I apologize for being offline again for a while there, but July has definitely been a marathon month for me, even before I went to the marathon.
The first week of July was relatively easy, except for a small problem I'd noticed cropping up. The main database (and some of the ancillary databases) had...well...blown up. I still don't know what happened, but suffice it to say, a report that was taking 5 seconds longer every week suddenly jumped to 20 minutes longer, then 40 minutes.
On the upside, my mother was in town, and she plied me with breakfast, lunch and dinner almost every day. There was some bad stuff that happened when she was down (her wallet stolen), but some pretty good stuff too (every penny of the stolen money was returned by the bank before the end of the week - including the thief's ATM charges!), and handmade French toast makes any bad day better. And, on the day of her birthday, I took her out to watch Brave, and then we went out for dessert. I just realized right this minute that I have a candle in my purse that I could have used. I don't know why I have a candle in my purse. I just do.
Which brings us to the second week of July. My mother had gone out to the Eastern Townships to visit family, while I, lucky old me, got to work on rebuilding the database from the ground up. Understand, this is no small feat: it took 60 days to build it in the beginning, and this time around, I had to fix it and improve it at the same time - to say nothing of the ancilliary "feeder" databases I had to repair and upgrade at the same time. And I had three days to rebuild it from the ground up.
So, in 30 hours between Sunday evening and Tuesday afternoon, I rebuilt more formulae than I care to remember, on minimal sleep, with testing completed and many successful conversions.
It was a three day work-week, that's why the push. I was due in a car Thursday morning, packed and fueled. And all of my mothly and weekly reports were due before I left.
So you can imagine, I'd already put in a stupidly busy, frustrating and tiresome week, and all that on minimal sleep (averaging 4-6 hours every night but Wednesday). I was already in marathon mode before I'd even gotten in the car. And boy, was I glad my mother was in the car with me.
Oh - and the Wednesday night, once that last report had gone out, I shut down the computer, and between my mother and I, we started the process of a) making the apartment ready for company and b) printing off materials for the next day. That process continued into the Thursday morning, in preparation for Brendan Gallagher's arrival. No, not the hockey guy. Mady's son. By the way, B - awesome job, seriously. You even washed dishes that you hadn't dirtied. Above and beyond the call of duty there, bud.
Thursday afternoon, we left an hour behind schedule, but with enough time that we could drive at a comfortable (and legal) speed. And as soon as we were in the car, I was a giddy, chatty basket case, because the fun was just about to begin.
I'd first had idea for the "Thursday Thing" shortly after hooking up with some high school and work friends of mine by Facebook. My time in town was limited, and I wanted to catch up with friends new, old and really really old, so I thought, hey why not meet up with them all at the same time in the same place?
My mother and I chatted about it, and we decided it would be a cool idea to turn the coffee klatsch into a fundraising event, and she would invite some of her friends and family too. My mother also suggested that I read something. I insisted that I couldn't do it because I didn't have anything officially published. And I couldn't very well do a book launch for the story I hadn't even written yet, now could I?
And then I thought, "I mean, I only have radio plays published."
And then I thought, "Well, that would be boring, and tiring, if only one person read all the parts."
And then I looked at the guest list, and grinned like Snidely Whiplash. It's probably the first and last time I'll have known my audience so well, in advance.
Also, thanks to Tobin Elliott for making the reservations for us. They gave us a table with 8 seats. We needed 14. How AWESOME is that? I have a hard time getting 14 people out to an event with established authors.
So, then we all ordered our coffees and our snacks and sat down, and that's when I sprang the surprise on them.
What I said was that, during the marathon, I was going to write about characters I'd first conceived of back in 1992 - a twenty year old story idea - and what had inspired that: Orson Welles being the unknown voice of the Shadow, an era in which The War of the Worlds inspired panic in some highly imaginative listeners, and so forth. Most of the guests there had heard of radio plays, so they knew what I was talking about, so that made the introduction pretty darned easy.
Then...I asked for volunteers.
We needed seven actors, most of whom played dual roles. Sean Stafford, the husband of my colleague Tracey Webster, took two of the most important roles (hapless robber Red, and scatter-brained genius Dr. Bairns); Tobin Elliott played the part of Flynn, Captain of Police (and a taxi driver); Gary Whitbourn played the main role of Sheldon Webb; Norma Jean Thibodeau played opposite him as Miss Linda Vie Kaine; Tracey Webster played Kaine's secretary Francine, and "Woman getting into cab"; and fellow marathoner Sandra Clarke picked up the role of "Announcer" and "Man getting into cab". I had the odd pleasure of playing the bad guy, Mad Matty Brown - who turns out to be far more insidious in the book than in the play.
See, I didn't tell them about the Fog of Dockside City, about his character, about his history, nothing. It was revealed during the reading. No one had any idea of what to expect, and no one had read the script in advance.
I had goosebumps, which I'm sure is appropriate for a "cold reading". But I can't tell you how amazing it was to hear voices come to life outside my head for a change. I can't tell you how freakishly cool it was to hear people - who had never read the script before - reading the characters so faithfully to the way I had imagined them.
And because the others at the table were given scripts so that they could follow along, there was no need to strain to hear each other. They could follow along - even adding sound effects, music and shrieks where applicable.
Fortunately (and unfortunately) the cafe was deserted except for us and the staff, so we could get a litte hammy without any risk of embarrasment.
It's amazing what more you learn when you hear a radio play, compared to what you learn by listening. I'd already known about having contrasting characters and voices; I'd known about having easy to pronounce names. But what I think doesn't always match with practical reality. During a cold reading without any introductinos, "BAIRNS" gets read as "Barns", "Bains" and "Bairns" at random (and I lost count of how many times I'd written "BRAINS" during the first draft). So I changed his name in the book: the nutty doctor is now called "Zanx", which is about as distinct and easy to pronounce as any name I've ever made up.
And it's amazing what more you can put in. Sean played as much of his role on script as off. Seriously, if he doesn't go looking for some way of capitalizing on his radio-voice, I'll go back to the Durham Region and kick him in the bum. One of his killer ad libs was the ironic death-scene exclamation, "How interesting!" It worked so well with the character that, darn it, that line is now in the book, and I'll defend keeping it there.
Anyhow, fun was had by all. I had a ripsnorting blast, I really did. And I was so inspired and excited - first this, and then the marathon the next day? - I didn't sleep more than 90 minutes Thursday night.
So, with the exception of Wednesday night, I had not had a full night of sleep since the first week of July, and I was headed up to the Muskoka Novel Marathon.
I was about to find out just how little sleep the body needed to survive, and just how badly sleep is needed.
But that's for part two.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Springboards and pratfalls
A quick search of Amazon.ca using the words "How to Write" returned 79,549 results. I may have purchased and/or read about 10 of those titles. There's certainly value in learning from the experience of others; to some extent, you can learn from their own successes and mistakes. And since there are close to 80,000 volumes out there, to say nothing of the blog posts, online articles and free-radical quotations, there's bound to be something you can learn, no matter who you are.
And Tobin Elliott, I'm happy to say, will be adding to that list, when he launches his eBook "Tweet You Write." I'm looking forward to picking up a copy - and not just because he was my Creative Writing teacher aeons ago. I like the whole concept of his book. He'd been tweeting <140 character writing tips over 2011 and 2012, 100 tips over a few months. Now what he's doing is compiling those tweets, giving some background - why he tweeted the tip - and goes into greater detail and examples of what the tweets mean. It's like some translations of Sun Tzu's Art of War: you're given a Big Thought and explanation, you chew on it for a few days, and then you come back for the next Big Thought. I keep trying to convince Tobin to go to POD and make a coffee table book, or at the very least, a bathroom reader. I haven't convinced him yet. I'll have to wait until either the end of this year or the start of next for a copy of the eBook, I guess. (Tobin - I can't scrawl notes in the margins of my eReader! Just so you know!)
But you know, you could spend a year's wages looking for advice on how to write, and you could spend fifty years reading it all. And in that time, thinking about all the rules and suggestions and tips, how much writing could you actually do? Aside from the time spent studying (and not writing), you'll be spending all your time worrying about colouring outside the lines (and not writing).
On top of that, with close to 80,000 how-to books on Amazon alone, how likely do you think it is you'll come across two completely unique books? There's a lot of overlap between the ones I've read already. And how likely do you think it'll be to come across two that are in complete opposition to one another?
Added to that, there are the countless blog posts, online articles and seminars - it gets to be a little overwhelming, and I pick up very little new information. I think I've just about hit the saturation point, and now, all I want to do is write.
I don't know about anyone else, but what I learned about writing, I usually learned by accident, and what I learned in my younger days, that's what I live and write by.
This is not a how-to blog. I don't have the experience, expertise nor inclination to write a how-to thingamajig. This is just a glimpse into some of the things I've learned, and where those lessons came from.
On Character: I totally read that wrong.
I've already written about this, so I won't waste your time. But the point here is, I was reading Stephen King's Art of Darkness, and I totally misread a line. Whatever the line actually was, it had nothing to do with personalities or a colour wheel, but somehow, that's the idea that got stuck in my head. Just as colours can compliment and contrast, so could personalities. And personalities that are too similar to one another clash like pink and red; and therefore, if as I'm writing two allied characters just don't seem to be getting along, chances are, they're just too similar for comfort. One of them needs to change.
