The red-headed step-child...

Okay, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but there are those who do: Apparently the head of the New Horizons Pluto mission thinks the IAU's new definition of "planet" -- the one that drops Pluto from the list -- isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Here's the new IAU definition:

The IAU therefore resolves that "planets" and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

My thoughts: It's all very arbitrary, especially considering that just a week ago the IAU was considering a definition of "planet" that would have kept Pluto and added three more pluto-like objects.
(The (c) criterion was a last minute addition). What's wrong with just saying that the nine planets are planets and anything else is not a planet? Or, that anything above an arbitrary size that orbits the earth is a planet?

Also, do we really even need an "authorized scientific" definition? I mean, honestly. We don't have a "scientific" definition of "continent," yet geologists, geographers, and the laity all generally refer to Europe as a separate continent even though it really makes no sense to do so. (And why isn't Australia just a big island?). What would happen if we all just ignored the IAU definition?

I suppose that a definition becomes useful when referring to objects orbiting other stars, but with those, you also get into the brown dwarf problem...

Also, thanks, everyone, for the birthday wishes.

The middle third...

Yesterday, Cyn and I went to lunch with Brian Anderson, author of Zack Proton. We commiserated over the middle of novels (actually, he mentioned it in terms of screenplays): You'll get this great idea, and the beginning and the middle come along easily, but the middle is more difficult. Often in manuscripts, you see it merely being filler that comes between the first and last acts. This, sadly, is where I am now with RM. Plotting is
a problem...

[segue]

Speaking of plots, I've been seeing on some list servs a reluctance to put characters in danger (children shouldn't be put in harm's way, you see) or make them, well, mean (also bad) or have any kind of CONFLICT whatsoever.

While I can respect the sentiment, here's a good illustration of why conflict is necessary in literature (From the second season of Frasier in which Niles is haunted by seeing his old middle school bully arrive at Chez Crane as the plumber; in the scene, Frasier is trying to talk Niles out of giving said plumber a swirlee):

Frasier: You know the expression, "Living well is the best revenge"?

Niles: It's a wonderful expression. Just don't know how true it is. Don't see it turning up in a lot of opera plots. “Ludwig, maddened by the poisoning of his entire family, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act by living well.”

Frasier: All right, Niles. [walking away]

Niles: [following] “Whereupon Wotan, upon discovering his deception, wreaks vengeance on Gunther in the third act again by living even better than the Duke.”

Frasier: Oh, all right!

Anyone ever actually sat down and read the plots to major operas? They usually make no sense whatsoever...(e.g., It's amazing how many sopranos can really belt out an aria when dying of consumption). But anyone who has masochistic tendencies should read A Night at the Opera: An Irreverent Guide to The Plots, The Singers, The Composers, The Recordings, by Denis Forman.

Out of the frying pan...

One of the things that Texans enjoy doing in July and August is leaving the state for parts more northerly, where it will, in theory, be much cooler. Alas, this didn't work this year...We flew back Tuesday (just in time - I understand NYC was hotter yesterday than Austin).

Didn't blog at all for the second half of July due to a severe stomach virus that struck the day Cyn left for Vermont and lingered as a severe headache for about ten days. Then I flew up to Vermont and parts north so Cyn and I could have a quiet mini-vacation. Anyway, Cynthia blogs about our trip here.

Random notes:

There's going to be a Japanese language version of NINJAS, PIRANHAS, AND GALILEO, probably by the end of next year! Poplar Sha just bought the rights...

Austinite Anne Bustard, author of Buddy: The Story of Buddy holly, has begun a new blog, called Anneographies, which features picture book biographies on the subjects' birthdays.

There's been some great blog-o-sphere buzzing about Cynthia's gothic fantasy TANTALIZE:

Author Gail Giles posts about it here; author Cecil Castellucci here; Gwenda Bond of the Shaken & Stirred blog here; and Liz B at A Chair, a Fireplace, and a Tea Cozy blogs about it here.

Finally, there's something very peculiar about the fact that the Blogger spell-check does not recognize the word "blog."

Eight Characters of Comedy

This weekend, I read a book called Eight Characters of Comedy: A Guide to Sitcom Acting and Writing, by Scott Sedita. He identifies eight sitcom archetypes:

The Logical Smart One, The Lovable Loser, The Neurotic, The Dumb One, The Bitch/Bastard, The Materialistic One, The Womanizer/Manizer,and the One in His Own Universe.

I found his points were interesting but more geared to the actor than the writer. Nevertheless, he also has some good stuff on developing character from archetypes.

