Unknown's avatar

About Richard Bowker

Author of the Portal series, the Last P.I. series, and other novels

Writers in movies: Their Own Desire

Another in a series.

Their Own Desire is a 1929 movie starring Norma Shearer. Here’s the Wikipedia synopsis:

A young woman is upset by the knowledge that her father is divorcing her mother in order to marry another woman. Her own feelings change, however, when she falls in love with a young man who turns out to be the son of her father’s new love.

First thing’s first: this movie is terrible.  Norma Shearer chews enough scenery to get an Academy Award nomination (she lost to herself, for The Divorcee, so I guess she couldn’t feel too bad about the defeat).  But the plot is primitive, and everyone else in the case is pretty bad, particularly Robert Montgomery as her love interest, maybe because he has to say lines like this, at a moment of high drama:

I’ve got the little ol’ canoe down at the landing; let me run you over to the little ol’ love nest.

The writer in the movie is Norma Shearer’s father, who splits his time between writing novels and playing polo at his club.  Apparently those were the days when writers belonged to clubs, and polo was a thing they played there.

The only reason why Dad is a writer and doesn’t have some other high-class occupation is so that to movie can include a scene where he describes to Norma Shearer the plot of his latest novel, which involves a 45-year-old married man falling in love with another woman.  Our heroine’s response is to laugh at the very idea of an old man like that falling in love.  Little does she know that the novel is based on her father’s own life, and soon frumpy old Mom will be dumped for the glamorous Mrs. Cheevers.  Irony!

Their Own Desire is bad, but still I’d rather watch a bad movie from 1929 than a bad one from 2014.  The past is a different country, and it’s interesting to pay a visit now and then.

“The Portal” is now $1.99 at Barnes & Noble!

Marked down from $4.99 — such a deal!  Amazon will be forced to follow suit when it sees the hordes of ebook buyers deserting it when they hear about the new price.

This gives me an excuse to reprint the very kind review by JF Owen, a loyal reader of this little blog:

It’s been quite a while since I read any young adult science fiction or fantasy. After reading “The Portal”, I think I’ve been missing out on some enjoyable reading. Richard Bowker has crafted an entertaining and captivating story about the adventures of two young boys from New England who travel to an alternate universe where some of the folks and surroundings are familiar but the times and events are totally different…and dangerous. Larry and Kevin, the two main characters, are faced with a complicated array of challenges as they struggle to find their way home.

The story itself is exceptionally well done, but for me the best part of the book was how believable Larry’s and Kevin’s characters are. Based on the finely detailed descriptions he weaves into the young boys’ thoughts and actions, I suspect that Mr. Bowker either has a son near that age or he’s one of those rare people who never truly forget what it’s like to be young.

“The Portal” was a marvelous read that’s suitable for readers of all ages. It took me back in time and reminded me why I fell in love with science fiction all those decades ago. In just a few more years, when my grandson is old enough, I’ll make a point to introduce him to Kevin, Larry and their adventures. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go have a bowl of tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich. After that, I think I’m going out back to see if I can find a secret portal.

Here’s the cover, in case you’ve forgotten:

9781614174639

The Hemingway app judges Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and me

Here’s a web site called Hemingway that judges prose according to these standards:

  • Short sentences
  • No passive voice
  • No adverbs (it tells you to aim for “0 or fewer”, which suggests that it wants you to be better than perfect–damn computers!)
  • Short words (for example, use “use” instead of “utilize”)

Paste in your prose, and it highlights your mistakes and gives you a grade level for readability.

Fair enough.  So what does it think of, say, the ending of The Great Gatsby:

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And then one fine morning—
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

It likes this excerpt.  Fitzgerald gets a Grade 8 for readability, which Hemingway deems Good, and the only thing it complains about is the adverb ceaselessly.  I’m troubled, though, that it didn’t flag the word orgastic.  What kind of weird word is that?  (Borne also looks to me like it’s passive, but that’s probably a tough one to notice.)

How about Faulkner, from The Sound and the Fury:

When the shadow of the sash appeared on the curtains it was between seven and eight o’ clock and then I was in time again, hearing the watch. It was Grandfather’s and when Father gave it to me he said I give you the mausoleum of all hope and desire; it’s rather excruciatingly apt that you will use it to gain the reducto absurdum of all human experience which can fit your individual needs no better than it fitted his or his father’s. I give it to you not that you may remember time, but that you might forget it now and then for a moment and not spend all your breath trying to conquer it. Because no battle is ever won he said. They are not even fought. The field only reveals to man his own folly and despair, and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools.