Then my Uncle David, a painter by profession, told me "there is no such thing as colour," which, ahem, blue me away. Basically, colour is perceived not in the eye, but in the brain. Your eyes receive information about wavelengths reflected back at you; but the brain interprets those wavelengths as colours. And the way the brain interprets colours is in contrast to other colours. By itself, a shirt may be blue. Contrast that against a royal blue shirt, and the first shirt now looks blue-green. To show someone who is really an arrogant snob, I have to contrast him against a haughty snob and a braggart.
Just so, in order for your human brain to make sense of a fictional personality, you have to contrast that character against someone else; another character in the book, perhaps, or against yourself. So if you don't clearly distinguish one character from another, they all blend together, and you get a flavourless, monochromatic character-sludge.
 |
| Characters in want of braaaaaaains...ngyargh... |
To me, this was an important, but a really obscure, lesson in how to write characters well.
On Plot: "You have a wonderful voice but nothing to say."
Prof Garson, if you're reading this, thank you. From the bottom of my broken heart, thank you.
See, in my university days, I'd been super inspired to write this short story, and I was so impressed with it I ran it over to my English professor to show her. She patiently read the whole thing, even made comments in the margins, and over a morning coffee, she spoke those infamous words: "You have a wonderful voice, and nothing to say."
 |
| "A bit shrill though..." |
In nine words, Prof Garson managed to teach me everything I needed about writing, and about living in general. She didn't just call me down out of my Ivory Tower: she demolished the Tower and made me dust myself off.
I had no life experience (or at least, I didn't write any of it), and worse, it was all imagery and no point. I had no story to tell. Now, story comes first; voice comes last.
And secondly, I've realized why I don't like to read when I'm in the process of writing a book (which accounts for why I pretty much never read). When I read, I absorb some of the narrative style; I accidentally replicate it. What happens is that I get a very book-sounding book. To help me stay focused on telling a story, rather than writing a book, I tend not to read - least of all a book from the same genre or time-period. There is value in reading other people's books (Buy Canadian! Buy from all my friends!), but I'm too much of a narrative chameleon to read during writing season.
On Pacing: "Now that's how you end a chapter."
I remember the place, but not the time. My mother and I were watching TV, and it was an episode of Flash Gordon, one of the really old Saturday morning serials. At the bottom of the hour, our hero was trapped in some sporting arena with a ravening beast, doomed to die for the pleasure of Mongo and the Princess of Mars. I don't know if that was what actually happened, of course, we're talking about something I watched twenty-five years ago. Anyhow - at the bottom of the hour, we saw our hero in dire straits, and suddenly, there was a knife chord and the dreaded words...To be continued! Then my mother got up to go do something, and she said in passing, "Now that's how you end a chapter."
 |
| "What do you mean, 'stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion?'" |
I've written like that ever since. Well, I mean, I try to get rid of the Grade A drek inside each chapter, of course, but you get the point.
On Writers' Craft: I'll show you mine...
 |
| "What an intriguing proposition..." |
And if you don't know it by now, for shame! In brief: Tell = "he was so angry!"; Show = "He closed his eyes, shut his mouth and whined through his nostrils."
Occasionally, I get to critique the work of other writers. If a section of the narrative feels slow and whiny, or melodramatic, or pointlessly poetic, guaranteed, it'll be because the author chose to tell instead of show. This is Writers' Craft 101, and still, it's the downfall of many otherwise decent writers.
But really, the key to good narrative it doesn't get any simpler than that: show, don't tell. Everything else is a matter of tuning your word choice to better focus the imagery you're trying to convey, and a matter of eliminating the static caused by poor grammar.
On Research and Believability: Write what you know...or not.
I've written about this one too, but it boils down to when and how you do your research.
I attended some free seminar during my high school years. My mother and I went to the Chapters in Ajax, and we listened to a guy who taught us how to write a book in 60 days or less (might have been 30 days or less, may have been 9 days, I dunno - it was a seminar on "how to write a book in a stupidly short time", whatever it was). He gave his audience some tips on creative sprinting using word prompts. He showed us how to design a story from the skeleton out (I still use this during most marathons), and most importantly: he told us the most effective means of doing research.
In terms of research, he said that you should write the whole story first, making guesses or leaving blanks where you don't know stuff. Then he suggested that, instead of reading umpteen tomes about submarines, go to the children's section and read a book about them. With that kind of research, the accuracy and detail of your story will be just at the level you need to keep a reader satisfied. Also, the fewer the details you put in, the less likely you'll make a silly mistake. But heaven help you if you try to write a book about submarines if you don't know the difference between a propeller and a periscope.
Granted, this method doesn't work for everybody. Some like to sit down and learn Wikipedia. Some people don't research at all, but they can still make some pretty keen observations and get stuff right. I prefer this method, because to me, Wikipedia is one great big maze of fascinating diversions, and left unsupervised among its corridors, I get lost and I never write anything. Writing the story first, creating a list of questions I have to answer, and then hitting the digital library - that keeps me on track.
I believe that even the best, most well-researched author is bound to get caught with his or her scholarly pants down...unless you're James Michener, in which case the sheer volume of details will entrance your readers into a state of drowsy complacency and they never check your facts.
 |
| So many delicious facts! |
Lately, I've really started to balk at the whole notion of "writing what you know." Yes, it sure makes the writing easier, talking from your own experience, but dang - if I wrote what I knew, a) it would be boring, and b) it would still be wrong.
The beauty of writing any story - including and especially a historical, procedural or science fiction story - is that it forces you to go out and learn new stuff. If you're only writing what you already know, you won't learn anything new, all the wonder and awe is sucked out of your narrative, and you don't grow - neither as a writer, nor as a thinker in general.
On Editing: Infinite capacity for knowledge, limited capacity to apply it
When relearning French, I discovered that at first, you learn a lot. You go from "jzuh mah pell Pat" to a half-hour long conversation pretty quickly. After a certain point, it's one new word a week, or one grammar correction, some advanced verb conjugation, or one nuanced pronunciation...It's extremely slow going. And in fact, at that stage, a lot of FSL or ESL students get frustrated at this point, because the day-to-day improvements are now so small and gradual that students don't believe improvement is happening at all. Looking back over the last five years, however, my French has vastly improved to the point where I could probably conduct business without any great trauma.
The same applies, I believe, to improving one's writers' craft. After a while, you don't see a point to reading all the how-to books, and you don't feel like you're improving at all. You read all 80,000 how-to books, and you still don't feel like you've learned a danged thing. Take heart, dear writer - as long as you're applying what you already know, you'll continue to improve.
And the application of knowledge is key. Sometimes, when looking over Tobin's work, I catch him on things that make him do a face-palm. If I'm going to catch him making an error, chances are, the King of Show Don't Tell has told instead of shown.
For some people, it's usage of the passive voice (though they know better), for others, it's head-hopping, or tense shift, stilted dialogue, whatever. For me, I still get hung up on "character sludge." The problem is not the lack of education of the author; the problem is, every author has a fatal flaw, and it hides in their blind spot. You need mental side-view mirrors, and you need a spotter.
On Growth: Don't make the same mistakes again. Make new ones!
I can't remember the time or the circumstances, but I do remember I was on the phone almost in tears about some colossal FUBAR at work, and how it had been all my fault. My mother, as usual, managed to talk me back from the ledge (usually starting her crisis hotline speech with "awwww, poor you"). She asked me this and that, and I bared my soul, and then she said, "Well, just remember not to make the same mistakes twice. Make new ones!"
And I do! I never make the same FUBAR twice. And now, I've excelled to the point where I can create such wonderful, convoluted and concurrent calamities that one calamity will actually disguise the other! In terms of creating technical problems, I have mastered the secret ninja art of Sna-Fu.
In short: so long as you're learning, then what's flawed in Book 1 won't be the same flaw as in Book 2. You learn to fix one weakness, but in your dedicated efforts to fix one thing, something else breaks down.
So, regardless of everything I've learned so far, I've found that the most effective way of improving the narrative is by having a reader tell you where you've excelled and where you've messed up - not just in one or two projects, but in all new projects. And that takes a lot of tough love.
First readers, beta readers, whatever you want to call them, are the best possible allies you can have. They are your side-view mirrors. What's a blind spot to you is no obstacle to them. Cherish your beta readers. Adore them. Bribe them. Feed them and tenderly braid their long flowing locks. And for crying out loud, don't ever argue with them, or they'll run away and never talk to you again. Mike Lorenson and Tobin Elliot both have acted as first readers for me, and they never pull punches. Unfortunately, neither have flowing locks quite long enough for me to braid, but I have heard tell that they like food, so I'm okay.
All the time, I hear complaints like "I can't write this, I know I'm just going to mess it up," and "I'll never get it right, so screw it." I say, "Good grief - if you can make that many mistakes, imagine how much you're going to learn!" If your next story is just as bad, there's not a problem with your ability to write; there's a problem with your willingness to learn and to apply what you've learned.
Make the mistakes. Find out why, where and how it went wrong. Come up with a strategy to avoid that problem in the future. When you write the next story, chances are you'll have avoided 75% of the mistakes you made last time, and the other 25% you can fix in draft two.
On Writing about "On Writing"
So, you can see that most of what I've learned about writing, I learned by not learning about writing. My education has been 20% deliberate (reading how-to's, attending seminars, interviewing authors), and 80% incidental, having little to nothing to do with writing.
And worse: everything I know about writing I've pretty much summarized right here and right now. I can't write a how-to, 'cause I ain't gots 'nuff material. So I leave it to others to write the how-to's.