Just for grins, I applied his archetypes to my novels, and here's what I've come up with:

In NINJAS, PIRANHAS, AND GALILEO:

Shohei is a combination of The Dumb One and In his Own Universe;
Elias is The Neurotic;
Honoria is The Logical Smart One, but with some Lovable Loser and some of The Neurotic;
Mr. Eden is The Bastard;
Goliath Reed is The Materialistic One.

In TOFU AND T.REX:

Hans-Peter is the Lovable Loser with some leanings to the Neurotic;
Freddie is In Her Own Universe;
Opa is The Logical Smart One.

Cyn and I have also been watching the first season of Frasier on DVD, and came to the conclusion that they just don't write them like that any more. Smart, occasionally esoteric (but funny nonetheless), charming, and absolutely hilarious. Then today, I came across this article in Entertainment Weekly while waiting for Cyn at the opthamologist, which stated that the networks are planning to air only about a third as many sitcoms this fall as they did in fall 1996 (probably thanks to the plague of so-called reality TV). So, I guess they're not writing them at all...

So, in defiance of this ghastly trend, herewith is my list of favorite sitcoms:

The Dick Van Dyke Show: Perhaps the best of all time.
Cheers: They had some spotty seasons after Diane left, but picked up when Rebecca got her stride and Lilith had a more prominent role.
Frasier: A masterful pairing of two Neurotics. Need to get the rest on DVD -- they kept changing time slots and them put it opposite Buffy...
MASH: But really, only after they brought in Col. Potter (which provided heart), and Major Winchester (which provided a foil for Hawkeye), developed Margaret into more than the "Hot Lips" caricature, and got rid of Frank Burns.
Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister: An English series about a loopy and craven politician and his struggles with the entrenched bureaucracy at the Ministry of Administrative Affairs.

Runners-Up:
Friends: The first series about folks of my generation, but I never cared about Ross and Rachel.
The Bob Newhart Show: The one set in Chicago :-).
Newhart: Not bad, but Mary Frann is no Suzanne Pleshette
The Mary Tyler Moore Show: Funny, original, too bad she divorced Rob Petrie...:-)

I'm sure there are a couple I've forgotten...

Shows I don't get:

Seinfeld: I know this show was enormously popular and I thought some of the episodes were funny, but overall, I found the characters to be shallow and mean. Also, I just never saw the appeal of Kramer.
Roseanne: I watched the first episode, didn't like it, gave it more chances later, but never really cared for Roseanne Barr. The supporting cast was excellent, though.

Happy Independence Day!

We've been having a nice, relaxing Fourth of July weekend. Cyn blogs about the Blanton Museum here; and seeing Superman Returns here.

I was somewhat disappointed in the Blanton. The building seems to lack a grand entrance and the entry atrium seemed stark and unfinished, rather like bare plasterboard.

The collection does has some interesting pieces (the America/Americas exhibit is quite good and the Prints and Drawings Collection is extensive).

I did fnd it a little odd that the cards next to the "modern" art went to great lengths explaining why the pieces were important and worth hanging in the museum ("The black and white video of the man screaming evokes the essential hopelessness of..." [paraphrase]), whereas the older stuff didn't. (There were a lot of Madonnas with Child and it might have been helpful if there had been more on what distinguished one from another - technique, style, era, etc.). Also, I'm a little puzzled about why they displayed so many plaster reproductions of famous sculpture that are in the collections of other museums.

We saw Superman Returns at the Alamo Drafthouse (the best place in Austin to see a movie). I was favorably impressed -- I thought it was very good. I'd been expecting it to be horrible, especially since I'd heard it was supposed to be a "sequel" of sorts to the Christopher Reeve movies (even the "good" ones weren't very). It was definitely better than those, but I'm ready to see, for example, Brainiac or any villain other than Lex Luthor.

Tonight, we're doing a traditional good old-fashioned Fourth of July: Chicago-style hot dogs with corn on the cob, followed by fireworks at Zilker Park.

The throwaway draft...

Cynthia does this thing where she will write an entire first draft of a novel manuscript and then throw it away. She'll then do a new draft, which will be her true "first" draft. (When she talks about this to writers' groups, she gets audible gasps of horror).

I don't tend to do this, but I do think that writers should be prepared to perform major surgery on manuscripts, i.e., not fall so in love with what they've written that they fail to recognize when major portions aren't working and likely will never work. I did something similar with TOFU AND T.REX, but not intentionally. I'd sent my editor a manuscript I wasn't happy with, but was not in a place where I could see (or was willing to see)what needed to be done. My editor at the time sent me a letter which basically identified in a coherent manner the things I didn't like and thought weren't working. After editing, the only thing that remained from the first version I sent my editor to the eventual published version was the interview scene at the Brandenburgs. About ten pages. Note that the version I'd sent my editor was far more polished than your usual "first draft."