This gets a Grade 11 in readability, which Hemingway thinks is just OK.  One adverb (excruciatingly), no passive voice, but Hemingway marks those two interior sentences for shortening.

So with some trepidation I handed Hemingway the first paragraph of the novel I’ve been working on:

I got off my bike and stared at the guy in the brown robe.  The guy in the brown robe stared back at me.  He was sitting at the front of a cart piled high with apples, pumpkins, squash, and other fall produce; half a dozen dead turkeys hung  from hooks at the back of the cart.  I figured he was about seven feet tall, although that was probably an exaggeration.  But definitely big, and definitely scary, with small black eyes, long stringy hair, and a scraggly beard that was interrupted by a deep scar on his left cheek.

Hemingway gives this a Grade 9 in readability, which merits a Good.  Yay! However, it considers two of my sentences to be too long.  Plus, it flags two adverbs–probably and scraggly.  But hey, scraggly is an adjective–I demand a recount!  (Although maybe I shouldn’t–a recount might notice the two uses of definitely, which are definitely adverbs.) Finally, I get dinged for the passive voice in the phrase “was interrupted by”.

Will I change anything in that paragraph, in response to Hemingway’s criticisms?  Nah.  And if I were Fitzgerald or Faulkner, I wouldn’t change anything either.  Except maybe orgastic  and reducto absurdum.  They can do better than that.

The Distance Beacons: The president urges New England not to secede

In honor of Presidents Day:  From The Distance Beacons, here is President Ann Kramer making a speech in Boston’s Government Center, trying to convince New Englanders to pass a referendum to stay part of America, twenty or so years after a nuclear war has wreaked havoc on the nation.  Our hero Walter Sands, who has already met the president, looks on.

Complications, of course, ensue.

**********************

In a few minutes I saw flashing blue lights in the distance, and then the president and her entourage came into sight—jeeps and shiny cars and motorcycles, with the president waving from the back seat of a convertible. The motorcade circled around the edge of the plaza, coming within ten feet of me. The president brightened when she saw the familiar face and gave me a special wave. I didn’t wave back.

“Did you see the bracelets on her?” a kerchiefed woman standing next to me on the bench said to her friend. “I wonder how much she gets paid.”

“Too much,” her friend replied.

The motorcade pulled up behind the platform, and the martial music stopped. President Kramer appeared on the platform, along with Bolton and Cowens and a bunch of officials. More waving, and then Bolton approached the microphone and spoke. “My fellow citizens, it has been a long time since we in New England have been honored as we are today, by the presence of the chief executive of our great nation. Far too long. This is a day that will live in our memories. It is a turning point in our history….” And so on.

“I’ve never trusted that one,” the kerchiefed woman said.

“I’ve never trusted any of them,” her friend replied.

Bolton’s introductory remarks were, as usual, irreproachable yet unconvincing. The crowd responded in kind, with tepid applause at all the right points, but without ever showing any real excitement. Finally he finished, and the moment had arrived. President Kramer stepped up to the microphone; the applause was somewhat more enthusiastic now.

“She is pretty, though, you’ve got to give her that.”

“We could be pretty, if we had her money.”

“Do you think she dyes her hair?”DiSTANCE-BEACONS-COVER.final.L3

“The hair’s phony. The tan’s phony. It’s all phony, every piece of her. A phony president and a phony election.”

She’s not going to win, I thought suddenly.  She can’t convince me, and she can’t convince Charlie DePaso or Jesus Christ or these women. It’s over.

“Thank you, Governor Bolton, for those kind words,” the president said. “My friends, I am here today to ask you to support the government of the United States of America in the referendum next week. I recognize that you may not find this support easy to give. I understand the issues you have with the American government. But I’m asking you to have faith. Faith in the government. Faith in the future. And faith in me. Of course, it’s difficult for you to have such faith unless you know me. So let me first take a few minutes to tell you about myself….”

And she launched into the story of her life, with which I was already familiar. Much of what she said after that was familiar as well. Oh, she changed an emphasis here and there, and sometimes she anticipated objections I had made. But basically she was repeating her performance of the night before.

But if I had been the test case, the dress rehearsal, why did she think this approach would succeed? If she couldn’t manage to convince me, how was she going to convince Charlie DePaso and the two women next to me? She couldn’t exactly go around massaging everyone’s neck and shoulders. And we weren’t in a beautiful pre-War apartment, listening to music and sipping wine. We were huddled under leaden skies, cold and suspicious. What did we care about her experiences in Atlanta? What did Lincoln matter to us? Could we see the world that President Kramer saw? Not today, I’m afraid.