Like I said earlier, I'm really looking forward to seeing Tobin's book in the near future. His course was undoubtedly the most formative in my writing career (he accounts for most of the 20% deliberate education). And if I never take another writing course again, I'd be fine with that. Tobin has spoiled me from ever taking another general Creative Writing class.
I look forward to his book, not just because it has some new material; I look forward to the refresher. It's like Tobin's written down all his class notes for me, in an orderly and legible manner!
And I look forward to the refresher because nine times out of ten, if I've made a mistake, I should have known better. If I faithfully put into practice everything I already knew, I'd improve by leaps and bounds.
Now go buy "Tweet You Write" as soon as it comes out. That's the best writing advice I can give you.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
A Bloody Fantastic Time!
On Thursday, May 31st, my mother and I hopped in the car, and we headed to points west. While she was here at my apartment on a rather busy vacation, she had been reading one of the countless, uncategorized books strewn on my hall floor. Later, while I drove, she read, and while she drove, I read the same book. The best part of it was, it was a historical mystery set in medieval England: Satan in St. Mary's, by P.C. Doherty, a British author.
Historical mysteries are pretty much the only things my mother and I agree on (that, and certain songs by the Beatles). It's what I write. It's what we both love to read. After that, though, our differences split. I prefer the thrillers and shoot 'em ups, and she prefers cozies that don't have a lot of swearing. So we swap notes - she tells me about the books she's picked up and read, and I tell her about the authors I've met and/or interviewed; between the two of us, we get a great insight into the Canadian (and British, and American) crime fiction scene. I also learned this weekend that she's been picking up books from the library based on whether or not they're in my friends list on Facebook.
But the fact that we had both been reading the same book, that it was by an author I had never read before, and that it was a historical crime fiction - it all seemed very appropriate, because we were headed to Toronto for the twelfth Bloody Words convention.
Members of the Crime Writers of Canada frequent this mass get-together, though we're not the only participants. This year, we had published authors who were or were not members, we had members of Sisters in Crime present, we had unpublished authors, we had publishers, agents, librarians, readers - you name it, we had attendees from all over the map attending, literally and figuratively speaking. And if I were to write the names of everyone I met for the first time - or for the many-eth time - I would more or less be writing out the attendee list, which is already posted on the Bloody Words website.
But among the narrow highlights, I met up with folks like Jill Edmondson, who autographed a copy of her latest, The Lies Have It, by spelling out my name with at least four 'w's, and who insisted on introducing me to a legion of attendees as "Patricia Flewwuh-blubble-blah" or some such. Even under the weather, Jill could pull together a gang of complete strangers and make an incredible social event out of lunch.
Howard Shrier, at least, could remember me and pronounce my name and come up to me after one of the panels to tell me that my mother didn't like his work. It's okay, Howard - I love your work, and I'm usually the one who buys all the books in the family.
My mother did, however, really enjoy seeing Mary Jane Maffini again, and she could be seen sitting up very tall in her seat at last night's gala event when MJ was shortlisted for the first ever "Bony Blithe" award, which is an award specific to Bloody Words (and not CWC), to be awarded to the best humourous mystery novel. She cold also be seen slumping in her chair and snapping her fingers in a most "Drat it all!" fashion when MJ didn't win. Regardless, congratulations to Gloria Ferris for taking the award, for her story Cheat the Hangman!
And I made a lot of new contacts - some of whom I'm still trying to find on Twitter and Facebook, only because I haven't had the good sense to dig up the stack of business cards from my purse yet. But, I met up with folks like Robin Spano (whose husband looks like Alec Baldwin, when his glasses slip down his nose), and Sean Chercover, who has an incredible resume (including a 4+ year stint as a private investigator in Chicago and New Orleans), and is a writer on top of all that. Jacqui Morrison and I also hung out together a few times (she'd asked me to heckle her on one of the panels she was on). And I drove Nancy Kilpatrick home. Nancy and I had a wonderful six hour conversation about politics, writing, editing, and more politics. Nancy, thanks again for breakfast, the chat, and those wondeful Timbits!
I was finally able to meet all the members of the CWC exec council, including Vicki Delany, Kevin Thornton, Jake Doherty, Lou Allin, past president Garry Ryan, and current CWC president, Robin Harlick. And what fun to walk into Second Cup on the very first morning and eavesdrop on a conversation, then to introduce myself to two women whose voices I knew so well by Skype, and yet had never met before: Melodie Campbell and Alison Bruce, both absolutely integral members of the CWC staff. It was a real treat to horn in on their conversation and introduce myself. There were squees and hugs all around.
I also met folks like Rob Brunet, Shane Sawyer, Cheryl Freedman, Rick Blechta (our fearless MC this year), Michael Blair, John Moss, Donna Carrick - and my GOSH, one metric gazillion people whose names I haven't found or remembered yet.
And apparently my fame preceded me. Or rather, my fame preceded my mother: she told me after an "author speed dating" panel, where readers went from table to table listening to "why you should buy my book" pitches by the authors themselves, my mother received frequent comments like "Oh - you're Pat's mom!" So even though I'm not published yet, others at CWC already know who I am.
So, if you wonder if it's a good thing to join an organization and/or attend events like Bloody Words - take a look at the list of links on my blog along and consider that if you network at an event like this, you've reached out to a reader, a blogger and a social networker, who in turn can talk about your writing, and help you sell another book.
And, it's educational. We sat in on panels about the future of publishing, how to make the best of an eBook publication, which companies are best at epublishing, how to improve the quality of your research, how to find the right contacts, where to draw the line between too much accurate historical detail and not enough...I was telling a few people this weekend (it really was a merry-go-round of conversations - I don't know what I said to whom or how often): yes, I'm not published. But wow, when I get to that point, I'm going to be the most disillusioned and best prepared rookie in the game.
And on top of all that, what fun. Sure, I only got a grand total of 12 hours sleep spread out over four days and nights, yes there was some cost and travel involved, but I wouldn't change it for the world.
Now, remember again that my mother and I started out on our trip to Bloody Words sharing a historical mystery. I write about a private detective in 1944, about a butcher in 1538, and I'm currently working on a major project that spans from 1978 to present day.
Bloody Words XIII, which will be in Toronto in 2014, has an overarching theme: Danse Macabre - and it's all about historical crime.
Can you guess how enthused I am about the next Bloody Words?
Can you guess how enthused I would be to go to Bouchercon, in 2013? P.C. Doherty, author of Satan in St. Mary's (and almost 100 other titles), is going to be the International Guest of Honour.
----
A very special thank-you goes out to Caro Soles and the rest of the Bloody Gang for a fantastic weekend. There is an extraordinary amount of work that goes into the planning of any convention, and they pulled it off beautifully.
Historical mysteries are pretty much the only things my mother and I agree on (that, and certain songs by the Beatles). It's what I write. It's what we both love to read. After that, though, our differences split. I prefer the thrillers and shoot 'em ups, and she prefers cozies that don't have a lot of swearing. So we swap notes - she tells me about the books she's picked up and read, and I tell her about the authors I've met and/or interviewed; between the two of us, we get a great insight into the Canadian (and British, and American) crime fiction scene. I also learned this weekend that she's been picking up books from the library based on whether or not they're in my friends list on Facebook.
But the fact that we had both been reading the same book, that it was by an author I had never read before, and that it was a historical crime fiction - it all seemed very appropriate, because we were headed to Toronto for the twelfth Bloody Words convention.
Members of the Crime Writers of Canada frequent this mass get-together, though we're not the only participants. This year, we had published authors who were or were not members, we had members of Sisters in Crime present, we had unpublished authors, we had publishers, agents, librarians, readers - you name it, we had attendees from all over the map attending, literally and figuratively speaking. And if I were to write the names of everyone I met for the first time - or for the many-eth time - I would more or less be writing out the attendee list, which is already posted on the Bloody Words website.
But among the narrow highlights, I met up with folks like Jill Edmondson, who autographed a copy of her latest, The Lies Have It, by spelling out my name with at least four 'w's, and who insisted on introducing me to a legion of attendees as "Patricia Flewwuh-blubble-blah" or some such. Even under the weather, Jill could pull together a gang of complete strangers and make an incredible social event out of lunch.
Howard Shrier, at least, could remember me and pronounce my name and come up to me after one of the panels to tell me that my mother didn't like his work. It's okay, Howard - I love your work, and I'm usually the one who buys all the books in the family.
My mother did, however, really enjoy seeing Mary Jane Maffini again, and she could be seen sitting up very tall in her seat at last night's gala event when MJ was shortlisted for the first ever "Bony Blithe" award, which is an award specific to Bloody Words (and not CWC), to be awarded to the best humourous mystery novel. She cold also be seen slumping in her chair and snapping her fingers in a most "Drat it all!" fashion when MJ didn't win. Regardless, congratulations to Gloria Ferris for taking the award, for her story Cheat the Hangman!
And I made a lot of new contacts - some of whom I'm still trying to find on Twitter and Facebook, only because I haven't had the good sense to dig up the stack of business cards from my purse yet. But, I met up with folks like Robin Spano (whose husband looks like Alec Baldwin, when his glasses slip down his nose), and Sean Chercover, who has an incredible resume (including a 4+ year stint as a private investigator in Chicago and New Orleans), and is a writer on top of all that. Jacqui Morrison and I also hung out together a few times (she'd asked me to heckle her on one of the panels she was on). And I drove Nancy Kilpatrick home. Nancy and I had a wonderful six hour conversation about politics, writing, editing, and more politics. Nancy, thanks again for breakfast, the chat, and those wondeful Timbits!
