The Good & the Bad: Ice Cream

If you're on Facebook (everyone is but we all secretly wish we weren't), I'm sure you've seen the many 'tests' that float around the newsfeeds. You know the ones, where after a couple questions they'll tell you what your real color is, who you were in a past life, or what Harry Potter you should date. No one takes them seriously and I don't have the time to bother. But then one popped up that claimed to tell you what kind of ice cream you are. Now it's personal.

Ice cream is a large part of my life and I take it very seriously. I grew up on it. I have very particular standards and very set likes and dislikes. From generic brands that surprise to premium to all-organic flavors that trigger waves of ecstasy, I try everything and rate it all. I once made it a goal to have ice cream at least once every day for an entire summer. Not when I was ten, but when I was thirty-five. I succeeded quite easily.

So when some silly internet meme claims it can tell what kind of ice cream I am, I have doubts. But I take the test anyway and it tells me I'm an 'Everything But the Kitchen Sink' ice cream. What? First, that doesn't even exist. Second, that sounds awful. So let me set the record straight.

The Good

My favorite flavor has changed over the years, but these days nothing beats a plain old vanilla. Not just any vanilla, but a real smooth and creamy vanilla bean flavor. Breyers recently changed their vanilla bean to 'natural' vanilla, but it's still my favorite. Alden's Vanilla Bean is right up there, but it tends to cost twice as much. (As much as I love ice cream, I still love not spending a ton of money on it even more).

As a kid, mint chocolate chip was my favorite. I still remember when the new neighbors moved in and first introduced me to the flavor. My whole life changed that summer day. Dreyers was the standard - as a kid I didn't have as discriminating a palate. These days, the best way to recreate that sensation is a Coldstone's Mint Ice Cream loaded with white chocolate chips - can you say sugar overload?

Recently we've been making our own ice cream at home, using all natural and organic ingredients, including eggs from our chickens. The flavors have been outstanding (Newman-O's Mint Cookie was a genius decision), but it's been hard to get the consistency perfect. It takes just the right temperature during the mixing, and then the freezer has a tendency to be a little too cold because it's a little too cold (with more than ice cream - lots of frozen veggies, I swear).

One of the flavors we copied was mushroom ice cream. Before you freak out in disgust, you have to try it first. Candy Cap mushrooms smell (and taste) exactly like fine maple syrup. Our local ice cream shop, Cowlicks, makes a version that is as sweet as anything and pure heaven for maple lovers. It's not my favorite flavor, and ours came out not quite as sweet, but the fact that we picked the mushrooms ourselves and made a good ice cream out of them felt very satisfying.

The Bad

Contrary to my test results, one of the things I really don't like in ice cream is a lot of different things all thrown together. I don't like fruit in my ice cream. I don't like nuts. I don't like to mix in contrasting flavors (chocolate and rum raisin - eww!). I don't like ice creams where the additives overwhelm the cream.

But there aren't really any bad ice creams, just flavors better suited to a different taster (like books for different readers).

How about you? What's your favorite ice cream? Or have you had any bad ice cream experiences?

The Good & the Bad: Sitcoms

Continuing on my series of post to share what I like and what I not-so-much. Let's look at sicoms. Situation Comedies. The name implies that they involve a set-up that is the source of the humor. Funny happenings in common environments, that we can all related to, like a nice guy who works at a boring job full of weird people, or a dad trying to raise a family of lovable, trouble-making kids. Good, light-hearted humor.

The truth is, sitcoms often go much deeper than that. They often use humor to help us relate to horrible situations (MASH), or deal with important societal issues (All in the Family, The Jeffersons). The great shows make us laugh and think a little bit, and for me it always starts with the writing.

I love clever writing. I like to catch the subtleties, the little quirks that make each character into a deep and real person, the quick lines that reference a joke from a season before, and some nice word-play that shows a mastery of language. It doesn't have to be sophisticated (Family Guy has some genius behind it's crudity), but it has to have some wit behind it.