But then she went further. This was the part that I hadn’t wanted to stay and hear in her apartment, too afraid that I would succumb to her the way Marva had succumbed to Flynn Dobler. “All of this is nothing but words, I admit,” the president said. “Perhaps some of you have heard too many words over the years, and seen too little improvement in your lives. Perhaps some of you think the referendum is pointless, because it won’t put more food on your table or give you better health care. Well, let me tell you here that I am prepared to stake the future of the Federal presence in New England on the results of the referendum.

“If you give us your support, we will immediately take steps to institute direct election of all local officials, up to and including governor, by vote of the entire adult population, not just taxpayers. Individual state legislatures will be re-established, and New England will return to being six separate states once again. As they did before the War, the new state governments will control policies and laws within their borders, and the Federal government will handle interstate issues. Federal troops will stay in the states at least until the elections are over; after that, the new governments will decide individually what role, if any, they want these troops to play within their states.

“Now I must be honest and tell you that not everything will change. Conscription will continue, as will Federal taxation and restrictions on interstate travel—we can’t allow unlimited exit visas to the South. But what we are proposing is, I believe, a major step toward giving the brave people of New England what they need and deserve: a chance to determine their own future within the framework of a system that will preserve and extend our great American ideals.”

The president paused, and people applauded—rather warmly, I think. “That seems like a good idea,” the woman next to me said.

“I’ll believe it when it happens,” her friend replied.

“What if you lose?” someone shouted.

The president waited for silence. “If we lose,” she said softly, “we leave. It’s as simple as that. The reduction of the Federal presence will be gradual, in an attempt to prevent chaos, but within two years we will be gone. We hope the two-year time period will be sufficient to allow some sort of peaceful evolution of new political entities to take place—and we will do our best to help that process—but ultimately you will be on your own—your own borders, your own soldiers, your own laws. New England will no longer be part of the United States of America.”

There was no applause at this, only a kind of buzzing silence as people tried to come to terms with this new prospect. No one had believed that anything would change if the referendum lost; the Feds would just continue with business as usual. But on the other hand…

“Why should we trust you?” someone else shouted.

“We recognize that the results of the referendum will only be valid if people think they are valid,” the president said. “Therefore we have asked well-known opposition groups to join with us in supervising the balloting. We renew that request today. Now if, under those circumstances, the government—win or lose—subsequently reneges on any of the commitments I have made here today, do any of you seriously believe that we could continue to govern? Any credibility we have with you, any respect we have from you, would be gone, and this whole effort would have been worse than useless. No, this is for real, my friends. You have your future in your hands, and I pray that you make the right decision.

“The right decision, of course, is to vote yes—vote to support the government—vote to stay part of the United States. Such a vote entails responsibilities, but with those responsibilities comes the possibility of renewed greatness. You will remain a vital part of the adventure that is America, and you will help our nation take its place once more at the forefront of human progress. And perhaps a hundred years from now people will look back on this day, and say that it was then that the tide turned, it was then that the long darkness ended, and the new day began to dawn.”

The president stopped speaking. The applause that followed seemed genuine, but it also seemed tentative, and a bit confused. She had offered people what they had always said they wanted: freedom from the Feds. But did they really want that freedom if the Feds were also offering to give them a say in the way they were governed? After all, that was something else they were always complaining about. They couldn’t have it both ways.

All of a sudden the referendum was no longer a joke.

The president waved and shook hands with the people on the platform and waved some more. The music began again. And before long the applause faded. People were going to have to go home and do some thinking.

The president came down off the platform and started shaking hands with the dignitaries in the roped-off section. The crowd began to drift away. It started to rain.

And then the president walked past the dignitaries and the guards who protected them, into the milling crowd, reaching out physically to the people she had just tried to reach with words. I looked back to the platform. General Cowens was still there, staring at her with his arms folded. Major Fenneman stood next to him, gesticulating with his walkie-talkie. This, apparently, was what they had been unable to talk the president out of.

“Want to try and shake her hand?” the woman next to me asked her friend.

“What’s the point?”

“Well, she’s the president, after all.”

“So what? Come on. It’s raining.”

A lot of people seemed to feel the same way. There was no surge to greet her, no spontaneous outpouring of respect and affection. The weather was more important than Ann Kramer.