I was finally able to meet all the members of the CWC exec council, including Vicki Delany, Kevin Thornton, Jake Doherty, Lou Allin, past president Garry Ryan, and current CWC president, Robin Harlick. And what fun to walk into Second Cup on the very first morning and eavesdrop on a conversation, then to introduce myself to two women whose voices I knew so well by Skype, and yet had never met before: Melodie Campbell and Alison Bruce, both absolutely integral members of the CWC staff. It was a real treat to horn in on their conversation and introduce myself. There were squees and hugs all around.
I also met folks like Rob Brunet, Shane Sawyer, Cheryl Freedman, Rick Blechta (our fearless MC this year), Michael Blair, John Moss, Donna Carrick - and my GOSH, one metric gazillion people whose names I haven't found or remembered yet.
And apparently my fame preceded me. Or rather, my fame preceded my mother: she told me after an "author speed dating" panel, where readers went from table to table listening to "why you should buy my book" pitches by the authors themselves, my mother received frequent comments like "Oh - you're Pat's mom!" So even though I'm not published yet, others at CWC already know who I am.
So, if you wonder if it's a good thing to join an organization and/or attend events like Bloody Words - take a look at the list of links on my blog along and consider that if you network at an event like this, you've reached out to a reader, a blogger and a social networker, who in turn can talk about your writing, and help you sell another book.
And, it's educational. We sat in on panels about the future of publishing, how to make the best of an eBook publication, which companies are best at epublishing, how to improve the quality of your research, how to find the right contacts, where to draw the line between too much accurate historical detail and not enough...I was telling a few people this weekend (it really was a merry-go-round of conversations - I don't know what I said to whom or how often): yes, I'm not published. But wow, when I get to that point, I'm going to be the most disillusioned and best prepared rookie in the game.
And on top of all that, what fun. Sure, I only got a grand total of 12 hours sleep spread out over four days and nights, yes there was some cost and travel involved, but I wouldn't change it for the world.
Now, remember again that my mother and I started out on our trip to Bloody Words sharing a historical mystery. I write about a private detective in 1944, about a butcher in 1538, and I'm currently working on a major project that spans from 1978 to present day.
Bloody Words XIII, which will be in Toronto in 2014, has an overarching theme: Danse Macabre - and it's all about historical crime.
Can you guess how enthused I am about the next Bloody Words?
Can you guess how enthused I would be to go to Bouchercon, in 2013? P.C. Doherty, author of Satan in St. Mary's (and almost 100 other titles), is going to be the International Guest of Honour.
----
A very special thank-you goes out to Caro Soles and the rest of the Bloody Gang for a fantastic weekend. There is an extraordinary amount of work that goes into the planning of any convention, and they pulled it off beautifully.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Helicopters and Peep Shows
So, I was getting ready for bed on Monday night, and as soon as I was unmentionably underclothed, outside my second storey apartment window there let up a monstrous roaring cheer. And let me tell you, my clothes flew on all by themselves, from hat to spats.
And then I realized, no, my curtains are closed. Not only that, but if it wasn't for the fire escape, there's nothing between that window and an impossibly narrow alley strew with torn bits of apartment building stuff.
I laughed it off, but the cheering wouldn't stop. As a matter of fact, it got louder. They were chanting.
Then came the helicopters, and suddenly it wasn't funny anymore. I held my breath and waited for the bullets.
For the last 101 days, there have been protests downtown Montreal. I'm in a central but very residential area. The most impressive building we have on my street is the retirement home kitty corner from here. And yet, these protests had migrated this far afield.
At nearly midnight, when you're least expecting to hear one, a mob is a very frightening thing indeed. I stayed dressed for a while, because I was terrified - justly or not - that someone was going to lob a Molotov cocktail through one of the ground floor windows.
Don't laugh - earlier this week, someone set fire to the building's garbage pail. It shouldn't be such a comic stretch to believe a committed pyro or prankster wouldn't hide in a "peaceful" protest when tempers are already running high, and identities are obscured by masks and nightfall.
I barely slept that night. It took a long time to fall asleep, even after the protesters had moved on. I had my first nightmare at 2:00 in the morning, and my second at 5:00 - each of them worthy of blog posts of their own. Somewhere between those two nightmares, I woke up with a bad case of sleep paralysis, a flashing light in my eyes (thunderstorm in progress), and a hallucination that some scary, pixelated face was staring down at me. I was in a total fog the day after.
Warning!
I'm no expert. I can't even claim to make sense of what's going on. But I ran out of time when I was trying to explain it to Tobin, so I thought maybe I should just write it down. And then I thought, maybe instead of being afraid of what's going on, I should really make a point of understanding it.
Feel free to add your commentary below, but remember: I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around all that's going on - and I'm trying not to pick a side, because I know I don't have all the information. If I missed a point, it's only because I haven't read every article and website, and I haven't interviewed anyone involved in the goings-on downtown. I'll try citing as many opposing views as possible - including from those sources I don't even like - but I'm bound to miss something. It's not on purpose, I swear.
So, let's start at the beginning.
(For a really good run down of the timeline of events, check out this CBC webpage.)
Once upon a time (March 2011), somebody in the Quebec provincial government decided that tuition fees needed to go up for all university and CÉGEP students across Quebec. Up to that point, there'd been pretty much a tuition freeze. I've read different articles that site different increases, but - my understanding is university tuition was going to raise by about $325 a year over a period of five years starting the 2012 fall term), and tuition would increase from $2,168 to $3,793.
Now, as somebody coming from Ontario, I don't understand this, so bear with me: I went to a public high school, and from there, I went to university. I didn't have to pay for my education until I got to university.
Here, there's primary school, high school, CEGEP, and then post-secondary. The first two are compulsory; the other two ain't. But what I understand of CEGEP, it's like High School Plus or College Light. Back in my day, we had OACs (Ontario Academic Credits) which you took as a preparation for post-secondary education, and we didn't have to pay for them. So now I think that CEGEP is voluntary, but it's not free. Therefore, tuition raise = uncomfortable and/or not feasible for a lot of people.
Also, again because I'm coming in from Ontario, I chose my career path and school based on the cost, as well as the quality of the courses. One school didn't cost the same as the other; and each program cost different from the other. One year in an undergrad program for law at UoT will cost considerably more than a year in an engineering undergrad program at UofT, which costs more than a year in the bachelor of arts and sciences program at UoT. And a BSc program from U of T is considerably more expensive than U of Wo, even though it's pretty much the same thing.
So, unless I'm missing something: in Quebec, tuition is tuition, across the board, regardless of the program, regardless of the school. That's why newspapers are able to quote specific numbers, instead of a range. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong. But if prices are fixed and low across Quebec, I'm going to go back to 1996 and kick myself for not having gone to Bishops University when I had the chance.
Okay, so bottom line: tuition is rising. Rising tuition costs = more debt. Those in lower income families will be saddled with greater debt.
In 1996, I was paying upwards of $3200 per year for a BSc in Psychology, and I was staying on residence. That was sixteen years ago. I came from the lower income family in question. I worked my way through the last two and a half years of my program, and over the next ten years, I managed to pay off my entire student debt. One year in the same program at the same school now costs $5613. (For the record, my daytime cell phone rate at the time was $1.95/minute.)
The self-made graduate in me is full of "suck it up, princess." I'm sorry, I can't help it, that's just the way I am.
And then the business person / tax payer / wage earner in me thinks: Why are we raising tuition fees in the first place? Is it maybe because teachers are underpaid or because faculty is understaffed? Is it because computers need to be replaced? Material and fuel costs on the rise? Is it because voters have been asking for tax cuts, and as a result there's not as much subsidization happening?
I lay this out, not because it's wrong or right to protest the tuition rates. I say this because I'm from Ontario, because I'm a university grad, because I came from a low income family and graduated and paid off my debts in full within 10 years of graduation, and because this is what goes through my head each and every time I see the student protests. Based on this alone, the students have not gained my sympathy.
Before anyone bites me, I recommend reading on, first.
One thing I will say about the protests that have been really in the public eye since the beginning of the year: this is not just between the students and the cops.
This is the cast of characters, as best as I understand them. Remember, I'm not a journalist. I'm still researching this myself.
a) student unions - moderate student leaders who advocate a peaceful demonstration
b) Coalition large de l’association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (C.L.A.S.S.E. ); "radical" is a bit strong of a word for it, but they have been a lot more vocal about the need for a full, united demonstration - whether other students want it or not. It's important to note that their symbol is a red square, which evokes terms like "the red bloc", and in my own head, another "red" square.
1) Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is currently the leader of this coalition. And he seems to be having some financial and leadership problems close to home.
c) the Black Bloc style anarchists
B) those who just want to get through the school year
Unions and other groups
A) labour unions - including teachers associations - are providing visible and financial support, especially since May 18 (more on this in a moment)
B) And Others: including Arcade Fire, Michael Moore, Strike Everywhere, and Occupy Wall Street.
B) Education Minister Michelle Courchesne - who has openly invited student unions, including CLASSE, back to the negotiation table. I don't know what she's doing tonight, but I suspect it might have something to do with a bubble bath and a strong beer. I wouldn't blame her.
C) Provincial Premier Jean Charest (leader of the Quebec Liberal Party). He lives in Westmount. Monday night, the protesters had marched toward his house, but had been blocked by the police. They weren't cheering for my striptease. They were calling on the Premier. More on him in a moment.
