Embrace the Dark Side

Do you need to be a dark and dismal person to write dark themes?

Nope.

Thank you for reading, stay tuned for--

Just playing. And dark humor is my favorite kind, by the way.

The truth remains that even the grimdarkiest fantasy can come from an optimistic and sunny person. At least I assume so, because I'm more of a slightly light grey myself.

I know many fantasy writers are quick to differentiate themselves from the dark trends by emphasizing they write HIGH fantasy or even LIGHT fantasy (or YA as if that somehow works as an odd bit of virtue-signaling with the white flag of 'this one's for the pure eyes of the kiddies'. You know nothing, Jon Snow; the snow is yellowed underneath). I don't think a great deal of them are that afraid of the dark, so to speak, but that sort of shield does get raised often enough that I can say it's a thing.

Truly, it's a challenge to write in the light. It's clear that dark has exploded in trend (but neither assume that the trend is why you should write it. Getting to that...) so I can give credit to people who decide to write the lesser traveled roads for some challenge or avoidance of influence.

Yet light is dark and dark is light and they don't exist without the other. Turning your back on the shadow doesn't mean it's not stretching away from your feet all the same.

To attempt to stay in the light doesn't quite work. Even LOTR, regarded to be high fantasy, has some very deep darkness to counter the pure and light. Hobbits are revered as damn near childlike in innocence but are not immune to the temptation of corruption (I appreciate how dark the Shadows of Mordor game for that contrast). Elves are the shiniest of them all but the most quick to corrupt and world-breaking in the magnitude of that fall. Dwarves were virtually the gods of architectural wonder, yet their corruption all but wiped them out in secret, leaving their massive empires turned to hollow mountain mausoleums.

And the most dangerous thing in their universe? An elf-forged golden ring, faithful to no master, almost sentient in its will to tempt and spread its disease. The light and dark in one otherwise insignificant hunk of metal.

I've seen the most optimistic attempt only their light and happy places. One blurb (and this will have to be from memory since it's been maybe a year or more since encountering it) spoke only of a kingdom of light and the perfection they achieved. The possible book cover was a chessboard, so immediately, people pointed out-- what's on the dark side? Where's the conflict?

I saw the writer's immediate frustration that the story was about the light side. I understood the point of focus, yet they seemed all too keen to create any conflict, any taint, any halt to the progress of the light kingdom or any insinuation it could be corrupted from within.

Conceptually, I can even understand the defense, but the presentation didn't work. It came off as no different than the biased 'Murica Wins education I got in US history class. The bad guys died, the bad guys lost, the bad guys are wholly bad guys and they can't come over to play. Without some justification of that, without some conflict (not necessarily of construction), the idea itself was just boring. If the writer is so set on removing the dark element, then what is the actual story to captivate, the vehicle that makes the light as satisfying as warm honey? Is this a scene for innocent seduction and love or are you subjecting your audience to Sim City: infinite, no natural disaster, screensaver, non-interactive edition?

I could say the same thing about the dark. All dark is dull. Murder and chaos and conflict without context is not necessarily more entertaining. It does however resonate more easily with an audience for cheap thrills. All things are imperfect so by default, corruption in any dosage is relatable. You can shy away from its deepest stains and write all the better for it (there are many dark places I wish I could unsee), but for most people, the light, if not too shiny is just grating as all hell. There be the land of the virtue-signalers pointing down on all who quiver beneath it in shame.

I kid, but no one should be afraid that their high fantasy become too dark by sticking their toes in the water at all. Writing is one of the most wonderful ways to test and even push back what triggers and torments us. It is not a place of depravity but a place to display our courage and resolve. It's only cheap if you flirt with it. Court it properly and it's not the nightmare you think.

There's no deep, deep hole I plan to lead you on from here, grooming you for some horror you weren't ready for. I only want to encourage you to explore. This doesn't mean you have to join the ranks of blowhards that pretend to gleefully kill characters for no damn reason. GRRM might be the body count king, but what makes his characters draw you back in isn't the delight in their death, but the depth of the story, the cruel tease of light flickering in the carnage. On a blood soaked battlefield, it's the glint of sunlight caught on the silver of a breastplate that catches your eye again and again. 