Still, there were hands to shake and an occasional baby to kiss, while her grim-faced bodyguards stood by and reporters struggled to record what was happening. I stayed where I was and watched her progress across the plaza. She was progressing, I noticed before long, toward me.

I got down from the bench. I saw Gwen among the reporters. I wondered if I should leave. It was raining, after all. President Kramer smiled at me. “Well, Walter, what do you think?” she called out as she approached.

“Great speech,” I said.

“Did I convert you?”

I shrugged. “You certainly gave me a choice to make.”

“But you haven’t made it yet?”

I shook my head. “Maybe I’m too—”

The gunfire interrupted my reply.

For a moment I didn’t understand. What was that noise? Why were people ducking and sprawling and screaming? I turned and saw a large green car come roaring out of the crescent of abandoned shops and offices beyond the plaza. Two masked men leaned out of the front and rear passenger-side windows. They were firing submachine gun rounds into the air. The car was heading right at us.

I reached for my gun. No gun.

I turned back to the president. Her bodyguards were pulling her down to the ground. She stared at the car as if she couldn’t believe it was real, as if this were just a nightmare that would soon pass. The gunfire stopped and I heard the squeal of brakes just behind me. I turned once again. The masked men were out of the car and coming toward me. It occurred to me that I was literally the only person standing between them and the president. Not a position I would have chosen, but here I was.

I tried to think of something to do. Nothing came to me. I wanted to fight, but fists can’t accomplish much against submachine guns.

So I stood where I was and wondered if I was going to die as I watched the men approach. I noticed their black masks, their shapeless tan jackets and dungarees. And—and—

I didn’t have time to finish my thought. One of the men pushed his machine gun into my midsection. I clutched my stomach and gasped for breath. Then the other man swung his weapon at my head, and all thinking ceased.

89,066 words, and done

With the first draft of my novel, anyway.  Well, that’s a relief.

The journey took a couple of unexpected detours, which means I ended up somewhere I hadn’t entirely anticipated.  Which means I now get to go back and start the journey all over again (and make it look like this was the journey I had in mind all along).

The draft ended up about 20 percent longer than I estimated, based on the lengths of the first two Walter Sands books.  Do I need to streamline the novel?  How am I going to do that?  I have all these notes about stuff I left out!

Maybe I’ll take a break and focus on women’s curling for a while.  Then on to the second draft . . .

Shootout!

Olympic hockey!  USA beats Russia after a, heartstopping shootout.  The players are exhausted, the announcers are exhausted, the viewing audience is exhausted….  A shootout seems like an utterly arbitrary way to determine the outcome of a hockey game, but boy, this one was great.  A few other comments:

  • T. J. Oshie’s Wikipedia page has already been updated.  Way to go, Wikipedia!
  • Can the Nobel Prize for Hockey Announcing be awarded in perpetuity to Doc Emrick?  There’s no one better at anything.  I love the way he described someone as “feathering the puck” to a teammate.  Or his description of a scrum in front of the net after the goalie froze the puck: “And a disagreement ensues.”
  • This wasn’t Emrick, but kudos to NBC for figuring out why the apparent Russian goal was disallowed.  But I wish they had pointed out that it was the American goalie who apparently dislodged the net.  (A Russian teammate of his pointed it out after the game.)  Er, is that legal?  Do we have an international incident on our hands?

Free will and good writing

I’m probably more interested in free will than you are, presumably for reasons I have no control over.

I don’t believe in free will.  Or, more precisely, I can figure out how it could possibly work.  I read Daniel Dennett’s pro-free-will book Freedom Evolves, and I couldn’t really follow his arguments.  I read Sam Harris’s anti-free-will book Free Will, and it seemed admirably clear.  Is it clearer because Harris is a better writer, or because the case against free will is simply easier to make?

Now Dennett has published a rejoinder to Harris’s book, and Harris has published a rejoinder to Dennett’s rejoinder. Yikes!  The heart of Dennett’s argument, I think, is that of course the naive folk interpretation of free will is wrong, but there is this other kind of free will that’s really real.  This seems to me to be the kind of move that sophisticated religious people like Karen Armstrong make.  Of course the Bible isn’t literally true; everyone knows that.  Instead, atheists need to grapple with my own numinous, apophatic, transcendent view of God.  Except this ends up being so numinous that there’s nothing to grapple with.

Similarly, Dennett’s view of the pernicious effects of an anti-free-will stance remind me of the “belief in belief” point of view that some smart people have about religion.  Of course you and I know better than to take religion seriously, but we have to be quiet about this, because religion is necessary to keep the great unwashed from losing their morality.