B) pro student (strongest claims of police brutality, strong focus on how students are or will be affected by the tuition hikes)
C) anti Bill 78 - somewhere in the middle, depending on the bent of the newspaper as a whole.
D) blogs, youtube, Facebook, local media outlets (i.e. the Montreal Gazette), national media outlets (like the CBC), and media outlets outside of Quebec from both sides of the argument (i.e. the Toronto Star vs. the Toronto Sun).
E) Some ghostly form that seems bent on preventing one video from staying online - something to do with Montreal police officers allegedly breaking storefront windows during and/or near one of the protests. Is it some archgovernment that's preventing this from staying online? I dunno. What's in the video? I dunno - every time I see someone's posted the video, by the time I get there, it's gone again. It's very 1984.
- Context is everything, no matter which side your on, or what's your media source. Video one. Video Two. I wasn't there, so I don't know who threw the first punch or who said what, so I'm not commenting one way or the other. In fact, if I was there in person, I would have been so confused and angry and frightened that I wouldn't have known who did what; I would have just been angry at everyone and everything.
Montrealers and Quebeckers at Large
A) those in favour of the students
B) those opposed to Bill 78 (more on that in a moment)
C) those affected by the student protests, either through inconvenience (also here), property damage, lost income, or worse, regardless of which side they're taking - or if they're taking a side at all.
The Protests, the Demonstrations, and the Damage
Today marks Day 101 of the protests and student strikes. Most of the protests have been done at night, but there are a few that stand out in my mind:
Blocking a bridge. Twice. Vandalism. A lot of vandalism. Blockading schools. Whether other students approve or not. Leading Jean Charest to suspend the rest of the semester. But those are the ugly spots. remember, there have been 101 days of this so far; not every day has been bad. Some days are bad, and some days are rainy.
The Situation, as far as I can see it.
Montreal is where we riot when the Habs win, and where we riot when the Habs lose.
But, the "we" must here be defined: I don't know who is actually doing the riots. I actually heard a story about some people from "out of town" who wore knock-off jerseys immediately before looting shops downtown after a game.
So are Habs fans the problem? Are semi-professional hooligans the problem? I dunno. I'm not an investigator, and I wasn't there. Is it possible that looters are infiltrating peaceful demonstrations? Absolutely.
The same question is applicable here: obviously, there are some people - not all, but some - who are causing property damage (fires, blockades, vandalism). Are these incorrigibles students? Dropouts? Ruffians? Undercover cops? I don't know. Is it possible that peaceful assemblies are being infiltrated by idiots and fearmongers? Absolutely.
Here's what we do know: vandalism has occurred. Pepper has been sprayed. Rocks have been thrown. People have been arrested. Bill 78 was penned and stamped into effect.
Here's what else we know: people (like me) are avoiding downtown, tempers are flaring, and there are some known and unknown individuals who are fanning the flames.
Bottom line: the protests have now become the focus of attention, not the underlying reason for those protests. So, for now, let's get back to the actual issue at hand.
The Stakes, a.k.a. The Money Question
Now, I could just be spitballing here, but this is what I'm seeing, from a strictly financial perspective. After all, the initial problem was around finances, and then it (d)evolved into an argument over the nature of freedom of assembly.
1) Tourism has decreased, people avoiding going downtown: lost income. Lost income = lower taxes paid. Lower taxes paid = less subsidization against tuition. Oh, that can't be good.
2) Semester has been suspended unexpectedly early, only to resume again in August, immediately before the fall session. That means students are thrust out into the workforce earlier than planned (summer jobs aren't available yet), and it means that they're going to fall out of the workforce earlier than planned. In other words, they're not going to be able to work as long as they would have otherwise. Shorter summer employment = less student income = greater student debt. Well, nuts.
3) No tuition increase = staff and faculty wages frozen, though the cost of living will increase. Staff cutbacks and wage freezes = high quality professors will seek out other centres of education - outside of Quebec, maybe outside of Canada - in order to find a more competitive employer, 'cause people like being paaaaaaid. That means Quebec students are stuck with the bargain basement professors. And that sounds dull.
4) No tuition increase, part two = lower budgets for building maintenance, hardware and software upgrades, limited hours of operation in libraries and other student resource centres, and cutbacks to extra-curricular programs. Well, okay...if you want it that way.
5) Tuition increases have a negative impact on lower income families. Yes! I totally and one hundred percent agree with this. I put myself through university, thank you very much; and I paid off my massive student debt all by my lonesome too. You know why? Because a degree helps you to get a better paying job; it's helps to continually advance my career too! Much of the reason why I was able to pay off my student loan is because, over time, my income increased. Not only is it because I was able to find a job in a competitive market, one that tries to keep up with or ahead of the increase in cost of living, but, I was also able to advance from one post to a higher position no less than nine times in the last ten years. Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!
6) Post-secondary education should be free. You know what? High school's free. Not many people want to be there. In fact, they'll go out of their way to tell you how much they don't want to be there. And you know what? University isn't free, and people don't want to go there either. Once upon a time, I got up in the middle of a lecture, walked in front of the professor, up the middle aisle, leaned across four women, poked my finger at a guy's nose and told him, "You have two choices. Shut up, or get out of my class." He paid just as much as I did - paid, mind you - and still, he made no use of his time there. Therefore, I have to argue: if post-secondary education was free, would it be put to good use by all who took it?
7) Post-secondary education should be free, part 2. There is no such thing. People, professors included, like getting paid. It helps with things like housing, and laundry money. So the money comes from somewhere. Students, ask your future, employed selves: how much do you think your taxes will increase, if you're helping to pay for the post-secondary education of every student in your city, as well as for all the sanitation and road infrastructure repairs, health-care, legal institutions, etc. etc.? Hate to say it, but communism didn't work, and we're too North American to be Sweden (where their general tax rate is about 51.1% - so basically, for every $100 you make, $51 goes to the government. The other $49 has to cover your rent, electricity, food, insurance, clothing, entertainment, iPhone and bicycle - I'll bet that's no fun if you're a parent).
I'm going to leave the money stuff there for now, because I'm getting sarcastic.
Okay, so: on one side, you've got students who do not want tuition hikes. On the other hand, you've got the Quebec government, who do want tuition hikes. Let's skip all the details of both sides of that argument, because we all know, there are points for and against on each side, and it's complicated.
Now, on one hand, you have people actively protesting the tuition hikes, and I say, okay, that's your right. And I say "people", because we can't assume that they're all students (there are grads and others who support the students too), and on the flip side, we can't assume that all students are in unanimous agreement with what these "people" are doing.
On the other hand, you've got the QC government who is at the table, making offers to spread out the tuition hikes over seven years instead of five, who are making offers of increased bursaries and changes to loan processes, but who are adamant about removing the tuition increases altogether. And who write silly things like Law 78.
I don't know what's happening behind closed doors, but I do know that student leaders are back to the table with the current education minister. This is good! I don't know if there are any discussions about why tuition hikes are proposed to be so high, I don't know what arguments have been made for or against. I don't know if there's miscommunication going on, or just plain old-fashioned stubbornness on both sides of the table.
Either way, I don't know where we're at with the tuition thing. Like I said, the focus has shifted in the public eye from the tuition increases to the protests themselves - and now...to Bill or Law 78.
Law 78 is an emergency law enacted by the provincial government, once it was accepted by a majority vote. It does not prevent the assembly of 50 or more people. Read the provisions here: (Wikipedia, I love you.) In short: it specifies where these assemblies of 50 or more are unwanted (near CEGEPs and Universities); it outlines which schools are suspended and for how long; it issues a back to work order for education employees; and it outlaws any assembly of 50 or more, unless the police have been notified of and approve of the locations and routes of those assemblies.
This was put into effect ostensibly to curb the behaviours of a handful of ruffians, to protect property and civilian safety, and to prevent things like...more bridge closures or rolling highway blockades during rush hour traffic, which only makes Montrealers into worse drivers than they already are - trust me, that is no small feat.
Insert tired, sarcastic laugh here.
Good. Now for the fun stuff.
1) This law was put in place in order to create a safe zone for students who want to return to school, guaranteeing their right to enter and attend without threat of harassment. Great...Except...Well, that doesn't really make any sense, if you're going to go ahead and suspend classes anyhow. So I'm still scratching my head about that one.
2) Law 78 outlaws any assembly of 50 or more - no matter who is assembling or why - unless the locations and routes have been approved of by the police.
Wow, do we have problems here.
2a) That kinda goes against a certain piece of paper we like to call The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, this provincial emergency law goes against oh...I dunno, "(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," and uh... "(c) freedom of peaceful assembly" and um... "(d) freedom of association." The key word here is: "freedom of peaceful assembly". So we are not guaranteed the "freedom of violent assembly" or the "freedom of chuck-a-Molotov assembly". There are already laws in place protecting the rest of us from violence and mobbery. It's called the Criminal Code of Canada.
2b) This also goes against what little I know about government in Canada, namely, that federal law (like the Charter, or like the Criminal Code of Canada) overrules pretty much anything else at the provincial or municipal level. So...why is a provincial governor attempting to supplement and/or overrule federal law?
2c) Moreover, since when does municipal police get the right to approve or disapprove of an assembly? Think about that for a second: you have to submit your itinerary in advance. If the police approve, the assembly goes ahead, great. Traffic news is alerted, and we can all curse and swear and find alternate routes. Swell. But, if the police don't approve...they've just revoked your legal right to freedom of assembly. The police...can now revoke your legal right to freedom of assembly.