But seriously, abridge the shit out of that content because you really have to wade through ridiculous amounts of pointless filler along the way. Princess Bride is only damn near perfect because they chopped out the skull-fuck-fest that is describing the kingdom of Gilder and Prince Humperdink. To the pain, indeed...

So to finish, I subject you to the colors of Night!

Alas, his hair could not just be 'as black as night' which is atmospherically impossible. I needed a very dark violet as the base, with a very nearly black/violet but never TRUE black (again, digitally impossible since no monitor completely turns off pixels to display some semblance of true black. Also because #000000 is lazy coloring). What I love about this color is that no matter how dark your screen is (yeah, I'm looking at you, writers) there is an illusory dark edge that seems darker than the center. I love colors that contain their own quirks without effort.

Sigh, I know what you want to say about the eye color, but I'm hoping you can see the navy black. Again tempting to simply make this a true black but his irises are the same color-- the eyes are one place that absorb atmospheric light the most which falls in the blue spectrum. Ask digital colorists what shades they use in the 'whites' of eyes and it ranges from dusky purples to ashen blues. Again, atmospheric colors. If the atmosphere has warm tones, then the highlights actually carry that weight rather than the shadows.

Veering a little too much into the art specifications here, but painting skin NEVER uses bases this dark, even for the super dark skin tones. Watch a skin painting tutorial by Istebrak on YouTube for some very precise insight on that. However, hair and eyes can get away with this because the light reflecting nature of hair involved the transparent cuticle and the eyes have their own transparencies (which was a lesson I was mesmerized by when modeling an eye in animation class). As long as there is a noticeably darker option and a complementing highlight (again, nothing like skin), you'll get them right where you want them with a wide range of bases.

As for Night (sorry, guy; stealing your thunder), this is a character who seems very similar to Ashe. Flirtatious, not a care in the world, even has his particular rare fighting style shared. However, Night is not allowed to keep his secrets and is exposed by what grows too big to contain within him. He becomes withdrawn and secretive and lashes out, but he is tormented, wanting to be loving and gentle and kind but unable to withstand it.

Rather than spoil the darkest angles here, I will deliver the next character's color-porn swatches on the next post. This time I'll cover Freesia, another character unable to avoid the tendrils of darkness.

Do you prefer the light but acknowledge the beauty of darkness in your work? And for a bonus, do you prefer metaphorical (mood and tension) or literal (perversion and violence) displays of darkness? Call this a general question though, since it's clear a bit of both is usually measured in how it's needed. In choosing right now, which appeals to what you want to write most? Be indecisive or make your choice below!

Spinning Wheels

I started playing Dragon Age Inquisition again. It's not a perfect game but it's one of those games that I can really talk story with another fan and no two people have the same focus or interpretation. Because I'd been several books deep into a series with obvious and vague parallels, I felt a sort of connection to this game (as well as the resolution to make it wholly different despite that).

Which means I'm not writing much, but that's okay. I had some issues with sitting up, fighting odd waves of vertigo, so I took it as a sign to pay attention to my health. I switched to housework and long walks to stay mobile but opted for video games so I could sprawl out on my memory foam mattress posture-free. My muscles feel energized, just needing to get the digestive system and head back in line.

In fact, I try not to think about my work at all. Why? Because different ghosts have been visiting me. I've been having strange dreams, sometimes lucid. They're crap as far as stories goes, but there's a personal element, namely WHO I see, that intrigues me most. It's not always the WHAT but the WHO and WHY that seems to matter. Maybe 15 minutes after waking, the mysticism starts to stale and I write it off as brain play (because brains do that too). All the same dreams seem to be giving me some reprieve from the physical discomfort and hiatus from playing creator.

I don't actually believe in karma or higher powers or cosmic balance, but I love that the feel-good hormones seem to find ways to kick in. It may not be in the way I think I need, but if I can be grateful for the way my body does work for me, I can find reserves for forgiving what alters my plans. There are plenty of things I don't understand and those things don't necessarily need sentience or reason for existing. It's because of this flexibility of evidence that I'm more rigid against the sort of arrogance that assumes moral authority based on feelings alone. You can get a sense over time of what stances are based first in feeling then try to build a shaky logic around it. The argument always circles back to appealing to feelings when the logic has holes for exceptions.

