funny or sad

I don’t know what I am anymore. I get angrier the more I work on Bad Neighbours, but ultimately, it’s a satire. A comedy.

It’s meant to be funny.

I’m worried it’s coming across hostile.

Or too skewed toward being hard on liberalism, even though that’s kind of the point of the satire, how ridiculous it is to be so hard on the sanctimonious that mean well, versus the actual assholes who mean evil.

Shelley is almost benign; Walter comes across as a monster at times.

It’s a reflection of the times, but I worry it will be misinterpreted as actually being the way it is.

Certainly, MAGAts don’t know the difference. Their inability to understand Gavin Newsom’s Twitter (yeah, fuck you, Elon, it’s Twitter) parody is pretty clear.

I don’t want this son of a bitch to become an icon, misinterpreted the way my bad guy was in Get Back Again, from several of the places I’d submitted or published it. Wattpad outright banned it, saying it promoted hate, which is really only evidence that they either didn’t read it, or have read too many bad boy romance stories, and thus, have lost their ability to understand metaphor and context.

So, stating this, for the record, before it ever sees the light of day.

Walter Lemon has his problems; he can be problematic at times, but he is ultimately, a good person who wants justice and fairness.

Dennis Shelley (and those who enable/use him) is a fucking monster. HE IS NOT THE GOOD GUY.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1507 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: The Deadly Streets, Harlan Ellison
Comics: Tomb Raider: Origins 1, Tomb Raider 6-7, Witchblade/Tomb Raider 0.5
Music: We Were Dead Before The Ship Even Sank, Modest Mouse

twenty-twenty-five on speed

Is it just me, or is this year moving like a freight train whose throttle is wide open and stuck down?

Barreling toward an inevitable conclusion that can only be catastrophe?

I’ll admit, Bad Neighbours, being largely about conflict and unreality, about dichotomy and the endless fight of us versus them, it’s done a number on me.

I know, as a writer, you have to live in the space about which you’re writing. When I did Romance #1, it was fun and goofy, ironic and sardonic. Western Cradle was about trying to make shit out of suffering. The Mungk was months of exploration into trauma and hopelessness.

The fatalism nearly got me.

But I’m largely conflict-averse in my life, so this obsessing over the fight, being at war, at odds with each other, especially in light of the world’s political situation, it’s anathema. And it’s bleeding into the rest of my life.

I’ll be glad when this is done, for more reasons than just completion and the pride of having finished it.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1794 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: East Wind: West Wind, Pearl Buck
Comics: The Seasons 6-7, Escape 1
Music: We Rebuilt This City, Closet Monster

end of the week

No time, guv. Big plans, big plans.

Anger babies are birthing.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1398 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Magician: Apprentice, Raymond Feist
Comics: Napalm Lullaby 4, The Sacrificers 9, Grommets 2, The Holy Roller 7
Music: The Way It Is, Bruce Hornsby & The Range (the WHOLE range)

l names

There’s a bit in Bad Neighbours regarding last names, so I’ve been trying to come up with as many similar sounding L names as possible. I think I’ve managed it, but well, I’ve hit a wall and then I had to look it up.

My brain is jello.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 43 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Myths & Texts, Gary Snyder
Comics: Death And Glory 6-8, Deadly Class 42
Music: War Sucks, Let's Party!, Anti-Flag (damn straight)

woo, doggie

I’m playing in the land of metaphor this morning, detailing exactly where the left coincides with the right and the metaphors that bind them, in the context of Bad Neighbours.

Ironically, it ended being filtered through the judge’s verdict on the Hockey Canada sexual assault case acquittal, in which she posited that while we are all on the train of believing victims, doing so without examination essentially means applying the doctrine of guilty until proven innocent, when our system runs on innocent until proven guilty. There was enough conflicts, contradictions and assertions that didn’t agree with established facts in the case for the judge to reasonably decide that she could not say there was a crime committed, beyond doubt.

Reading the specifics of her verdict, I would probably make the same choice.

And it’s important, the distinction of innocent until proven guilty versus guilty until proven innocent. How many of us had listened to someone make assertions about the behaviour of their ex, or a coworker, or a friend or enemy that had no actual bearing in reality, even if we didn’t know it at the time? How many of us have had someone assert that their significant other was mistreating them, or playing the role of victim, or rationalizing away bad or regrettable behaviour on their part, because they didn’t actually want to take responsibility for what happened?

Most people don’t want to be responsible for their own actions. They live in denial. They falsely equivocate, they exaggerate, they outright lie, often to the point of deluding themselves as to what’s actually real, in order to avoid accountability for what’s ultimately on them.

You say you want freedom? You want truth?

You have to accept two things then: understand that total freedom comes with total responsibility – these are inseparable – and secondly, that reality is not what you want it to be, it’s what is, and if you want truth, you have to be willing to suspend your beliefs and the little fictions you tell yourself about yourself, or about the way things “should” be, and surrender your open, empty mind to what is, no matter the consequences.

Freedom is responsibility. Freedom is accepting consequence. Truth is what is, it’s not what you’d like to to be, or how you want to frame it. It’s what is.