Anyway, here is a taste of Harris’s prose:

Holding people responsible for their past actions makes no sense apart from the effects that doing so will have on them and the rest of society in the future (e.g. deterrence, rehabilitation, keeping dangerous people off our streets). The notion of moral responsibility, therefore, is forward-looking. But it is also paradoxical. People who have the most ability (self-control, opportunity, knowledge, etc.) would seem to be the most blameworthy when they fail or misbehave. For instance, when Tiger Woods misses a three-foot putt, there is a much greater temptation to say that he really should have made it than there is in the case of an average golfer. But Woods’s failure is actually more anomalous. Something must have gone wrong if a person of his ability missed so easy a putt. And he wouldn’t stand to benefit (much) from being admonished to try harder in the future. So in some ways, holding a person responsible for his failures seems to make even less sense the more worthy of responsibility he becomes in the conventional sense.

Jerry Coyne is another clear writer who is not afraid to speak his mind.  Here is his utterly expected view of the debate.  (He could not have written otherwise.)

Who wouldn’t want to see Agatha Christie with her surfboard?

This was why the Internet was invented: photos of famous authors doing sports.  Here is Ms. Christie at Waikiki in 1922.  Dude!

Some of the photographs are meh: Stephen King throwing out the first pitch at a Red Sox game hardly counts as a sports photograph.  The Winslow Homery photo of a young Ernest Hemingway fishing is cute, but that fishing doesn’t qualify as a sport, if you ask me.

But Jack Kerouac scoring a touchdown in high school?  Stephen Crane posing with the rest of the Syracuse University baseball team in 1891?  Wow!

In honor of Agatha Christie, here are the Beach Boys singing “Little Surfer Girl” live in 1964.  Has it really been 50 years?

Two legs to darkclaw and weasel

That’s the title of a five-star review of Dover Beach on Barnes & Noble.  Here is the text of the review:

He kicks darckclaw into a tree and takes weasel to my house result twelve.

I dunno.  Somehow, this review did not make me all tingly and proud.  Those of you who are familiar with Dover Beach  will recall that it contains no weasels, and probably very few trees.

My publisher says I should respond to all my customer reviews, but I can’t figure out how to respond to Barnes & Noble reviews.  If I could respond, what should I say?

Thanks for the insightful comments!  Somehow, you have intuited deeper truths about my novel than even I have heretofore recognized.  For that, I will be forever grateful!

Does that work?  By the way, I Googled Darkclaw and found out that he is a character in Brian Jacques’s Redwall books, which my kids liked once upon a time.  I never thought they went anywhere, but I wasn’t a kid when I read them.

Meanwhile, here’s a review from Amazon that does make me tingly and proud.  It’s entitled “I won’t bore you with praise…”:

This is an incredibly good book. Clearly, the absolute best post apocalyptic detective novel I’ve ever read. I want more, Richard Bowker. More!

That’s more like it.  On the other hand, I was unaware that there are more post-apocalyptic detective novels out there.  That’s a little discouraging.  I thought I had cornered the market!

Authors are hard to please.

That thing kids do? Where they seem to put a question mark at the end of every sentence? It has a name!

Uptalk!

Maybe everyone else but me knows this?  Apparently it’s a phenomenon studied in organizations like the Acoustical Society of America?  This report seems to suggest that it’s still predominantly a Southern California thing:

Uptalk is looking more and more like part of a widespread Southern Californian dialect. To avoid misunderstandings, it may be wise to accept that. Amanda Ritchart, who admits to some uptalking herself, says that when Southern Californians speak to outsiders, they may “come across as ditzy or stupid or maybe unassertive or timid or something.” But, she says, “Because everyone does it, obviously that’s not true. And that’s why it kind of helps to break those stereotypes. We’re not confused. We’re not stupid. We just talk like that.”

From my East Coast vantage point, uptalk occurs more in women than men, more in the young than the old, but it’s hardly confined to people from Southern California.

The researcher also made this interesting point:

Ritchart’s research also identified a clear difference in tone between when a So Cal English speaker asks a question or makes a statement, even though both have a rise at the end. The rise in a statement comes later than the rise for a question. Though you might not catch that as an outsider, its clear to another uptalker.

Well, if you say so.  As I mentioned before, sometimes an uptalker needs to add the words “question mark” at the end of a sentence to clarify her meaning.  For which I’m grateful?

h/t Jeff