I'm going to pick on veganism again for this example, but I truly have no issue with the practice where it works for people (only the arrogance of a supposed morality). It is often successfully passed on by appealing to emotion. It's introduction, even when presented as a health concern still circles back to compassion for animals. When they can't wrap their head around a person loving fish but still eating it, then in an outburst of feelings, it often escalates to a personal attack. Would I eat my family? Well, no. Just like incest, there's consequences for cannibalism which is also why we largely disapprove of it. I don't love a fish as a fish myself so it's not cannibalism and moot point. I don't even love all human beings equally. I was devastated when my mother died but I was only distantly unhappy when a favorite actor passed away. To assume that all living things are equal or that I can be a truly compassionate person by spreading it so ridiculously thin is absurd. There are hierarchies basedmon experience and to be the most compassionate human to other humans and the planet alike, the battles I pick are not going to be yours. In fact, often we support and negate each other for the benefit or detriment and some things balance-- some things need work. Ruining the world with massive agriculture isn't feasible. Dreaming of genocide bringing the planet down to a happy utopia of vegans might work... But you've left all moral high ground where that is a worthy goal.

We don't need to appeal to the direct issues to inspire the intended feelings though. Successful vendors make you feel good about your purchase, like it was your idea all along. Someone sold them veganism, my burden is to sell my stories.

It's why I don't take the profound feeling of my weird ass dreams and assume that anyone could duplicate the feeling through that nonsense. It's not always about the content. The containers are not where you find the whole story. These places are where I find the thing I want to duplicate. How do I make someone feel bliss through the mediums I use? How can I hope to make someone want to pull their cheek muscles into a goofy smile? How people are drawn into books or pictures is, like in my dreams, how much we let ourselves go (or even how we are held hostage).

You could call it research. Or spinning your wheels. There's a freedom that exists where I am right now in this journey. I am free to step away and consider how to be a creature of experience. Yes, a writer is a manipulator, a list, but remove the negative context. You can like the content and be there to affirm it. You can dislike the content but if it's still intriguing enough, you'll want to see where it's going. When I write for me, I want to consider if what is for me makes sense to someone else. In real life, I often just don't get what is acceptable. I also get that it's my problem. Not that there is something wrong with me, just that I'm seeing it differently. So what needs to be in place for us to reach understanding.

People try to say it whenever bigotry is present, but struggle with the vocabulary. We aren't looking for your definitive morality or view, we're looking for you to handle the burden of proof and sell it. So many people on a moral high ground use yellow words to color a feeling with 'facts' that just don't apply to everyone. Is that not reflected creatively as well? Are we not looking for a way to charm our audience with words? In the end, it's not the ideas alone that sell it, but how you can reach the people who want to hear it.

In fantasy, even when the hero saves the world in some fantastical way, they are sometimes ordinary in their world at first. Sometimes they were never ordinary at all but still wanted to be. They are usually not born with a loyal army and the werewithal to conquer great evil. Winning free people is no overnight occurrence.

Of course, fantasy writers, you are welcome to completely prove any of that wrong in fantasy. However, ultimately, you understand it takes a fantasy world to make fantastical ideas work. We can't just wave a wand and make these ideals work here. Even if you could, you're aware that for someone to gain power that fast, the weight of oppression is also an immediate blowback.

In fact, for those conditions to be met, anyone not on the side of the 'hero' might resent and oppose such a regime and even call them the villain. There will never be a happy hive mind because free thought.

I'll wander off now that my wheels have spun, but please preorder the upcoming anthology! It was a fun chance for me to write just a one-off story with no intention to spin it off or expand it. It is what it is and I had a blast delving into a fantasy theme I usually don't write. I won't get the chance to read the other authors' work but I look forward to getting an advance copy before I buy my own print copy.

The Magical Book of Wands, available October 31, is up for preorder on Amazon. One year only! Prints will be available on release day as well.