So, innocent until proven guilty is the better way to go, because believing the accuser means automatically accepting their version of the truth, which we all know can be a highly creative, even self-deluding fiction at times. It can also be true, but that’s what the process is meant to find out (and admittedly, that depends on the competence and relative framework of the process, whether truly fair, fact-finding mission or kangaroo court). But guilty until proven innocent It’s not about what is; it’s about what’s asserted; it’s hypothesis without testing. You claim donkeys can fly, you have to prove that they can. The people you’re telling they can don’t.

That’s the way it works.

And that’s infinitely better than someone shouting, “Donkeys can fly!” and then having everyone that heard them run around scrambling to build wings for mules to make it true.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 2749 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Odds On, Michael Lange (John Crichton)
Comics: Low 22, Black Science 40-41, Deadly Class 39
Music: War On Errorism, NOFX (legit one of the best punk albums ever written)

martyrs and charlatans

I once saw a chart that showed someone who worked super hard but made no connections versus someone who didn’t work, but made nothing but connections, and basically, it stuck them in two categories.

All work and no connection creates self-imposed martyrdom, while all connection and no work creates charlatans. Bullshitters versus drudge horses, with those that can find the balance (working hard and creating worthwhile things versus connecting with fans, with industry leaders and insiders, in a genuine, non-bullshit manner) as the true exceptions, the step above the rest. A martyr can find its work recognized and suddenly reach popularity, only to flame out over time (but still leaving behind good work).

A charlatan can become popular for nothing, and lose everything and be leave nothing behind.

I’m a martyr right now, that’s for sure.

May I never be a charlatan.

May I someday find the balance.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1114 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Odds On, John Lange (Michael Crichton)
Comics: Deadly Class 37-38, Black Science 39, Low 21
Music: War, U2

on to draft three

Some minor shit to settle in between for clarity, but by the time we head up to Temagami, I should be knuckle deep in the third draft.

Damn, dog.

Scandulus.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1244 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: The Poorhouse Fair, John Updike (they're old and bigoted, is that the point?)
Comics: Death Or Glory 4-5, Black Science 38, Seven To Eternity 11
Music: Walking After You, Foo Fighters

sidewaysssss

That’s how things have gone today. Tomorrow doesn’t promise to be much better.

On the plus side, I’m almost done planning for the new draft (with a few sidetracks) of Bad Neighbours.

I expect to be editing within the next week.

Hopefully, I can get something done while we’re away.

Working on time, instead of word count, has it benefits and detractions – it requires a set butt-in-seat time, and hitting a word target for me usually takes less time, unless I’m making notes like I’ve been doing, then it’s a combo, and takes longest of all.

Freeform works best; editing is the middle road.

Agonizing over the specific word, is it strong enough? Is it accurate? Am I being too precious?

Am I precious?

Or am I nothing at all?

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1307 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: The Poorhouse Fair, John Updike (speaking of precious)
Comics: Death Or Glory 1-2, Deadly Class 34, Black Science 36
Music: Walk Among Us, Misfits

street names and the modern dichotomy

I had originally named the street my bad neighbours lived on Sigmund Avenue, but now, given the material, I rather think I’d like to find a name that is more fitting of the analogy of dichotomy I’ve made with this book.

With that in mind, I’m trying to track down the father of modern political dichotomy, the man most responsible for creating the left-right “split” that we’ve got going. I’m not talking about someone who exploits it, like Trump or Reagan or Bush (Junior or Senior).

I want the philosopher. The modern political thinker.

I’d considered Descartes, but the hunt continues.

Who started all this shit? Jesus?

Who was originator of us versus them as viable political theory? It has always been such; someone must have codified as proper, and watched as all these murderous assholes latched on to it. Who created authoritarianism, in its current sense?

Who is the son of bitch that said there’s only two sides to every issue, and third party be damned!

Which founding father is responsible for this shit?

Should that be a theme, a running theme? Things named after founding fathers who turned out to be assholes?

Who thought putting guns in the Constitution was a good idea?

I bet they’re one and the same.

Our way or no way. Us or them. Till death do us part.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1413 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: The Grass Is Singing, Doris Lessing
Comics: Seven To Eternity 6-7, Black Science 30, Deadly Class 29
Music: Extras: A Collection Of Rarities, The Jam

forty-eight plus one

And we’re back in the office.

And the office is making it very difficult to get done all the things I need to get done.

I need to get the Mungk in more hands.

I need artists, letters, colourists, an editor for Romance and Western Cradle.

I’ve more or less resigned myself to including the poetry and short stories in with The Mungk (well, maybe not the poetry – once I have enough of those, I may just do a volume of it).

But The Mungk – it needs to be seen. Romance, it’s just a calling card of a comic to build fans, a free giveaway I can hope someone enjoys, and then recognizes the creators later when we put out other stuff.

Western Cradle though – I think it’s good. It may be kind of rape-heavy, which sucks, but if we do it right, draw it right, it could be very, very strong.

But for now. The Mungk.

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1141 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: A Study In Scarlet, Arthur Conan Doyle
Comics: Deadly Class 25-26, Seven To Eternity 4, Black Science 27
Music: Experimental Jet Set, Trash And No Star, Sonic Youth (palate cleanser after Bette fucking Midler)