focus, etc.

     The second reader in me wants to be entertained.  And I ask myself as I'm reading, "Is this story enjoyable? Do I like the pictures, sounds, smells, touches that the prose invokes (or not)?"  So in essence, one vantage point is very technical/objective and one is very visceral/subjective.

     The story began with a prologue, which I felt could have been cut completely. I didn't find it interesting. The first chapter of the book was written in a very 'telling' mode. There was no real action, and the author used the entire first chapter to provide the reader with backstory. (I would like to add here that on my paperback copy, this story is still listed as "non-fiction.")  I kept thinking while I read the beginning of this story that the prose read like a newspaper account. It was lackluster. Dull. In addition, the wording and the overall descriptions were bare bones plain. Almost parochial. Nothing in the paragraphs 'wow'd' me.

     Throughout the novel, I also noted a lot of passive voice and 'tense' changes from active present to passive past, which was jarring and extremely inconsistent.  

 (Arwork by RionaSL @ DeviantArt.com)

     What I did enjoy in the story were the changes back and forth between characters.  George, Kathy, Father Mancuso and the Detective all had different points of view, which broke the tale up and made it more interesting to read. Still, I noticed there was very little conversation/dialogue in the paragraphs, and a ton of 'telling'/'reporting' that seemed to go on instead weaving an enjoyable story.  The narrative method made for a different sound and pace than I was used to.  I can't say it was totally unlikable.  I can only say it was okay.

      The descriptions of the paranormal experiences that occurred at the house were an odd mix of every paranormal encounter I'd ever heard described, plus some demonology and some typical ghost haunting descriptions thrown in for good measure.  It was an odd menagerie of things that incorporated cliche' paranormal accounts with bizarre descriptions such as the demon eyed pig.   

     Because I thought the novel was a work of fiction at first (I hadn't noticed the non-fiction label or heard about the hoax yet),  I took accepted the story as part of the writer's creative mind, and went with the flow.  Red pig eyes, red rooms that caused a person to puke, ceramic lions baring their teeth, flies in winter in the sewing room window...my mind went "Okay, that's interesting..." and I moved on.

     Overall, I can't say I hated this book. But I can't say I really liked it either.  In present day terms it was "meh." I investigated Jay Anson's background (deceased) and found that he'd primarily done documentaries in his career.  He wrote only one other novel after Amityville, which was a fiction piece titled "666."  I'm not sure if I would read it or not. Reviews of the book say it is a similar story to Amityville only definitely labeled as fiction this time.  Other reviewers praise the novel and say they loved every minute of it, but they also loved Amityville, so it's still hard to say if I'd bother picking it up.  Perhaps if it were in front of me, and it was a rainy day, and there were no other reading materials in the house.

     One thing bothers me about this book, and the origin of the story.  I find myself wondering why the town of Amityville doesn't embrace the effects of the ghostly tale, and expound upon the tourist business the house could have brought in. I wonder why the owners didn't choose to open it up for paying tours now and then, and embellish the 'legend' of Amityville for an economic advantage. Something in me finds the idea that the extra traffic bothering people in the neighborhood, and the reluctance of the Historical Society to discuss the topic, a bit odd. We ARE in America, where almost every red blooded American who can capitalize on sensationalism, tourism, (and lots of other isms), DOES.  And yet, not this community. Why? It's a question that naggles at me even now, and perhaps I may have to travel to there one day to find out.

~Cin

(Artwork found on DeviantArt.com.  by elizom.)

    

Ghost Hunting 101: Treading First Haunts in Local Areas

 "The more enlightened our houses are, the more their walls ooze ghosts."
Italo Calvino

There are few adventures for a writer as satisfying as exploring the environment where their novel takes place. In some cases, as in writing a novel that includes the paranormal and local ghost stories, the writer’s adventure can be a lovely undertaking full of both mystery and suspense. In the spirit of investigating local haunts, I chose to go on a reconnaissance mission of my own and visit some of the most famed ghosty places of Ventura California in person. The places I visited were: Scary Dairy; Cemetery Park, The Pierpont Inn and The Landmark 78/Candlelight Restaurant.

Before this excursion, I'd never considered going ghost hunting. It was my "Readings in the Genre" novels, and stories of the paranormal that made me wonder what kind of ghosts haunted my own back yard. I decided to go on a quest to find out.

Scary Dairy

        Scary Dairy is located near University Drive in Camarillo, California, near the California State University of Channel Islands.  It’s in an odd hilly region just a few miles from the ocean and close to Point Mugu Navy Base, and it's surrounded by some agricultural fields on one side. There are no main buildings in sight, and the area is devoid of anything that appears urban.
            Scary Dairy is located near what was once the Camarillo State Hospital, a mental institution and it was supposedly a dairy farm and/or a slaughter house. After the place burned down a few years ago, it was renamed “Scary Dairy” by the locals. It’s rumored that a number of murders occurred on the grounds, but now it seems to be more like a place for University plebes and graffiti artists to hang out.