The Good

Let's start with my favorite show of all time: Cheers. Great dialogue? Check. Real characters? Check. Profound social issues? Not so much. What I loved about Cheers wasn't the big picture. The show didn't hold a mirror up tot society, or make me consider hanging out in a bar in a different light. It occasionally had a nice social theme (when Sam's old team-mate turned out to be gay), but those episodes were rare and never the focus. The heart of the show was the family. Not your biological, we have to love each other in spite of our differences family, but your friends are the true family family.

I love that a group of random people bonded together (in a bar of all places) to care about each other in a way that defines family for me. People who stand together no matter what. People who know each other's failings and care despite them. People who tease and laugh and love regardless of what else is happening in the outside world. I loved that about Cheers and can enjoy any episode as I watch it for the dozenth time. And Coach is my favorite character of all time.

More modernly, 30 Rock did the same thing for me. Set in your classic dysfunctional work environment, what made the show stand out was the quality of the writing and over-the-top performances by Alec Baldwin and Tracy Morgan. It was larger than real life but almost every episode came back to these strange people showing their love for each other, the craziness only emphasizing the real humanity at its heart.

Some of my other favorites include: Arrested Development - the very best at continuing jokes and themes throughout multiple episodes and tying things together in unpredictable ways; Archer - beneath the drunken ramblings and crass sexual innuendo, there's some really good manipulation of the English language; Coupling (the British version, not the insipid American fail) - the model for Friends, but with more courage and real life situations. And I'll finish off the list with The Mindy Project - once again a family in practice, but all the characters are new and fresh, and the skewed perspective of modern life comes shining through.

The Bad

On the other side of the coin, what makes a sitcom bad? Sure, there are the ones that completely lack humor (Cop Rock, 2 Broke Girls, Mama's Family), but that's too easy. What about those that do have humor, that manage to last for years and gain a large audience? Some of the most popular shows are also my least-liked, often because the way to appeal to the masses is to be broad. The Big Bang Theory has some good writing and acting, but the humor revolves around stereotypes that are completely inaccurate and rather belittling. Everybody Loves Raymond had a universal setting - the horrible inlaws - but I never connected with people who may have loved each other but in practice treated each other poorly. There's a point where the love doesn't make up for the pain, and that's not funny to me.

A couple of shows really put me on the fence. Every once in a while I catch a South Park episode that knocks it out of the park. Sharp, biting criticism of hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of our popular culture (see what I mean at The Washington Post). Sometimes it's a bunch of uninspired fart jokes. Modern Family definitely has the love between misfit characters working, but somehow it doesn't inspire me most of the time. Maybe it tries to hard to make the quirky fit.

So there are some of my favorite shows, and some that I really can't stand. Do you agree? Any favorites you want to share? Any sitcoms that make you run screaming for the hills? Let me know.

Getting Paid

There's been a recent kerfuffle over the question of when and how a writer should get paid. Some people even bring up the question of whether a writer deserves to get paid, and if our current system of publication (and all it's options) is beneficial or harmful to writers. I don't have all the answers, but I feel it's important to point out some truths.

First, I have never understood the sentiment that somehow artists are supposed to be above money. That we create because we're inspired by our art and that getting paid diminishes it. True artists would continue their craft regardless of pay; they do art because they must, not because it's a job. Sorry - I just don't feel that artists are a special class of people, better than everyone else out there who needs to work for a living.

Don't get me wrong, I think writers (and all artists) are wonderful people who do something truly special and contribute to society in a very necessary way. The ability to create a story out of the depths of your imagination, to take a blank page and bring it to life with characters we care about - that's amazing.

But to be able to take some grain, water, and a little yeast and turn it into a warm and filling bread that provides sustenance to the world - that's amazing. To be able to impart wisdom to the youth, to inspire children to learn, grow, develop, and become contributing members of society - that's amazing. To be able to forecast derivative prices by understanding the complex intertwinings of financial markets - well, I guess that's probably amazing too.