At the early stages of drafting, I do have a "viability threshold." Basically, I find it very easy to write the first thirty pages of a novel. I have several manuscripts based on great ideas that are about 30-35 pages long. Great introductions, but the stories never went anywhere, or just went badly. Usually, the problem is the plot, but sometimes it's the characters. In the earliest version of the manuscript that yielded something that went into NINJAS, PIRANHAS, AND GALILEO, there was a character who was so annoying that I had him throw himself in front of a train. A moving train. It didn't miss.

Anyway, I'm very happy that my first (approximate) draft of my new WIP, RM, came in at about 110 pages. It's not the complete story, but enough that I know what's likely to work and what's not. Also, unlike in TOFU, I'm keeping several of the scenes; I am utterly deleting two major sub-plots, though. They just didn't pass the "cringe-test" (Things fail the test if, after letting the manuscript sit for a couple weeks, they cause me to literally cringe or recoil upon re-reading.).

Looking forward to this weekend and drafting new scenes...

Graceland

We live in a very odd world: Tomorrow, President and Mrs. Bush are flying Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan to Graceland on Air Force One. The Prime Minister apparently shares a birthday with the King; his brother once ran the Elvis fan club in Yokohama. Priscilla and Lisa Marie will be the tour guides. For more on Graceland, check out the official site here.

KING DORK

KING DORK, by Frank Portman. Delacorte Press (2006)(ages 14+).

Tom Henderson, more commonly known as "Chi-Mo" to others and to himself as "King Dork," is, well, a guitar-playing dork trying to form a band with his best friend. When his English teacher assigns (of course), CATCHER IN THE RYE, Tom discovers a copy his deceased father had when he was a teen. The copy is marked up with mysterious messages, and Tom finds himself more or less obsessed with decoding the thing (in part because he's never felt any connection to the man, and in part because he is, after all, a complete dork). This leads him to read more books his father left behind and also to the mystery of how his father really died, as well as some insights into "attracting semihot girls."

KING DORK is hilarious. Portman skillfully skewers the Baby Boomers' obsession with THE CATCHER IN THE RYE while portraying a modern teen dealing with what a generation raised on that book has wrought. Professor Nana likes the names Tom and his friend come up with for the band; for my part, I love the pithy characterizations of the books referenced (e.g., LORD OF THE FLIES is "... like Hillmont High School meets Gilligan's Island, except that the goons in charge are prissy English schoolboys intead of normal redblooded American alpha psychopaths.").

Over the weekend...

It was a weekend of conferencing. Friday night's keynote for the TSRA Summer Leadership Conference was a blast and my speech on Humor in Multicultural Literature was well-received. Basically, I started with a speech Cyn and I had done at Reading the World a few years back and updated it with some more recent thoughts on the nature of humor and comedy.

Saturday, Cynthia and I spoke at the The Writer's League of Texas Agents and Editors Conference; our breakout session was basically an introduction to, and overview of, children's and YA literature. (Most of the attendees were from the "adult" realm, and so were unfamiliar with children's and YA). We went early to hear the panel with Kathi Appelt, Anne Bustard, Chris Barton, and Mark Mitchell.

We usually don't hang out that much with those involved in the adult end of the industry. The attendees seemed somewhat more anxious than those at, say, SCBWI conferences, but that might be because they were tense about having to "make the pitch." (They do this thing where I guess you have ten minutes with some agent to pitch your book).

Also, oddly, not only was the food the same at the airport Hilton and the Marriott downtown, but the presentation was identical, too: chicken breast with green beans, with the chicken breast artfully angled on top of potatoes or wild rice pilaf.

Novel Research

Last weekend, Cynthia and I went down to Kingsville for research on my WIP. We took this great four hour tour of the King Ranch and explored downtown Kingsville, including the King Ranch Museum. It was great fun, and we saw a lot. Invaluable stuff, for the WIP. Then we went up to Corpus and explored the Aquarium, but decided it was too hot and windy to go up on the U.S.S. Lexington.

So I came back energized, full of all sorts of research info I can plug into the new novel. First,though, Cyn and I have a couple of speaking gigs. Tomorrow night, I am giving a keynote for the Texas State Reading Association Summer Leadership Conference. Then, Saturday, Cyn and I are doing a breakout at the Writers' League of Texas Agents and Editors Conference.

Incidentally, don't you love the way the "ou" in "four hour tour" can be pronounced three ways?