            I traveled there Saturday morning (September 17th) with my daughter. It was my second attempt to find the place. Luckily, on our first pass near the main University road, there was a gate that was open which I hadn’t noticed before.  We turned down the dirt road, and passed a group of people flying model planes and helicopters at the Model Airplane Landing Strip, then rounded a bend of trees, and there stood a dilapidated barn and a low white structure just beyond that.

            It probably didn’t help that we visited during daylight hours, although the sky was gray and overcast, but the place didn’t seem very scary. It had more of an artistic feel to it.  The falling, rotting barn was missing several metal panels, but on almost every bit of wood and aluminum sheeting still attached to the frame, there were a number of interesting pieces of graffiti artwork.

            When we traveled into the main building, large holes in the walls and burnt wooden beams above made the place just a bit eerie. There were concrete troughs, such as those that might have been used for feeding cattle. I imagine if I’d been out there alone at night I might have found the experience quite unsettling, but my daughter and I took pictures and talked with a photographer that was there taking shots of the building. It was obvious from some of the artwork that local fraternities and sororities used this place occasionally, but as I looked out on the strangely vacant hills that surrounded the structure I could only imagine what types of nefarious activities might have once occurred here. I've added some pics below for you to get a feel of the place.

Cemetery Park

      On October 1st (Saturday), I decided to go on a longer haunting exploration, and hit three regularly haunted places during the weekend. When I made the hotel reservation, my husband said the local adventure sounded like fun, and so he accompanied me on my tour.

      We stopped at Cemetery Memorial Park on the way, a place I'd only heard of a few months ago. I'd heard, and read that the City of Ventura converted this cemetery into a local park, and that they left the bodies remaining interred in the ground. I couldn't believe such a story at first. Who in their right mind would turn a cemetery into a recreation area? But as you take time to read the sign below, you'll understand that's just what the city did.

      I'd read in a couple of posts that this park was haunted regularly by a teenage boy who hung himself from a tree. I wondered if perhaps cemeteries themselves are not filled with ghostly spirits, but perhaps only places where troubled spirits meet their end are haunted. The idea gave me pause and dispelled some assumptions.

Leopold Gisler (no disrespect intended) has the name of an awesome potential character to be used

in a novel. I do hope Leopold won't mind the use of his name. He died young, and perhaps I can

lengthen his life a little.

James Sumner was the recipient of the Medal of Honor, for participation as a U.S. Calvary Memberin the Indian Wars. Something in me found it eerie to see the upside-down five pointed star inside the

shape of the Pentagon we all know very well in Washington D.C..

 

Here is a name of a deceased child (I assume, because there is no date but one), and perhaps the best name I came across in all of the Park headstones. I have decided "Tennessee Hobson" will one day be a character in a book I write. That way, he'll live forever.

 

Pierpont Inn

      When my husband and I arrived at the Pierpont Inn, we were amazed at how many weddings and local functions this little place hosts.  When we stepped into the common area, we were told there was one wedding reception and a retirement party in progress.  The hotel has a fairly large lobby, a couple of gas fireplaces, and a nice little grassy area adequate for weddings, retirement parties and the like.

      

Our room was number 403.  And for some reason, it was the only room that night that would not get Internet Access.  We checked into the room and headed out to the restaurant (Landmark 78...see below) for dinner.  In the process I took several pictures, but when I went back to check my camera, some of the photos I thought I had taken were no longer on the camera.  After we returned from dinner, we went to bed.  I woke up at 1AM, and couldn't get back to sleep.  I went out to the grassy area near the main building, found a seat with my computer listened to an audio book.  2AM.  3AM. 4AM.  Nothing. Only the slight movement of the wind caressed the nearby palm trees.  4:35AM.  I got a little excited.  I saw a shadowy movement float across the sidewalk and then out scuttled the larges possum I'd ever seen.  It moved almost silently, skulking alongside the building in search of leftover retirement party treats.  I was a little disappointed, but I'd had a lovely morning ghost hunting and looking for signs and symptoms of the paranormal.  It still doesn't explain what happened to the pictures on my camera.

The Landmark 78/ Candlelight Restaurant

     The Landmark 78, once known as the old Victorian Carlo Hain house, is considered Ventura California’s number one haunted restaurant. Situated in the heart of the city of Ventura, on Santa Clara Avenue, it serves as a popular steak house, as well as a late night party area for local youth.  

     In addition to it's current uses, it is also known as the ghostly abode of a woman named “Rosa” who reportedly committed suicide by hanging herself in the room that is now the women’s restroom.  If Rosa saw the color that the bathroom was now, it's no wonder she haunts the place probably hoping for the assistance of a good interior designer.  I learned from one of the waitresses that sightings of Rose first began in 1969, and she is often seen standing on the stairs next to the old fireplace wearing either a pink or green-blue dress.