Lots of people do special things. Lots of people love their work and have a passion for it. The idea that those people shouldn't get paid while the people who do something they don't really like but need to pay their rent and provide for their family should get paid - how does that make sense? People deserve to get paid if what they do has value to society. If you think art has any value, that in some way it makes our world better and is worthwhile to have around, then artists deserve to get paid.

How much, how often, when in the process - those are all questions for the market to figure out. If people are willing to pay an author ahead of time for their work (like an advance, or crowdfunding) then that's fine. Lots of other people get paid up front. If you personally don't want to buy something until you can have it in your hands (maybe metaphorically) and look it over, then that's fine too. Each consumer has the option of how to spend their money and shouldn't begrudge someone else their choice.

Should writers get paid enough to make a living from their art? Again, the marketplace will decide. Right now there is a lot of growth in self-publishing and support from writers for the Amazon model of direct to consumer efficiency and egalitarianism. But it's important to note that if the half million self-publishers out there equally split up the publishing pie, everyone's going to be hungry. Except Amazon. Amazon is taking their cut from the whole pie, so they don't really care how the rest of it gets divided up. I do believe they want to keep growing the pie, which is good, but as fast as that pie grows I feel the number of people lining up with forks will grow faster. So who wins in this game?

It's a very important question to consider who ends up being able to write for a living. If writing doesn't make enough money to provide for a basic life, then lots of folks are going to have to do something else. The people who can afford to write will be those who already have money, those who can live off their inheritance or a wealthy spouse, those who can afford to pay for their own marketing up front in order to enhance their piece of the pie on the back end. Those who are generally white and privileged.

I see that as bad for the art. I think art thrives when it receives contributions from many viewpoints, from those who don't live in a world that consists of nothing but art. Great art doesn't come from it's own struggle to exist, but from its creator's struggles with life. Some of the best stories come from those who live the hardest lives, but to expect those books will rise above the fray on the strength of their words alone denies the realities of the marketplace (and our world). In publishing, like so many aspects of life, money screams louder than beauty. I want great art to be rewarded well enough to allow the artist to create more. An artist should be willing to suffer for their art - but perpetual suffering shouldn't be a requisite for it.

I believe that writers deserve to get paid for their work, and I hope the system continues to find a way to pay them enough to be able to write for a living. That's my goal. I don't need millions. I don't care about fame or celebrity. I don't even care if anyone knows my name. But I love to write and I want to put the many stories that fill my head down on paper. I want to be able to take the time to develop them, to improve my prose and hone my craft. I want to create beautiful things that other people will enjoy. But my first priority is to put bread on my table and create a good environment to raise a child. If I have to choose between the two, many of my stories will go untold. That may or may not be a loss to the world, but it will be a big loss to me.

Story Notes: Plot-driven Novels

In the Literary world (Literary with a capital L), there's often a distinction drawn between meaningful, character-driven novels versus plot-driven ones. The suggestion being that 'typical' novels have a plot, but greats works of literature aren't limited by such trivial things. The character study, the poetry of the language, and the deep themes of philosophical discourse are what really matters. Hogwash. All stories have plots. Some plots are more involved and compelling, some are subtler and less dynamic, but a story without plot is a bunch of random words.

I don't want to go off on a tangent about what makes a story good and whose opinion matters. I want to focus on what plot really is and why I think the distinction above misses the mark most of the time. Plot is not simply the happenings in a story. It's not the action or events. For me, plot is conflict; the interruption of the storyline.

Conflict need not be big and broad. Sure, the bomb planted in the building and our hero's race to find and diffuse it is big-time conflict. But a knock on the door is conflict. It changes the storyline - the room is no longer silent, our protagonist no longer alone, and a mystery awaits on the other side of the door. There's a choice to respond to the knock or not, to call out or to look out the peephole, to leave with the newcomer or turn them away.