Why Some of Us Will Never Be Vegans

First and foremost, I have no problems with veganism itself. As a diet. Let me reiterate that, as both someone who cares for animals and humans, I don't have it in me to automatically dislike someone for the choices they make, whether I like them or not. I frown on cruelty, hatred, unkindness, and purposely pissing people off. I also frown on lifestyle choices that infringe on other people's lifestyle choices or use morality as an excuse for being a bastard.  That being said, I'll try to parse this up with as much diplomacy as I can muster.

1. Eating meat or animal byproducts is not necessarily cruelty.

There's this idea that because we CAN eat without harming animals, that because we're so advanced and aware, we should be the benevolent doormats of the earth. I know the science. I've watched the vegan documentaries. I've read studies and watched people bitch about it. I equally hate what equates to animal snuff videos and I think hunters that kill just to kill and gloat are ignorant bastards. However, your average hunters have a damn good point about using our intellect and studies to control animal population and even feel the remorse and importance of using the remains rather than leaving them to rot and waste. Well, why don't we control animal populations? Good question and I ask myself that too. Mainly because we ARE the prominent species and we set the laws for bodily autonomy and sometimes they suck. Because I'm pro-choice, I also care about babies and people, not fetuses. I understand that this is an opinion and not one that everyone shares. Call me immoral but it's not for me to decide for someone else nor demand their reasons for it.

It's not either or. I care about animals too. I absolutely adore my cichlids but they have the tendency to eat each other. Should I tell you why I'm not morally opposed to that? It's because this practice is their way of preserving the population of the ones most likely to thrive and because if all 400 eggs lived every time, I could easily destroy the pond ecosystems around here trying to set free all the ones I couldn't afford to feed. Animals, though of a different intelligence, do have a built-in ability to understand the needs of their ecosystem. Humans are... well, we're TOO fucking compassionate. Some of us literally hug the planet to death, and that includes all the ones claiming the moral high ground. In fact, they're often the most myopic about how much damage they might actually be doing. Somehow our higher intelligence created the concept of cruelty and it can even be toxic in its extremes because drawing moral lines is always going to create 'good' and 'bad' that is sometimes really neither.

I'm the kind of person that when your pet bird chomps on my nose, I'll cry while I gently pinch its beak open or when your puppy is running free, I'll snatch it up from running in the street even when it bites my arm bloody (true stories). I don't hate animals but I accept they are both capable of kindness and being bastards the world is probably better off without. Cruelty is a shaky construct and you're just not going to win everyone on this.

2. Not all of us are creatures of excess.

While I can agree that all wealthy countries are consuming too much, it's not just about meat. There are many of us who already consume in moderation. I rarely eat steak, mostly a fan of fish and sometimes turkey or chicken, but I actually love veggies and fruits and even weird ones like seaweed. Vegans often argue a blue streak about how its not a lifestyle of excess, but if everyone were to become a vegan, agriculture's excess would be more destructive than animal meat production. I'm sure someone is making up for my not-so-meaty diet with three times what a person should eat, but again-- it's not my duty to worry about the balance of my diet and lament the futility of reducing my carbon footprint to account for all the heathens that muddy mine.

The arguments about heart disease and the problems of obesity come from abuse, not use. Which brings me to the next one.

3. Some of us can't. Can't 'work up to it', can't 'adjust to it', CAN'T.

I was born with poor circulation and a picky digestive system. It took me a lot of trial and error over the years to find a regular diet that works. If I want to get adventurous, I have the pleasure of taking a big swig of minty milk of magnesia before I eat. Veggies, as much as I do love, are the most destructive in the quantities it takes to make a vegan diet sustainable. Sorry, but it's just not for everyone. You have to have the genetic predisposition to handle such a drastic change and for some people it's not worth it or even dangerous. I'm sorry, but it just is. Some people can't tolerate grains. Some can't tolerate legumes some can't tolerate supplements. And here's the next point.

4. Some people don't want to swallow dickloads of supplements. 

B12, y'all. You knew it was coming, but it's kind of a big one to need. 8-9 horse capsules of algae are about the top candidate for this one. Yeah, yeah, you can grow veggies in B12 rich soil. However, you still have to consume a ton to reach that daily minimum. Speaking of which...