       At first brush, my husband Jim and I had trouble finding the restaurant. It is parked behind a tall thick hedge of bushes that block out the view of the building. The two story building is constructed rather oddly, with a garish number of angles both outside and inside the house that lend to its creepy feeling when walking near it or in various rooms.  

      We were escorted to a table near a gas fire and I chose the spot where I could observe the staircase.  Before my meal, I toured the bathroom, and took several pictures.  Unfortunately Rosa never did appear.  But I did have an odd feeling of being watched.  It may have just been the waitress looking at me, hoping she'd get a big tip.  In the entire building we were one of two couples having dinner that night.  A Saturday night.  Incredible.

     Dinner came, and it was delicious, and I found myself wondering why such a nice place remained empty for the most part.  The owner only opened the restaurant Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.  And late evenings were for youth parties and dancing on the weekends.  The rest of the time, the building remained closed.

    Jim and I finished our meal, and did a later night tour of the building which had two very weird staircases going up one side of the building and down the other, like one was used by servants and the other used by visitors and the owners.  The back patio area was transformed into a spectacle of candlight which would drive any Fire Marshall to a high pitched frenzy, but which (I must admit) was extremely enchanting.

 

     One place I still want to go is the Victorian Rose Inn.  It's a church that was converted into a Bed and Breakfast.  Stories say a woman once hung herself from the balcony area in the church. Other stories say she plummeted to her death from the balcony. The B&B stays relatively full most of the time, and it is difficult to get booking during weekends or holidays.  But I plan to go there soon for another adventure.

     In conclusion, I've found ghost hunting quite enjoyable, although I did it this time as an amateur choosing to only 'visit' places known to be haunted. If I had the opportunity, would I go back late at night with flashlights and dousing rods and other implements of tracking ghosts?  I might.  But I don't believe ghosts only haunt our world in the dark.  They are there day or night, roaming the borders between our world and theirs...hoping for some sense of peace, freedom and relief of their pain along the way.  As for me, I hope that they find what they're looking for...as long as they're not looking for me.

~Cin

"How can they talk about their death...

...if they don't know they are, indeed, dead?" ~Elaine (Grave's End, 2001)

Perhaps I have a special fondness for this book because the author belongs to the nursing profession, and as a fellow "Florence Nightingalian" I feel a deep sense of admiration for what she's written.  Never mind that her experience took from 1982 to 2001 to get written down and published. Regardless of the time it took, I still found it a fascinating read.  It was like watching "Paranormal Activity" on paper, only much deeper, completely richer.

Elaine's frank descriptions about finding the house that she hoped would bring her marriage together, and then going through the frustrations of realizing it was a failed hope... on top of living in house that became progressively more supernaturally active, was exquisitely compelling. This story is described as a true story, and I have no doubt that much of it is true from the point of view of the author.  I do have to wonder if there were parts that were embellished, or exaggerated in order to make the story more interesting to the reader, but what made it enticing was not only the haunting but the life toils and troubles that Elaine went through with her family during this time.

Most adults that struggle to be parents, and who have children in their early or late teens can empathize with what Elaine described in her novel. Add to this, Elaine's commitment toward independence in a career and profession after being dependent on her husband for so long, and the story pulls at the heart strings of the reader and coaxes the page traveler to keep turning the paper.  :)

I thoroughly enjoyed this story, and I'm not at a point in my life right now where I can be poetic or write deep meaningful prose about it. What I liked was the story's frankness. It's blunt honesty.  It was written just as if I'd picked up a diary of a scared woman living in a haunted house and started reading.  I was able to feel her thoughts, her worries, her concerns...even though they weren't ones I would have agreed with or chosen.  (I'd have let the professor in to study my family and do the interviews...what the hell?)  Still, reading on and learning about Elaine and her family and how they finally discovered the secret of the house and resolved how to live with it... was not only a good read, but was deeply satisfying. I would recommend this novel to anyone who would like a quick and honest read on something paranormal. It might reach beyond their expectations with little balls of light.

~Q

"And I began to see things in a way that let me hold the world...

...without me in it." ~Susie  (The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold)

I didn't want to like this novel. When I saw "The Lovely Bones" on the horror genre reading list, every nucleus in my body rebelled against it.  It was a novel I'd heard young girls gushing over in the college parks and on the Metro in DC when I was riding home from work. I filed it into my mental bin of gooey literary novels...the kind I despise reading because everyone else does...because it's the "in" thing to do.  Not because it's good, but because it's a talking point, one of the things the "in crowd" of society does.  It's the thing to talk about at parties, and other social functions.  And I hate social functions almost as much as I hate the "in crowd" and so I eschewed this novel, and was mapping my path of projectile vomit before having to read the mandated pages.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, because I can't decide which) what I received from this story was...unexpected.  I hate that Scott Johnson made me read this novel. I also hate that I enjoyed it so very immensely, and that it turned me into one of those gooey eyed girls in the park and/or on the Metro.  This novel was, in a sense, a ghost story...but it was so much more than that on many levels.  It's a novel that stands out like a sore thumb among the other novels we've read because it's so visceral, so real, so emotionally packed.