2d) And, this is no longer a law about "student protests." The vagueness of that provision doesn't specify the nature of the assembly, or the composition of the group of 50. That means the police are now enabled to walk up to a peaceful and legal strike, count the number of heads and declare a picket illegal.
The Charest government has now expanded the fight. This is no longer about Longhairs versus The Man. This is The Man against Those Folks Who Voted Him In. This is The Man against The Unions. In terms of political blunders, this falls somewhere between Waterloo and Pearl Harbour. He has awoken the giant.
Did I mention the sympathetic demonstrations in places like...New York, Paris, Toronto...
3) We riot when the Habs win. We riot when the Habs lose. Strikers and their supporters have been livid about how the police have been hemming them in, arresting them, pepper spraying them, etc. - and that was before Bill 78 was put into place. Montrealers - and Quebecers at large - are, if anything, a vocal bunch of people. We like being vocal. It's our guaranteed right in a free and democratic society, and dang it, we're gonna benefit from it. And we do it so well we don't even restrict ourselves to one language.
So who in his right mind thought that a bill like this, which was designed to curb, restrict and/or outlaw loud people, was actually going to make them more quiet?
This is a law designed to invite civil disobedience. It's like frickin' legal reverse psychology!
4) How is this supposed to be enforced? Let's say you get 10,000 people all marching relatively in one peaceful direction. What's to prevent 200-ish pods of 50 people from spinning off in multiple directions? How are police supposed to disperse 200 "illegal" assemblies?
Now what if we're dealing with 200,000 protesters?
5) Wow, what bad timing. Now the Bloc Quebecois (those primarily in favour of the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada) are saying that they've been siding with the students all along, and that they're opposed to Charest, his government and to Bill 78. Did I mention we're coming up on an election soon?
1) The students did not have my support for three main reasons: a) I'm not convinced that the tuition increases are unwarranted, nor that they're draconian, though I do sympathize and agree that they suck. b) Sticking me in traffic for four hours on a bridge when I'm already late for work - this does not make me very open-minded and sympathetic to your plight. Lucky for all of us, I work from home. c) I'm not convinced students are going to accept any deal short of "no tuition hikes", nor that they're serious about negotiating with the intent to stop the protests.
2) I am against Law 78, 'cause it's just all sorts of wrong. It's un-Quebecly, it's un-Canadian, it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain old unhelpful. As a matter of fact, the only thing this law has been good at is encouraging people to break it.
3) There are miscreants among those who have the right - and need - to protest. There's no sure-fire way of pulling the miscreants out without someone getting elbowed in the face - unless those in favour of peaceful demonstrations simply point at the miscreant, shout "cooties!" and make way for the police to arrest the actual bad guys.
4) The rest of us aren't helping (We are the Media). It's really, really hard to get a full picture. Pick up one paper, and the police are the victims; pick up the other, and the police are beating the snot out of some granny. Both are equally convincing. Which means the media is being divisive. I want the full story, because I want to make an informed opinion of the tuition hikes themselves - and I cannot do that right now. There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said before; the best I can hope to do is try to pull all the threads together into a coherent, well-balanced presentation, and I don't think I'm succeeding even there.
5) The government is not helping. I think I've already made my point.
6) What harm is there in the government itemizing the tuition hikes and/or negotiating a lower overall tuition hike? Really, what is gained, what is lost, if both sides bend and lower the total tuition increase?
7) What harm is there in the QC leadership in saying "You know what? You spoke, we listened, we are acting democratically, and we are revoking Law 78?" I think there's more honour in saying "Oops, here, we're fixing it" than there is in saying "We're not backing down from this, even if it means alienating our voters". I think in the next election, if there's going to be a dramatic swing in favour of "Not Liberal", it's going to be because of Bill 78.
8) While I am against Law 78, and while I feel for students who may or may not be affected by the tuition hikes, I will not wear a red square or wave a red flag. Yes, democracy (as it is right now in Canada) is badly flawed; yes, capitalism really has its bad points; but I don't support communism simply because of all the other connotations that goes along with it. People, do your research: if you don't like Bill 78, if you don't like partisan politics, you won't like what that red square stands for.
9) I just really want this to go away. Students sitting down with the Education Minister, both parties talking and listening, the provincial government acting on mutually agreed-to proposals, tearing up Bill 78, and going out for another long weekend out on the terrasse, without any fear of flying chairs, beer bottles, rocks, batons, pepper spray or Molotov cocktails.
So, Tobin - because really, I wrote this for you - I hope this helps to give you a better idea of what's happening out here.
Because it's been working wonders for me.
And then I realized, no, my curtains are closed. Not only that, but if it wasn't for the fire escape, there's nothing between that window and an impossibly narrow alley strew with torn bits of apartment building stuff.
I laughed it off, but the cheering wouldn't stop. As a matter of fact, it got louder. They were chanting.
Then came the helicopters, and suddenly it wasn't funny anymore. I held my breath and waited for the bullets.
For the last 101 days, there have been protests downtown Montreal. I'm in a central but very residential area. The most impressive building we have on my street is the retirement home kitty corner from here. And yet, these protests had migrated this far afield.
At nearly midnight, when you're least expecting to hear one, a mob is a very frightening thing indeed. I stayed dressed for a while, because I was terrified - justly or not - that someone was going to lob a Molotov cocktail through one of the ground floor windows.
Don't laugh - earlier this week, someone set fire to the building's garbage pail. It shouldn't be such a comic stretch to believe a committed pyro or prankster wouldn't hide in a "peaceful" protest when tempers are already running high, and identities are obscured by masks and nightfall.
I barely slept that night. It took a long time to fall asleep, even after the protesters had moved on. I had my first nightmare at 2:00 in the morning, and my second at 5:00 - each of them worthy of blog posts of their own. Somewhere between those two nightmares, I woke up with a bad case of sleep paralysis, a flashing light in my eyes (thunderstorm in progress), and a hallucination that some scary, pixelated face was staring down at me. I was in a total fog the day after.
Warning!
I'm no expert. I can't even claim to make sense of what's going on. But I ran out of time when I was trying to explain it to Tobin, so I thought maybe I should just write it down. And then I thought, maybe instead of being afraid of what's going on, I should really make a point of understanding it.
Feel free to add your commentary below, but remember: I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around all that's going on - and I'm trying not to pick a side, because I know I don't have all the information. If I missed a point, it's only because I haven't read every article and website, and I haven't interviewed anyone involved in the goings-on downtown. I'll try citing as many opposing views as possible - including from those sources I don't even like - but I'm bound to miss something. It's not on purpose, I swear.
So, let's start at the beginning.
The Cause
(For a really good run down of the timeline of events, check out this CBC webpage.)
Once upon a time (March 2011), somebody in the Quebec provincial government decided that tuition fees needed to go up for all university and CÉGEP students across Quebec. Up to that point, there'd been pretty much a tuition freeze. I've read different articles that site different increases, but - my understanding is university tuition was going to raise by about $325 a year over a period of five years starting the 2012 fall term), and tuition would increase from $2,168 to $3,793.
Now, as somebody coming from Ontario, I don't understand this, so bear with me: I went to a public high school, and from there, I went to university. I didn't have to pay for my education until I got to university.
Here, there's primary school, high school, CEGEP, and then post-secondary. The first two are compulsory; the other two ain't. But what I understand of CEGEP, it's like High School Plus or College Light. Back in my day, we had OACs (Ontario Academic Credits) which you took as a preparation for post-secondary education, and we didn't have to pay for them. So now I think that CEGEP is voluntary, but it's not free. Therefore, tuition raise = uncomfortable and/or not feasible for a lot of people.
Also, again because I'm coming in from Ontario, I chose my career path and school based on the cost, as well as the quality of the courses. One school didn't cost the same as the other; and each program cost different from the other. One year in an undergrad program for law at UoT will cost considerably more than a year in an engineering undergrad program at UofT, which costs more than a year in the bachelor of arts and sciences program at UoT. And a BSc program from U of T is considerably more expensive than U of Wo, even though it's pretty much the same thing.
So, unless I'm missing something: in Quebec, tuition is tuition, across the board, regardless of the program, regardless of the school. That's why newspapers are able to quote specific numbers, instead of a range. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong. But if prices are fixed and low across Quebec, I'm going to go back to 1996 and kick myself for not having gone to Bishops University when I had the chance.
Okay, so bottom line: tuition is rising. Rising tuition costs = more debt. Those in lower income families will be saddled with greater debt.
The Tough Love
In 1996, I was paying upwards of $3200 per year for a BSc in Psychology, and I was staying on residence. That was sixteen years ago. I came from the lower income family in question. I worked my way through the last two and a half years of my program, and over the next ten years, I managed to pay off my entire student debt. One year in the same program at the same school now costs $5613. (For the record, my daytime cell phone rate at the time was $1.95/minute.)
The self-made graduate in me is full of "suck it up, princess." I'm sorry, I can't help it, that's just the way I am.
And then the business person / tax payer / wage earner in me thinks: Why are we raising tuition fees in the first place? Is it maybe because teachers are underpaid or because faculty is understaffed? Is it because computers need to be replaced? Material and fuel costs on the rise? Is it because voters have been asking for tax cuts, and as a result there's not as much subsidization happening?
I lay this out, not because it's wrong or right to protest the tuition rates. I say this because I'm from Ontario, because I'm a university grad, because I came from a low income family and graduated and paid off my debts in full within 10 years of graduation, and because this is what goes through my head each and every time I see the student protests. Based on this alone, the students have not gained my sympathy.