5. Grazing... grazing, grazing, grazing.

At one point of my life, I was an obsessive gum chewer. So my jaw muscles are pretty pro. But an attempt at a veggie heavy diet was the thing to push me over the threshold of jaw pain. So much chewing for raw veggies which is one of the few ways you even get to keep the bulk of nutrients in them. You have to eat a ton of bland joyless food and...

6. It's a lifestyle... of the time-consuming kind.

I went on strict diets when my health took a downturn and it made me think about food all the time. Low calorie foods mean you get to eat more to reach your goal, but at some point, I got tired-- of the prep, the constant obsession with when I would eat next, of the sheer volume and time spent thinking about it. Most 'successful vegans' are also fitness, health, and medical in nature and understandably. Because of how particular it is, it's very likely to be damn near your hobbies and work all wrapped in one. Where do you find the time for anything besides eating and sleeping? I've never met a vegan that isn't talking about it, in fact. One of the things that often triggered depression in my life is that a fitness/diet life took me WAY too far away from accomplishing creative goals, way more so than just a conscientious but still healthy diet.

Not too mention, it's a first-world luxury to have that kind of dedication. And one that is also...

7. Expensive. It's expensive.

And this isn't limited to veganism. Any diet requiring supplements that look at caloric intake, nutrients, or just above average amounts of anything are not going to be on sale that week if ever. When I did P90X, they were pushing Shakeology because holy hell, you need a lot of protein to handle the abuse. I've tried to find ways to actually make the extremes of healthy eating and advanced fitness possible but it's a lost cause and... again, time-consuming. I don't want to go on a 3 hour tour every two or three days. It demands too much from my time, my wallet and my aspirations (and yes, I care about those too).

8. Some of us are foodies.

Culinary appreciation can take some wild adventurous turns. We love watching global cooking shows. You might be able to sell a plant-based diet, vegetarian, to a foodie, but when you take away the egg and dairy, it's just a culinary nightmare. The idea of a world so conscientious about morality that food becomes joyless and efficient alone would be a sad world indeed. I know that vegans see it as a sacrifice, the ultimate virtue that saves thousands, but please, take that victory for yourself and let the beauty of culinary art alone.

9. It's kind of a cult at its worst (and what isn't?).

I wouldn't say this goes for all vegans. I'm sure some of you have worked out how to be really zen, self-content people who probably even convert people to veganism with your awesomeness alone. More power to you. Unfortunately, most of us deal with the Crusaders/Inquisitioners that are calling for the genocide of all who think or live differently. Most vegans are not very tolerable to be around, but I'm not calling for veganism to be illegal just because I don't agree with it. However, the fact being for every lifestyle where people can have good intentions, you're going to have the idiots that ruin it for everyone being the loudest voices for it. If this lifestyle is for you, keep it for you. And if you're ready to feed your fellow humans to lions for not conforming, that may be a big fat red flag that it's a not-so-good obsession (just a tad hypocritical too).

10. Extreme veganism is not that moral.

It's one thing to morally oppose cruelty (those three words together... I almost vomited), another to infringe on others to push the belief. Is it any different to opposing gay marriage, bodily autonomy, etc? While I hate generalizations and comparisons, moral opposition should just never be the RULE, the standard of 'protection' through sterilization. I don't believe you can compare animal and human suffering anymore than you can compare one human's pain to another's. Laws for cruelty against humans is a mark of society and civilization and the laws we use to protect ourselves are more complicated. Most of us do seek to preserve the environment and the balance of ecosystems, but there's a tug of war even among our own kind on how far you can overlap morality with human rights.

Although vegans are often pegged as far leftists, many are perfectly okay with assuming you're worthless if you don't adhere to their damn near conservative outlook on their lifestyle. Using morals as empirical evidence is not transcendent, it's invasive of free will. Although that fits in with the SJW sort of mania, a selective form of tolerance that claims to be the champion of the weak, assuming that the world is full of victims and oppressors and if you're not one, you're the other... That is truly immoral. You take away the ability for people to defend their contributions, to be flawed but valuable, and essentially no one is good. No one. There's that silly saying that when you point, you have three fingers pointing back at you. But there's simply no way to vilify people without yourself being the bad guy too. If you truly find it to be a valuable lifestyle, you sell it with love. Not the bitter taste of joyless vegetable warfare.