Alice Sebold reaches the reader through a young teenage girl Susie, who is raped and then murdered by a neighbor who lives nearby. We see Suzie's brief life flicker out, and then watch life unfold around her after her death... and she see's what happens in the world without her.  It was a unique perspective to read in, feeling like all the while I was sitting with Suzie listening to her thoughts/emotions, seeing what she was seeing.  What I enjoyed most about Sebold's writing was that it was fresh, unencumbered by unnecessary words. It was believable from the perspective of a young teenage girl because the narrative and the dialogue wasn't too complex and the intimacy of tender youth wasn't covered up by excessive verbosity.  :)

While this book may not rate among my favorite for this semester's readings ("The Shining" has got it so far...) I have to rate it as the most emotionally fulfilling and draining.  Something in the pages drew sorrow out from the pores of my body, made me cry at how unfair both life and death can be, and helped me realize how desperately simple and loving our humanity is...even in death.  For that, I'll both curse and give thanks to Scott Johnson for the experience, although I will still hide the novel from my bookshelf and try not to let my lower lip tremble when someone mentions it. 

 

Bones - 1 by ~mjranum-stock

http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=bones&order=9&offset=24#/d13p808

"I promised you I wasn't going to buy a Ouija board...

 ...I didn't buy a Ouija board. I borrowed a Ouija board." ~Micah (Paranormal Activity, 2007)

When I told my 18-year-old daughter this film was on the "must see" list for my Readings in the Genre course she rolled her eyes. "It's sooo booring," she said.  We're usually in synch when it comes to movies, and so I approached viewing this film with a good degree of skepticism.  Perhaps, because of that, my mind was already biased. I huddled into my covers with a diet Sprite, and prepared to be bored...pen and paper in hand to ready to take brief notes.

The movie started out with that 'home-movie' feel which reminded me a little of the way "The Blair Witch Project" was done. Despite my skepticism, I thought it had an original feel to it, the way it started out with a live-in boyfriend who'd bought a video camera in order to try to capture some of the strange phenomena in the house which I can only guess must have occurred before the story begins.

I didn't feel drawn into the story however, and it was painful for me to suffer through the couple's constant banter in the film.  Katie, the female, ever sullen and critical, and her boyfriend Micah, consistently enthusiastic and simultaneously skeptical about the phenomena, were both a nuisance to me in the film.  Probably the best part of the film for me was when Micah obtains a Ouija Board against Katie's wishes in order to communicate with the 'spirit' or whatever is haunting/possessing the house. The video-recorded actions of the 'spirit' were a little entertaining to watch while the couple was gone,  but other than that there was not much in it for me.

There were inconsistencies and odd things that bothered me throughout the film.

First there was a scene where Micah sprinkles baby-powder in front of the threshold to the bedroom, and sprinkles more in the hallway, which made me wonder why in the world he would think a 'spirit' would have enough mass and/or weight to leave foot prints.

Secondly, the couple always kept the bedroom door open. If I lived there and thought the 'spirit' could remain outside, I would have put the camera in the living room, and locked the damned door.  Why did the stupid couple continue to leave the freaking bedroom door open?

Thirdly, at one point after they'd called in a psychic (Dr Fredrichs) and the psychic leaves (rather shaken) touting that he cannot help them, they contemplate contacting someone who deals with demons (because Micah thinks they're experiencing something demon related instead) but they never contact a demonologist or other related professional.  Instead, they continue to suffer the abuse of the entity and it's various antics. At one point Katie states she feels that the 'spirit' is something that keeps "following her" because of a childhood picture Micah finds of her in the attic of the house. It's a picture she hasn't seen in many years.

This picture is a loose thread in the film and hangs out there waiting to connect to something, but it never really does.  I still don't understand what the picture had to do with anything.  The movie version I watched ended with Katie screaming her butt off while she's downstairs, Micah wakes and runs out of the room, there's a great deal of screaming and stomping  and then Miach is brought upstairs and thrown across the room.  A bloody Katie is standing at the door, and her demonic looking face ends the film.  I've since discovered there's alternate endings to the film, none of which sound much more impressive.

Overall, this film seemed to work hard in order to lend that "real" or "live" approach to the viewer with its home-made action style that helps the viewer feel almost like a voyeur watching a couple experiencing the paranormal.  But it either worked too hard or not hard enough, since it was a film that failed to entertain me.  I wasn't surprised at anything that happened, nothing made me feel a sense of suspense and by the end of the film I felt like I'd basically wasted a couple hours of my life when I could have read something much more enjoyable.