Before anyone bites me, I recommend reading on, first.
The Players
One thing I will say about the protests that have been really in the public eye since the beginning of the year: this is not just between the students and the cops.
This is the cast of characters, as best as I understand them. Remember, I'm not a journalist. I'm still researching this myself.
The students
A) those in favour of the strike, including: a) student unions - moderate student leaders who advocate a peaceful demonstration
b) Coalition large de l’association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (C.L.A.S.S.E. ); "radical" is a bit strong of a word for it, but they have been a lot more vocal about the need for a full, united demonstration - whether other students want it or not. It's important to note that their symbol is a red square, which evokes terms like "the red bloc", and in my own head, another "red" square.
1) Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois is currently the leader of this coalition. And he seems to be having some financial and leadership problems close to home.
c) the Black Bloc style anarchists
B) those who just want to get through the school year
Unions and other groups
A) labour unions - including teachers associations - are providing visible and financial support, especially since May 18 (more on this in a moment)
B) And Others: including Arcade Fire, Michael Moore, Strike Everywhere, and Occupy Wall Street.
Police
A) both municipal and provincial police have been called in. Some claim that police are being assaulted; some claim police brutality; some claim that the police are doing their best to stop property damage; some claim that the police are causing the property damage. There are some officers who are overreacting. That doesn't necessarily mean the police are out of control. I can't emphasize enough the importance of seeing the whole clip, including the preceding minutes, including multiple angles wherever possible, including both video and sound, unedited and unbroken.
Government
A) Former Education Minister Line Beauchamp - who resigned her post in early May after talks fell apart. Well, if that doesn't say pessimism, I don't know what does.B) Education Minister Michelle Courchesne - who has openly invited student unions, including CLASSE, back to the negotiation table. I don't know what she's doing tonight, but I suspect it might have something to do with a bubble bath and a strong beer. I wouldn't blame her.
C) Provincial Premier Jean Charest (leader of the Quebec Liberal Party). He lives in Westmount. Monday night, the protesters had marched toward his house, but had been blocked by the police. They weren't cheering for my striptease. They were calling on the Premier. More on him in a moment.
Media
A) pro law and order (strong focus on municipal impact, lost income, inconvenience, property damage; use of words like "radical group"; photos of how police are being assaulted by students)B) pro student (strongest claims of police brutality, strong focus on how students are or will be affected by the tuition hikes)
C) anti Bill 78 - somewhere in the middle, depending on the bent of the newspaper as a whole.
D) blogs, youtube, Facebook, local media outlets (i.e. the Montreal Gazette), national media outlets (like the CBC), and media outlets outside of Quebec from both sides of the argument (i.e. the Toronto Star vs. the Toronto Sun).
E) Some ghostly form that seems bent on preventing one video from staying online - something to do with Montreal police officers allegedly breaking storefront windows during and/or near one of the protests. Is it some archgovernment that's preventing this from staying online? I dunno. What's in the video? I dunno - every time I see someone's posted the video, by the time I get there, it's gone again. It's very 1984.
- Context is everything, no matter which side your on, or what's your media source. Video one. Video Two. I wasn't there, so I don't know who threw the first punch or who said what, so I'm not commenting one way or the other. In fact, if I was there in person, I would have been so confused and angry and frightened that I wouldn't have known who did what; I would have just been angry at everyone and everything.
Montrealers and Quebeckers at Large
A) those in favour of the students
B) those opposed to Bill 78 (more on that in a moment)
C) those affected by the student protests, either through inconvenience (also here), property damage, lost income, or worse, regardless of which side they're taking - or if they're taking a side at all.
The Protests, the Demonstrations, and the Damage
Today marks Day 101 of the protests and student strikes. Most of the protests have been done at night, but there are a few that stand out in my mind:
Blocking a bridge. Twice. Vandalism. A lot of vandalism. Blockading schools. Whether other students approve or not. Leading Jean Charest to suspend the rest of the semester. But those are the ugly spots. remember, there have been 101 days of this so far; not every day has been bad. Some days are bad, and some days are rainy.
The Situation, as far as I can see it.
Montreal is where we riot when the Habs win, and where we riot when the Habs lose.
But, the "we" must here be defined: I don't know who is actually doing the riots. I actually heard a story about some people from "out of town" who wore knock-off jerseys immediately before looting shops downtown after a game.
So are Habs fans the problem? Are semi-professional hooligans the problem? I dunno. I'm not an investigator, and I wasn't there. Is it possible that looters are infiltrating peaceful demonstrations? Absolutely.
The same question is applicable here: obviously, there are some people - not all, but some - who are causing property damage (fires, blockades, vandalism). Are these incorrigibles students? Dropouts? Ruffians? Undercover cops? I don't know. Is it possible that peaceful assemblies are being infiltrated by idiots and fearmongers? Absolutely.
Here's what we do know: vandalism has occurred. Pepper has been sprayed. Rocks have been thrown. People have been arrested. Bill 78 was penned and stamped into effect.
Here's what else we know: people (like me) are avoiding downtown, tempers are flaring, and there are some known and unknown individuals who are fanning the flames.
Bottom line: the protests have now become the focus of attention, not the underlying reason for those protests. So, for now, let's get back to the actual issue at hand.
Now, I could just be spitballing here, but this is what I'm seeing, from a strictly financial perspective. After all, the initial problem was around finances, and then it (d)evolved into an argument over the nature of freedom of assembly.
1) Tourism has decreased, people avoiding going downtown: lost income. Lost income = lower taxes paid. Lower taxes paid = less subsidization against tuition. Oh, that can't be good.
2) Semester has been suspended unexpectedly early, only to resume again in August, immediately before the fall session. That means students are thrust out into the workforce earlier than planned (summer jobs aren't available yet), and it means that they're going to fall out of the workforce earlier than planned. In other words, they're not going to be able to work as long as they would have otherwise. Shorter summer employment = less student income = greater student debt. Well, nuts.
3) No tuition increase = staff and faculty wages frozen, though the cost of living will increase. Staff cutbacks and wage freezes = high quality professors will seek out other centres of education - outside of Quebec, maybe outside of Canada - in order to find a more competitive employer, 'cause people like being paaaaaaid. That means Quebec students are stuck with the bargain basement professors. And that sounds dull.
4) No tuition increase, part two = lower budgets for building maintenance, hardware and software upgrades, limited hours of operation in libraries and other student resource centres, and cutbacks to extra-curricular programs. Well, okay...if you want it that way.
5) Tuition increases have a negative impact on lower income families. Yes! I totally and one hundred percent agree with this. I put myself through university, thank you very much; and I paid off my massive student debt all by my lonesome too. You know why? Because a degree helps you to get a better paying job; it's helps to continually advance my career too! Much of the reason why I was able to pay off my student loan is because, over time, my income increased. Not only is it because I was able to find a job in a competitive market, one that tries to keep up with or ahead of the increase in cost of living, but, I was also able to advance from one post to a higher position no less than nine times in the last ten years. Take that, Bainbridge Scholars!
6) Post-secondary education should be free. You know what? High school's free. Not many people want to be there. In fact, they'll go out of their way to tell you how much they don't want to be there. And you know what? University isn't free, and people don't want to go there either. Once upon a time, I got up in the middle of a lecture, walked in front of the professor, up the middle aisle, leaned across four women, poked my finger at a guy's nose and told him, "You have two choices. Shut up, or get out of my class." He paid just as much as I did - paid, mind you - and still, he made no use of his time there. Therefore, I have to argue: if post-secondary education was free, would it be put to good use by all who took it?
7) Post-secondary education should be free, part 2. There is no such thing. People, professors included, like getting paid. It helps with things like housing, and laundry money. So the money comes from somewhere. Students, ask your future, employed selves: how much do you think your taxes will increase, if you're helping to pay for the post-secondary education of every student in your city, as well as for all the sanitation and road infrastructure repairs, health-care, legal institutions, etc. etc.? Hate to say it, but communism didn't work, and we're too North American to be Sweden (where their general tax rate is about 51.1% - so basically, for every $100 you make, $51 goes to the government. The other $49 has to cover your rent, electricity, food, insurance, clothing, entertainment, iPhone and bicycle - I'll bet that's no fun if you're a parent).
I'm going to leave the money stuff there for now, because I'm getting sarcastic.
Where Things Went Stupid
Okay, so: on one side, you've got students who do not want tuition hikes. On the other hand, you've got the Quebec government, who do want tuition hikes. Let's skip all the details of both sides of that argument, because we all know, there are points for and against on each side, and it's complicated.
Now, on one hand, you have people actively protesting the tuition hikes, and I say, okay, that's your right. And I say "people", because we can't assume that they're all students (there are grads and others who support the students too), and on the flip side, we can't assume that all students are in unanimous agreement with what these "people" are doing.
On the other hand, you've got the QC government who is at the table, making offers to spread out the tuition hikes over seven years instead of five, who are making offers of increased bursaries and changes to loan processes, but who are adamant about removing the tuition increases altogether. And who write silly things like Law 78.
I don't know what's happening behind closed doors, but I do know that student leaders are back to the table with the current education minister. This is good! I don't know if there are any discussions about why tuition hikes are proposed to be so high, I don't know what arguments have been made for or against. I don't know if there's miscommunication going on, or just plain old-fashioned stubbornness on both sides of the table.