Is it an accident or pure greed that turned the first humans towards meat-based diets? It certainly wasn't the easiest way to eat, risking so much to hunt for food rather than gather it. Is a moral standpoint a luxury in a struggling economy? Is it class warfare to lord that over people? 

11. We're not done evolving.

I won't argue that evolution is indeed a fact. I've run the gauntlet backwards of these ridiculous rebuttals with assless chaps and I'm sure you have no new valid proof to refute it. While the Stoned Ape hypothesis is up in the air, it's THEORY (which if you didn't know is a provable set of facts that can be added to but no longer dissolved) that evolution was made possible through the consumption of meat. It carved our path from primate to human, enlarging our skulls and brains to accommodate this lovely complex brain and the egos that protect them. Even though I'm not forwarding my genes in the pool to contribute to the possible future of it, I hope that people continue to evolve through diet and smarter bodies that learn how to process the lifestyles of the sedentary thinkers. That we get less Trumps and more Musks. Better, people who have evolved to eat, sleep, and shit less and think, innovate and better more. A culture of real tolerance and adaptability and progress, one less apt to wish and more prone to DO. Human bodies are not done. We're stupidly fragile, easily offended, myopic about struggle and yet most of us do little more than complain and lament. Processed foods are not the answer, but veganism isn't the sole way to go.

-------

Again, I appreciate the vegans out there that are confident enough in their choices to be content in them for their own reasons. I make these arguments only to vent the frustration I have with the truly hard-hearted and downright intolerable. We need a world more capable of balance, not moral decision. Compassion, love, respect, trust-- with conditions. Now, I can't decide what is moral. That's no one's burden or even within anyone's abilities to decide that for everyone else. Society has some burden to create harmony but that is separate from the balance of individual morals. I'm convinced that perceiving our world in terms of victims and oppressors is a dangerous path. This is a world that needs the voices of the individuals-- the patience to listen and the ability to speak with diplomacy. There are not many people that truly care to look past words, to look at intent and context without twisting it towards their bias, prioritizing what they are entitled to.

I've said before-- ego can be a wonderful thing. If it can drive you as a person, not how you think others should see you or respond to you, I'm all for it. Egos done well do not crush and belittle someone else. My friend Joe will tell anyone; he has an enormous ego. Yet he is one of the most insightful, talented, generous people I know. I will gladly support that ego because it is truly caring, truly beneficial and truly deserved in my eyes. I will gladly support any individual that can feed my ego too, truth be told. Yes, there are conditions, but I promise, it's a case by case basis and I'm not a harsh judge. Really, just don't be a superficial dick and we're good.

A quick addition before I leave, but I'm really not opposed to anyone's dietary decisions. It's not my body, so I truly don't care what you do. I know plenty of vegetarians (again, of the annoyingly virtuous sort and the ones who are at peace with dietary limitations or decisions). I have no issue or disgust with feeding anyone I invite nor care if they'd rather bring their own. My big issue lies with the 'do as I do' insistence. I won't argue that it might be perfectly healthy or virtuous. You're just not going to sell me on restriction when moderation is my preferred compromise. The paleo diet is also working for some people. You might be right that it's not healthy or not moral, but it's still their life to decide for. A lot of things that aren't perceived as immoral actually exist to reduce the damage caused by the prohibition of 'lesser evils'.

Why Write Fantasy?

For some people, this is probably an easier answer. Maybe it's always been your favorite genre or it's how you think. In my case, most of the entertainment I consume isn't fantasy. Video games, yes, but aside from my love of superheroes, I'm not someone that looks for fantasy shows or movies first. My tastes tend to lead me to comedy, dramas, medical and crime, even documentaries. So when I ask myself 'why write fantasy?', I had to do some digging. I'll have to jump around a bit, but there are a lot of layers to this.