The film did make me wonder what happened to my own Ouija Board, and I even contemplated searching for it in the depths of my overcrowded garage.  But it's dark in there, even with the lights on, and sometimes I hear noises I really don't want to investigate. That being said, I think I'll leave it there.

 The Se'ance, by TheGhostBoy
DeviantArt.com: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=ouija+board#/d1bp1dx

"Sometimes I bleed."

~Charles (from: The Others)

As a film, and what I felt was a different take on a ghost story, "The Others" was a mentally challenging and interesting tale. It takes place in the Channel Islands, England, in 1945.

I profess must be a little thick sometimes, because the story was confusing to me the first time I saw it. Unlike some of my friends who smugly nod and state they knew what was going on all along, I have to confess that I was intrigued throughout most of the film.  I hadn't read anything about the movie, nor watched any trailers and so each scene was new for me as I tried to figure out what was happening in the 'haunted' house.

It was strangely entertaining for me to try to figure out why the lead character, Grace (played by Nicole Kidman), went throughout the house locking each door behind her, and having to open the next one with her jangling set of keys.

When Ms Bertha Mills, Mr Tuttle and the mute girl Lydia arrived on scene, I struggled to understand why they were really there, why they worked to cover the grave-stones, and how Ms Mills knew/understood the strange book Grace found in the house with pictures of the dead. When the noises from "the intruders" began, and the children Anne and Nicholas have to deal with a spectral "Victor" who lives in their room, I thought their home was haunted, and I was right...but not in the way I thought.

There were nuances throughout the film of how Grace had gone "mad" at one point around the children, and there are hints that something awful happened "that day" but I didn't put it together until the scene with the se'ance.  At that moment it was clear to me, but even when Grace saw the her daughter Anne as an old woman in her communion dress, I didn't understand.

Perhaps I'm lazy, as most of the time I just enjoyed letting myself go into the story, and preferred not to try to figure everything as I watched. I let go of the 'figuring it out' when I viewed film and the result was that I enjoyed it.  It wasn't my most favorite film to date, but the unique approach appealed to me, although once it was over it reminded me a little of the film, "The Sixth Sense."  Still, I felt it was creative, and found the tale pleasurable.  It's not a movie I would seek to watch over again, but it played on my imagination and through it, I saw the potential for the existence of ghosts in the eyes of the author, and how ghosts might experience the world, in a different light.  A light which doesn't blister or burn, but instead, takes time to shed a bit of understanding into a room I've always taken for granted.

~Q

"Haunted House" by 'scuroluce'
Deviant Art:  http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=haunted+house#/d2557ag

“I’ve just seen your husband. He looks…

…like he’d be a good enemy.” ~Ann-Veronica Moore

(From Ghost Story, by Peter Straub, 1979)

            This is the 3^rd novel in a long list still yet to be read and commented on in my “Readings in the Genre” course.   

            While Shirley Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House” was disappointing, and Richard Matheson’s “Hell House” was much better than the previously mentioned novel, Peter Straub’s "Ghost Story"  is a piece difficult to compare to the other two.  It’s not that it was a “better” novel, it’s just that it was written on a totally different level.  It was a different kind of story that didn't involve a haunting as much as it involved a macabre creature existence (a manitou/ shape shifter) and the evil havoc it can wreck on The Chowder Society as well as various persons who live in Milburn, New York.

             

             As I read this book, I found myself entranced with Straub's language and choice of words.  I enjoyed the varying characters and different points of view he wove into the tale and I liked how he left things for the reader to wonder and read about in the story such as the little girl (Annie Maule) in the prologue, and a woman named Eva Galli who is intermittently mentioned in the pages but never fully explained until later.  The way Straub put the story together in a complex puzzle was thoroughly enjoyable. It was fun to try to figure things out along the way, and to try to sort out why certain things were happening.

             Straub's imagery was lovely in the novel.  As an example, on page 31 he wrote about the leaves falling from trees, describing them with, "...black skeletal arms and fingers, the bones of the trees,..." and his ability to paint a scene with words, I felt, was phenomenal. He didn't do the usual things to annoy me such as overuse adverbs or plod on with a ton of nonessential backstory.  Straub kept me engaged throughout the entire tale, and I enjoyed 'wondering' about parts of the story that weren't fully explained until later. This approach also made me feel a little better about things I wait in my own stories to explain.  In critique groups, people will often say, "This needs to be explained more..." only because they want to know right away. But if I feel it serves the story to wait to make an explanation, then it IS okay to do so providing it's done the right way.  I think it's fine to let the reader have some niggles of wonder in the story.