Whether you hope to make a book a page-turner by having lots of action and suspense, or you want to delve deep into your character's psyche and unravel the mysteries of life, you need to have change and development. Every new thought is a change, every new observance a piece added to the puzzle. Inward or outward, things need to happen in order for a story to happen. Without that you have a picture. But words represent thousands of pictures. All books are film in that regard.

So what does this mean for developing a plot? It means it's unavoidable. It doesn't have to be plotted out in advance or what you build your story around, but it will be there. As a writer, the important thing is to understand what your plot is and how it unfolds into the story you want to tell. If you get stuck, just let something change and see where it leads.

Why I Don't Review Books

As an aspiring author, I try to do all the right things. The main thing is to write, and to improve my writing. That always comes first. But you're also expected to build a platform. You're supposed to make yourself into a brand and interact with the wide world out there. Build a website (check), start a blog (check - you're reading it right now!), go on Twitter (check) and Facebook (check), review books on Goodreads (UNCHECK). Reviewing books is something I've had problems with.

It's not that I don't read - I definitely do. It's not that I don't have opinions about books - I have opinions about everything. But I find myself conflicted over the real purpose and values of reviews, and how authors reviewing authors fits into that world.

For me, the validity of a review for anything comes from the fact that the reviewer doesn't have any material interest in the product. I need to believe that they have no reason to be partial, one way or the other. Otherwise, how can I trust what they say?

All authors have an inherent interest in other authors. There is a certain truth to the fact that books are competition for each other. I wouldn't expect Pepsi to give me an unbiased opinion of a new Coke product. But lots of folks in the writing game take a different view - that we are all coworkers, that authors have a tough go of it and we all need to support each other. That's how I feel. But once again, that leads to bias. I don't look to a Google Maps engineer to give me the real lowdown on a new Google Phone product.

And beyond just authors, anyone involved in the publishing industry may have ulterior motives for what they say about a book. Agents supporting their agency's clients, editors talking up a friend's project, publisher knocking a self-published novel. I've seen all of that happen and don't know if it's true opinion or otherwise motivated. There's the appearance of possible impropriety, even if there isn't any actual wrong-doing. They may be completely honest and totally fair. But if I don't know them, I don't know if that's the case. And if I were to put my own opinions out there, I would just be adding to the confusion.

Besides, if I were to review books in general I would have to give negative reviews. I enjoy most of the books I read but I also find things that bother me in almost all of them. It's part of the writer's critical eye. If I censored that out (because I don't want to be critical of my fellow writers) it would undermine everything positive I said.

So I stay out of the review game except for a few exceptions. If a book is wildly successful I feel free to criticize it knowing I can't do any damage. If it's a book I love and I feel there are useful things to learn and discuss from a book, then I might bring it up here. But I'm not comfortable with reviewing in general.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm really not sure I'm right about it. I've heard some good arguments from others who choose to review. They feel it helps their readers get to know more about them, that as authors they have good insight into what makes a book good or what is lacking. Valid points. And their reviews don't bother me in the least (reviews should never bother anyone - we're all free to ignore those we don't want to give credence to for whatever reason). Everyone gets to make their own choices here.

And I do like the anonymous nature of statistics when looking at the overall ratings of a book. That gives me the opinion of the masses - an opinion I rarely agree with on anything, books included. But I'm also quite likely to read a book that gets rave reviews just to find out why other people like it so much, even if I know I won't. So review sites can be quite useful in that way, at least for me.

When choosing what books I read for enjoyment - that I only trust myself. I know what type of books I like. I'm good at picking out from reviews the information I want to get. I'm good at deciphering back-cover copy and reading a quick excerpt to judge the style of a book (from the middle - never trust the beginning of a book). I also have a few people out there whose opinions I have come to trust, so I'll listen to what they say a little more closely. But in the end, I try to let the book stand on it's own, and make my own choices for what lands on my bookshelf. I urge others to do the same.