I've come into adult concepts since childhood that I've struggled to understand even as an adult. When we struggle to understand, sometimes we give up and end up either accepting it unexplained or developing a stance of ignorance. There's even a lot of ego in our youth that tells us it's tolerance that makes it acceptable to just let our emotions lead, but as we grow up, we look for logical ways to be at peace with the unknown. We start to accept that the good and bad in people is subjective and variable and that we often say things that don't match our actions. For example, while people might generally see as tolerant, we often say something before we've thought it out that twists that. I watched an old video where Kelly Osbourne slipped up and said "If you kick Latinos out of your country, who will be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump?" And most of us winced but at the same time, we knew what she bungled at trying to simplify too quickly. In this country, immigrants, legal or no, have a reputation for a work ethic that most entitled citizens, including Trump himself, would never touch. Kick out the people who are grateful to do thankless jobs and what good is it for any of us?

Because I'm not gifted with impeccable selections of speech on the fly, I tend to be more sympathetic when people, who normally do harmonize with their favorable character, stick their foot in their mouth and realized their attempts to simplify have to be explained with a lot more complexity once they've smeared it. I replay a lot of bungled conversations in my head. Sometimes even when I do well, I'll think of ten better ways to say it later. Words can have a powerful effect on our reactions and emotions, but I agree when free speech, hate speech or not, is protected. Words themselves might incite a lot of strong things, but I believe that the listener, the consumer, is ultimately responsible for their actions, that words are not actions unless they directly threaten to escalate (I'm going to kill you) or incite violence (we will meet here to kill you). I don't know about you, but I want to know who hates me. I don't want these people, disgruntled, silenced, sitting in basements, stirring a bitter stew that will hit me without warning. I think oppressing speech is doing more towards encouraging violence than just being disturbed by vitriol. 

That being said, communication of my ideas is very important to me, not that everyone fall in love with everything I say and do. When we speak out, we must accept that people will react, but the consequences of reacting violently are illegal and a crime and you can't blame words alone-- only your own immaturity towards the manifestation of your reactions. I certainly encourage people to counter hate speech with rebuttals and logic whenever possible-- I envy speakers like Jordan Peterson, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and even comedians like Joe Rogan. Even if you don't like their message or what I'm about to say, it's hard to deny that they deliver their messages brilliantly and with a practiced ease I envy. I struggle to get better at public speaking, but I think I would love to say things that such talented people could deliver with their focus and force of reason. I suppose as a woman, it's taboo to say that I would want a man to speak my words for me. I might also pick Christina Hoff Summers, a choice feminist whose levelheadedness I also envy, would work too. What these people have in common-- they claim responsibility for their words, grow with new information, and don't really lose their cool even when they raise their voice. They survive Q&As without dissolving into incoherent frustration.

Even explaining that, it still seems lacking to sufficiently encompass my choices as a writer. It is difficult to summarize, but words are a responsibility with consequences that can be justified, right or wrong, but how do we choose a medium to explore them?

Again, why fantasy, when I clearly have a love for understanding reality and have a solid basis in it? Well, the whimsical outlet of fantasy allows me to explore the deeper concepts of light and dark through metaphor. Not good and bad, mind you, since moral concepts also have levels of societal acceptability and individual experience. Often, there's a general consensus of what we know we can or can't be punished for, but individual mentality or even mob mentality often kicks against where 'morals' attempt to oppress people concerning even the use of their own bodies. And yes, personally, even when it's widely accepted to be moral or immoral, we come up with logical exceptions that bear consideration. It's extremely difficult for people to voice unpopular opinions, so we all need to find a playing field where we can test those doubts, fears, and curiosities. Non-fiction, where my life is concerned, has too many consequences for being tactlessly earnest.

It would be nice if adulthood was a magical escape from childhood dilemmas, but as an adult, I'm often pulled back into the lessons of my immediate past. I know both what it is like to be a child that had been through hell that some adults have not and to be an adult who is often disregarded as childish (I laugh freely, often and girlishly even at 37). I write adult fiction right now because my childhood just isn't kid friendly. I do use whimsical themes to bridge the gap but these adult themes do resonate with my real battles from adolescence.

Some people could make the argument that it is inappropriate for characters of a certain age to run into certain situations. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable truth for some of us. It's not a mark of how little your parents care or love you because it IS a sign of love and trust for them to let you explore the big bad world and hope you come back, alive, when you need a respite. The world does not and cannot protect us from the curiosities of reality. Nor should it. It should definitely have laws to protect against harm and it does, ones that at best will change as the world needs it to. What stands is that a child can and does get beat down by adult things. Telling a child that they can't possibly understand insults, abuses and raises their vitriol when they are certain they are not just living in it, but are one of the new demons who come to poke and ridicule them. Disbelief only reinforces it.