             I wrote Peter Straub and asked him how much research he did on the novel, and he told me that the only thing he researched for the book was the type of beer the locals drank.  Despite that, I feel he must have had some sort of experience in Milburn, New York.  I've traveled through New York state, and it is nothing like the city. Its backwoods, backward countryside is unnerving and can creep out the hardiest of souls in some places.

             Having just finished reading the novel, I may have some more thoughts on it later but for now I'm mulling it around in my gray matter and looking over some of the passages I enjoyed most. In particular, the initial descriptions in Sears's story of Gregory during his supposed 'Ghost Story' were wonderful and left me with odd dreams in the middle of the night. I think I shall sleep, and perhaps dream a little more, and maybe I'll hear a bump in the night...

 Artwork by ~spec:  http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=ghost&order=9&offset=72#/d2pep3

Thoughts on MGOC: Blurring the Line:

How Reality Helps Build Better Fiction
by Scott A. Johnson

Scott's chapter on weaving elements of truth into fiction is an essential element for fiction writers to embrace, and all writers (whether seasoned or novice) should pay heed. If I had the opportunity to dovetail onto his chapter, I'd probably follow it up with a section called "Finding the Entrails: Taking the Journey to Build Anatomical Parts in Prose."

Okay, many of you may know my first novel uses a host of body parts as main characters in "Dr Stench", but it's the elements of reality and the laborious research that help to bring the story to life. As Scott pointed out using examples from The Silence of the Lambs and the Harry Potter series, the real components of research and/or a true experience lend a believable voice to the writer's story.  I think it's the writer who eschews incorporating real experiences, or factual information into their writing that ultimately has their story fall flat.  A fiction writer has so much to build on when s/he uses basic truths, or researches information to weave into a tale. In addition, there are a variety of readers who are 'fact finders' and will only enjoy fiction if it incorporates brain stimulating science, or myth or history. Take the DaVinci Code for instance, which used a myriad of these things to create a hit novel. Including intelligent information for this type of audience is going to ensure your novel appeals to a wider range of readers, guaranteed.

Scott aptly claims the importance of digging deep for information to enhance each section of a story and he describes the significance of developing 'setting' which includes actually investigating the story's backdrop.  And I wholeheartedly agree with him.  It may be difficult to go even further and  negotiate a tour of the sewer/underground, or find a way to get into the exclusive strip club meant only for pretty people, or obtain that rare glimpse of the real Oval Office...but the 'trying is worth it and often pays off (take pictures when you go).  In my Dr Stench novel (work in progress) I literally went to the head of Waste Management in DC and requested a tour of the Capital's sewers, and along the way I interviewed people (ask if recording is okay, and bring your Olympus).  Each place where my story had an urban scene, I traveled there and laid eyes on the museum's crystal skull, walked the secret back halls of the Smithsonian, and adventured into every odd setting my story might take place. What happened when I took time to go on those journeys, was I discovered my story transformed into a richer piece.  Of note, a pleasing side effect was that much of my novel wrote itself.

The danger of doing research presents when the writer is so intent on sharing the expanse of their new knowledge and experience, that s/he tries to cram every bit of information they've discovered onto the waiting page. The result of this is what I call "Wiki-Effect", because the writer ends up with an encyclopedia of information that s/he feels deserves to be there because they took the time to research it all.  Many new writers will attempt to do this, but the truth is that only a smidount (small indefinable amount) of the research toil will end up inside the lines.  What writers need to understand is that the believability of the story doesn't necessarily come from a multitude of facts, but instead exudes from the writer himself (or herself), because s/he now possess the knowledge  and experience to write with power.

There are challenges in finding information too, or in obtaining an experience.  Perhaps you'd like to write realistically about what it's like to be on the Space Shuttle while it's in space.  Odds are you won't get the opportunity to be there. BUT, what if you could interview someone who has? A live interview with a person (what we call a 'key informant') is best, but perhaps you can find an interview online or in the archives of Library of Congress (been there, and got the library card to prove it).  Scott uses the example of understanding experiences of real ghost hunters when writing a ghost story. Many people shy away from doing interviews or venturing out to find out the living person's experience, but the interview is something you can't get from a book or Wikipedia. Sometimes all you get when you research is hearsay and conjecture.

As an example, I have a scene in "Dr Stench" where I describe an autopsy of a dead child pornographer.  The descriptions are vivid, and most readers tell me they are hooked into the lines because of the details. What throws them is that it's the autopsy 'technician' who performs the removal of the internal organs. Most folks will tell me, "I always thought it was the doctor, or the pathologist who did that," and they will vocalize those words because television and modern literature dramatize the medical examiner's role.  Most people have never heard of an autopsy technician. How do I know about them? How can I write with such authority? Because I actually volunteered as an autopsy tech at the Richmond morgue.  Yes, the same place Patricia Cornwell described her main character "Kay Scarpetta" (medical examiner) performing autopsies. But you never saw Patricia once mention the autopsy techs in her novel (a point that causes heartburn among the hardworking folks there).