And yes, there are also attention-seeking predators, even children, who see that a tortured soul draws the sort of attention they want and mimics it insincerely. One thing I love about a Jordan Peterson video I watched is that he doesn't believe in 'erring on the side of caution'. (video here -- I encourage you to watch it and form your own impressions. Just taking what I say on faith is like playing a game of telephone. Always go from the source in case my interpretations carry a bias.)When he suspects that a patient is asking him to cater some demand of uniqueness with a privilege that they simply feel entitled to but doesn't stand to help them to pretend, he calls them out on it. He admits that sometimes he is wrong, but shows that it is imperative that we test the resolve of people's demands, to see if they are simply trying to mold others or truly find themselves. As a psychologist, he has seen that entertaining people's delusions does not help them learn how to grow as themselves. It's a very tough topic to discuss and he manages to find the words very eloquently. I even appreciate that he shows his thoughtfulness and consideration as he attempts to arrive at his answer. He's not just reading off of a script or parroting a false ego.

Diverting from the technical sides of my choice, I feel a kinship with harsh realities and the possibilities of fantasy. Life isn't just receiving our scars, but bearing them, even showing them in the sunshine. We can assemble armies or meet magical creatures, attune to our inner child or come to terms with being an adult. Even when we explore ourselves through our work, it doesn't assure hidden agendas, at least not intentionally. I've heard people make rather nefarious leaps of accusation-- underage sexuality? Pedophilia! Women writers detailing sex? Turns men gay (and I'm talking heterosexual sex even; apparently we force male readers to resume the stance of a woman to trick them into lusting for the male body. I couldn't even make this shit up)! Graphic calculated violence? Serial killer in the making!

I've always been a firm believer that saying it/playing it is often enough. Playing the games, watching the movies, reading the books, is often the satisfaction of the curiosity not the catalyst to demand more. When I write controversial topics, it is not done in secret delight, always the representative of my desires. I write things that make me downright uncomfortable. I can write something that titillates me and something that disgusts me in the same day even. Of course, those attention-seeking predators I mentioned before often look to call these the catalysts of their murder sprees, rapes, etc. Why? Because we create excuses for addictions, heinous acts, absolve people as brave for doing bad things and 'redeeming themselves', a culture that CREATES visibility for monstrous acts, encouraging people to abuse themselves and others so they can earn relevance for just doing what decent people do invisibly. Writers see this and make them into believable villains. Whether it humanizes or dehumanizes them, whether it's right or wrong is moot. We should continue to piss each other off, entertain each other, release words in ways that make people become curious, challenged. Do you back people up into a wall and tell them they're not cornered if they climb? Is there a rope, a ladder, a trampoline? Is the wall tall or short? Do you stop your pursuit or do they have to worry you're concealing a knife to drive into their back when they turn away? Presentation is everything.

Fantasy just aligns with the way I want to present my ideas. I'm not writing a book on psychology because it can't always be clinically accurate or documented in studies. There's a lot we don't understand about the brain and how it works. What other place could I bring to life the monsters under the bed, the monsters you mistake for friends, the smiles that hide the villains? It's not the only genre I will use, but right now, I'm in love with the way I can build characters and plots and puzzles and worlds and creatures, to lay color to the concepts and ideas around me? How else can I bridge the muddy transitions of childhood and adulthood with any clarity or understanding? How else can I mystify romance and horrify violence, overblowing it but making it logical to the landscape?

Fantasy is whimsy, fantasy is darkness, fantasy is triumph and tragedy.

On that note, I really can't wait to see this Welcome to Marwen movie. I'm not a very emotional consumer, but I teared up a bit just on the trailer. It does align with themes I work with and even inspired this post. One day, I hope to build up the scale of ways to present my own ideas. It's not unusual for writers to see movies in their head while creating, but I'm also well aware that a screenplay is a different creature than a novel (hey, did I mention I'm a screenplay editor? So it seems like a logical course to try it out someday). You can't dream too big.