I loved this chapter of Scott's because it validated what I instinctively knew was the right thing to do with my fiction...research the facts and blur the lines between reality and the insanity of the creative mind. I've come to realize a writer is much more than just a writer. He or she is an investigator, a researcher and a busybody.  The collection of clues, experiences, setting descriptions and interviews will lead the writer on a journey that inextricably ends with a tantalizing story the reader just can't put down. And that, my friends, is what we're all about.

~Q

Thoughts on Chapter 2 of "Writing Fiction" by Janet Burroway...

     Burroway's Chapter 2 is about "Showing and Telling," in writing...something we (as writers) harp on about a lot, but don't pay heed to when we write.  I'll be the first one to admit I'm guilty of over ponderous narrative devoid of great descriptions, littered with adverbs and overwritten with dreaded passive voice.

     JB (Janet Burroway) writes on page 21 that "Fiction tries to reproduce the emotional impact of experience."  This may seem counter-intuitive to the word 'fiction' itself, but the writer is not trying to reproduce exact emotions of a real experience, but seeking to reproduce emotions that most people would feel if a similar event occurred in their life. Loss of a loved one.  A plummet into poverty after living a life of luxury.  The enormous good fortune of finding buried treasure. Or the horrific experience of being buried alive.

   The reader needs to FEEL as if s/he is actually there, going through each experience, feeling what the character feels physically, mentally and emotionally if not spiritually.  When a writer helps a reader do that, then the author places an important ingredient into the story needed for a successful novel.

    JB talks about how the writer must include significant details in prose. She writes, "A detail is 'definite' and 'concrete' when it appeals to the senses. It should be seen, heard, smelled, tasted and touched" (p. 22). But she goes on to explain that not just any sensory detail is useful. The details must matter to the story.

    As I examine my own writing, I find I'm fairly good at surrounding descriptions, and including sensory details, but in my story, "The Flatulent Adventures of Dr Stench and the DC Underground," my individual characters need more description and detail.  They are odd, and a bit abstract and I need to describe them more to the reader so the reader can learn to know and love them as I do. The characters should feel real to the reader, not just in their emotions but how they look, move and speak.

    Another technique JB mentions is to avoid the passive voice in writing. This was something I struggled with early in my writing, and it still comes back to haunt me from time to time when I lose focus or when I just start writing in a free flow narrative to get started.  I've worked to avoid several words like "had been," "was," "were," "should have been," "seemed like," "became," from my prose. I'm not always successful. The active voice makes reading interesting and puts the reader into the story instead of telling them about it.

    In addition to avoiding passive voice, JB warns against overuse of the dreaded "ly" words.  Overuse of adverbs make a manuscript monotonous and lifeless, and I've struggled 'fervently' against using numerous adverbs.  In older novels (1950's-1980's), I find it interesting to read the liberal use of adverbs in the prose, and I guess it is either a sign of our times that we work to avoid them, or it is just (simply) better writing.  One thing I know for certain is the SOUND or rhythm of prose is much better without an excess of the cumbersome words.

    Some writers take "showing versus telling" to mean that there should be less narrative, and more dialogue. I don't think this is true. I think there is an art to writing narrative. The art of it is the construction, and how the story is woven to make it interesting to the reader. The narrative needs to involve the reader in sensory details, and in emotion, and this can be done without excessive dialogue.  As I  read through several manuscripts, I wonder sometimes if dialogue is used as a crutch for some writers who fear boring their readers with narrative.  I also wonder if editors would rather a writer who lacks the technique of developing interesting narrative, to resort to dialogue to keep the reader intrigued.

    After reading JB's Chapter 2, I plan to go back and look at my novel and rework it where I recognize changes are needed. Showing, instead of telling, can be tricky at times and I need to be sure I understand the difference.

~Q

“We are from the West. The world we suggest should be of a new wild West, a sensuous, evil world, strange and…

…haunting. The path of the sun.”

~Jim Morrison

I just finished reading Shirley Jackson’s “The Haunting of Hill House.”

     After reading other classic “haunting” stories, and listening to the hype of S.J.’s novel I reluctantly have to say I was a bit let down with this one when I was done.

     What I can appreciate is that it was perhaps a novelty of its time (I mean 1959 was three years before I was born), and the approach may have been unique in the horror/ghost world, but the story didn’t grip me.

     The first major distraction for me, as I read along, was the never-ending use of adverbs throughout the faded pages (I have an old copy).  I’ve mentioned this same distraction in an earlier blog with another older novel, but it is interesting to note how in many novels written betweem the 50’s to 80’s have “ly” words sprinkled liberally throughout them (kinda like salt on my French fries …and I adore salt and vinegar on my fries).  Today, a modern writer would get their pen or keyboard fingers smacked or hacked for doing such a thing.  And so I had to suppress my intense desire to start editing the text as I read.

     The second thing that bothered me is that I didn’t feel the least ‘involved’ in the story.  Neither Eleanor, nor Theodora, were particularly likeable characters. Actually, there wasn’t a human character I liked much at all. The only ‘being’ I liked (if one can call it such), was Hill House itself, if just for the descriptions and the ‘feel’ of it.  A couple of my favorite early descriptions were these…

“It was a house without kindness…” (So simple, yet evocative.)

and

“Exorcism cannot alter the countenance of a house; Hill House would stay until it was destroyed.” (This line sets up the rules of the novel in many ways, and lets the reader understand what kind of damnable building the characters will be dealing with.)

     Despite some lovely verbiage interspersed throughout, I wanted much more in the descriptions. I also thought at one point, if I read another line that described something as “dark” (a completely overused adjective) I was going to pull out a fingernail (someone else’s, not mine).  Another thing that bugged me was the repetition of certain lines . I really didn’t want to read another, “Journey’s end in lovers meeting.”  I felt there was little point in the extensive repetition.

     What I did like was some of the wording Shirley Jackson used in the novel. I found myself underlining passages and words that caught my eye and described something I may previously have had a ‘lack of the right word’ for. For example:

“…atavistic turn in the pit of her stomach...”

“…an act of moral strength…”

“…suspicious sullenness of her face…”

“…malicious petulance…”

“…arranged with unlovely exactness…”

“…her face was thin with anger…”

“…dim convoluted patterns…”

     I have a habit, when I read, of writing down words and phrases I like from novels, and keeping them in a notebook.  Anywhere from one word to three or five strung together.  I read over my notebook when I’m writing, and every now and then the perfect description will jump out at me.  One of my favorite descriptions is “gravestone gray.”  I’ve used that a few times.

     To finish with a brief summary of this novel, I felt it was okay, but it didn’t captivate me. I expected more, and maybe I’m just a poor reader and don’t recognize the brilliance of the story, but nothing about it really “wow’d” me.  My general feeling, when I got to the last page, was that at least I was at THIS journey’s end…and I was overwhelmed with relief.

~Q

Thoughts on First Lines...

 Thoughts on MGOC's Chapter:

"You Have to Start with SOMETHING, So It Might As Well Be Something Like This"   

by Gary Braunbeck

***

“Assault, Intrigue and Beguile”

I found Gary’s descriptions of the three types of opening lines very interesting. I’d never had opening lines described quite in that way.  As a nurse-practitioner/midwife, my studies in anatomy often came with a different pneumonic for memorizing cranial nerves, or bones, or muscles.  Various silly (or sexual) mantras were repeated to help medical/nursing students recall vital procedures or medications.  Why not apply this method to the craft of writing?

When I went back and researched a few of my favorite novels, I found these opening lines:

"IT WAS THE PIVOTAL teaching of Pluthero Quexos, the most celebrated dramatist of the Second Dominion, that in any fiction, no matter how ambitious its scope or profound its theme, there was only ever room for three players." ~Clive Barker (Imajica)

"I've watched through his eyes, I’ve listened through his ears, and I tell you he’s the one." ~Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game)

"Picture to yourself the sickest place in the whole of Zamonia!" ~Walter Moers (Alchemaster's Apprentice)

"This memory came back to Billy Halleck, fittingly enough, as he stood on the scales at seven in the morning with a towel wrapped around his middle." ~Stephen King (Thinner)

Those are the 'first lines' of some stories I've enjoyed, but I'm not sure I'd say they are GREAT first lines. All I know is that the story pulled me in, and I was willing to go on the journey the author mapped out for me to take.  The first lines of these novels don't strike me as spectacular, but there is intrigue and a little beguiling in them.  I can't recall reading any novels that begin with a full frontal assault.

Gary’s examples of each type of opening line in writing were useful to read, and made me go back to look at some of my own short stories and other previous work.  What worked? What didn’t work, and why? I asked myself those questions as I did some self-analysis. Here are a couple of examples:

First line of Sapien Farm:

“The farmhouse had been transformed in a matter of weeks into the type of lab they both desperately needed.”  (Intrigue? It's flat and I need to work on it.)

 First line of The Flatulent Adventures of Dr Stench and the DC Underground:

“The moon, still visible high above, began to fade against the dawning sky.”

(It’s a lackluster opening that does none of the three techniques Gary describes. The next line might work, however, to illicit intrigue…)

“A mournful tune rose up from Queen Vadoma’s throat and erupted into the branches of the old oak above her.”  (Is it better? I think so. But I think I'll still have to work on it.)

This first reading from MGOC has definitely encouraged my neurons to fire, and I’ve decided to go back and rework that ‘first line’ on all of my writings for better punch, quicker grab and deliberate impact.

Cheers!

~Q