Either way, I don't know where we're at with the tuition thing. Like I said, the focus has shifted in the public eye from the tuition increases to the protests themselves - and now...to Bill or Law 78.
Law 78 was a bad idea.
Law 78 is an emergency law enacted by the provincial government, once it was accepted by a majority vote. It does not prevent the assembly of 50 or more people. Read the provisions here: (Wikipedia, I love you.) In short: it specifies where these assemblies of 50 or more are unwanted (near CEGEPs and Universities); it outlines which schools are suspended and for how long; it issues a back to work order for education employees; and it outlaws any assembly of 50 or more, unless the police have been notified of and approve of the locations and routes of those assemblies.
This was put into effect ostensibly to curb the behaviours of a handful of ruffians, to protect property and civilian safety, and to prevent things like...more bridge closures or rolling highway blockades during rush hour traffic, which only makes Montrealers into worse drivers than they already are - trust me, that is no small feat.
Insert tired, sarcastic laugh here.
Good. Now for the fun stuff.
1) This law was put in place in order to create a safe zone for students who want to return to school, guaranteeing their right to enter and attend without threat of harassment. Great...Except...Well, that doesn't really make any sense, if you're going to go ahead and suspend classes anyhow. So I'm still scratching my head about that one.
2) Law 78 outlaws any assembly of 50 or more - no matter who is assembling or why - unless the locations and routes have been approved of by the police.
Wow, do we have problems here.
2a) That kinda goes against a certain piece of paper we like to call The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, this provincial emergency law goes against oh...I dunno, "(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," and uh... "(c) freedom of peaceful assembly" and um... "(d) freedom of association." The key word here is: "freedom of peaceful assembly". So we are not guaranteed the "freedom of violent assembly" or the "freedom of chuck-a-Molotov assembly". There are already laws in place protecting the rest of us from violence and mobbery. It's called the Criminal Code of Canada.
2b) This also goes against what little I know about government in Canada, namely, that federal law (like the Charter, or like the Criminal Code of Canada) overrules pretty much anything else at the provincial or municipal level. So...why is a provincial governor attempting to supplement and/or overrule federal law?
2c) Moreover, since when does municipal police get the right to approve or disapprove of an assembly? Think about that for a second: you have to submit your itinerary in advance. If the police approve, the assembly goes ahead, great. Traffic news is alerted, and we can all curse and swear and find alternate routes. Swell. But, if the police don't approve...they've just revoked your legal right to freedom of assembly. The police...can now revoke your legal right to freedom of assembly.
2d) And, this is no longer a law about "student protests." The vagueness of that provision doesn't specify the nature of the assembly, or the composition of the group of 50. That means the police are now enabled to walk up to a peaceful and legal strike, count the number of heads and declare a picket illegal.
The Charest government has now expanded the fight. This is no longer about Longhairs versus The Man. This is The Man against Those Folks Who Voted Him In. This is The Man against The Unions. In terms of political blunders, this falls somewhere between Waterloo and Pearl Harbour. He has awoken the giant.
Did I mention the sympathetic demonstrations in places like...New York, Paris, Toronto...
3) We riot when the Habs win. We riot when the Habs lose. Strikers and their supporters have been livid about how the police have been hemming them in, arresting them, pepper spraying them, etc. - and that was before Bill 78 was put into place. Montrealers - and Quebecers at large - are, if anything, a vocal bunch of people. We like being vocal. It's our guaranteed right in a free and democratic society, and dang it, we're gonna benefit from it. And we do it so well we don't even restrict ourselves to one language.
So who in his right mind thought that a bill like this, which was designed to curb, restrict and/or outlaw loud people, was actually going to make them more quiet?
This is a law designed to invite civil disobedience. It's like frickin' legal reverse psychology!
4) How is this supposed to be enforced? Let's say you get 10,000 people all marching relatively in one peaceful direction. What's to prevent 200-ish pods of 50 people from spinning off in multiple directions? How are police supposed to disperse 200 "illegal" assemblies?
Now what if we're dealing with 200,000 protesters?
5) Wow, what bad timing. Now the Bloc Quebecois (those primarily in favour of the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada) are saying that they've been siding with the students all along, and that they're opposed to Charest, his government and to Bill 78. Did I mention we're coming up on an election soon?
Closing thoughts
1) The students did not have my support for three main reasons: a) I'm not convinced that the tuition increases are unwarranted, nor that they're draconian, though I do sympathize and agree that they suck. b) Sticking me in traffic for four hours on a bridge when I'm already late for work - this does not make me very open-minded and sympathetic to your plight. Lucky for all of us, I work from home. c) I'm not convinced students are going to accept any deal short of "no tuition hikes", nor that they're serious about negotiating with the intent to stop the protests.
2) I am against Law 78, 'cause it's just all sorts of wrong. It's un-Quebecly, it's un-Canadian, it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain old unhelpful. As a matter of fact, the only thing this law has been good at is encouraging people to break it.
3) There are miscreants among those who have the right - and need - to protest. There's no sure-fire way of pulling the miscreants out without someone getting elbowed in the face - unless those in favour of peaceful demonstrations simply point at the miscreant, shout "cooties!" and make way for the police to arrest the actual bad guys.
4) The rest of us aren't helping (We are the Media). It's really, really hard to get a full picture. Pick up one paper, and the police are the victims; pick up the other, and the police are beating the snot out of some granny. Both are equally convincing. Which means the media is being divisive. I want the full story, because I want to make an informed opinion of the tuition hikes themselves - and I cannot do that right now. There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said before; the best I can hope to do is try to pull all the threads together into a coherent, well-balanced presentation, and I don't think I'm succeeding even there.
5) The government is not helping. I think I've already made my point.
6) What harm is there in the government itemizing the tuition hikes and/or negotiating a lower overall tuition hike? Really, what is gained, what is lost, if both sides bend and lower the total tuition increase?
7) What harm is there in the QC leadership in saying "You know what? You spoke, we listened, we are acting democratically, and we are revoking Law 78?" I think there's more honour in saying "Oops, here, we're fixing it" than there is in saying "We're not backing down from this, even if it means alienating our voters". I think in the next election, if there's going to be a dramatic swing in favour of "Not Liberal", it's going to be because of Bill 78.
8) While I am against Law 78, and while I feel for students who may or may not be affected by the tuition hikes, I will not wear a red square or wave a red flag. Yes, democracy (as it is right now in Canada) is badly flawed; yes, capitalism really has its bad points; but I don't support communism simply because of all the other connotations that goes along with it. People, do your research: if you don't like Bill 78, if you don't like partisan politics, you won't like what that red square stands for.
9) I just really want this to go away. Students sitting down with the Education Minister, both parties talking and listening, the provincial government acting on mutually agreed-to proposals, tearing up Bill 78, and going out for another long weekend out on the terrasse, without any fear of flying chairs, beer bottles, rocks, batons, pepper spray or Molotov cocktails.
So, Tobin - because really, I wrote this for you - I hope this helps to give you a better idea of what's happening out here.
Because it's been working wonders for me.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Geek Mythology and other Typos
I'm a geek of the highest order. That's why I've captured and cataloged my funniest typos over the years. Some are funnier than others, but every time I rediscover this list, I find a new reason to laugh about them.
Some of these booboos have been caught by my first readers, and they cause me no end of giggles. The worst ones are those I catch two seconds after I hit the "save" button on a work memo - or worse, immediately after sending a mass email, company-wide.
And now, instead of blushing about my Freudian fingers, I've bundled all my best gaffes together and posted them just for you. And heck, if you feel so inclined, add a few of your own to the comments section below, so we can all share in the laughs.
Some of these booboos have been caught by my first readers, and they cause me no end of giggles. The worst ones are those I catch two seconds after I hit the "save" button on a work memo - or worse, immediately after sending a mass email, company-wide.
And now, instead of blushing about my Freudian fingers, I've bundled all my best gaffes together and posted them just for you. And heck, if you feel so inclined, add a few of your own to the comments section below, so we can all share in the laughs.
Naming No-Nos
Scott = Scoot
Fatima = Fatiam
Bobby = Booby
Trish = Trash
Pat = Apt, Oat
Familial Flubs
father = fatter, farther, farter
sisters = Sinisters
brothers = Bothers
babysitters = Babyspitters
my wife = my woof
wedding = weeding
girlfriend = girlfiend
girlfriend = girlfiend
"to put the food in her children's mouths" = "to put the foot in her children's mouths"
"you can borrow one of my husband's..." = "you can borrow one of my husbands"
"marrying his mousy little secretary" = "marrying his mousy little sister"
Wackiness at Work
troubleshooting = troubleshooing
Ops (Operations) Managers = Oops Managers
paystubs = paystupids
Canada Savings Bond = Canada Savings Bong
billing dispute = boiling dispute
eLearning course = eLearning curse
terminated in error = terminated in terror
engage security = enrage security
"I have them here in my desk" = "I shave them here in my desk"
"depending on which company you use" = depending on which company you sue"
Miscellaneous Mumblings
insulated = insulted
Greek Mythology = Geek Mythology
Sling shots = sling shorts
Chapter Thirty = Chapter Thirsty
Dr. Baines (a mad genius) = Dr. Braines
kickboxing = kickboing
power bars = power bras
but = bust
kidnapped = hidnapped
longshoremen = longsoremen
butterflies = butler flips
my plants have exploded = my pants have exploded
sweet and sour = sweat and sour
mood lighting = mood lightning
draft horse = drat horse, daft horse
an English accent = an English accident
student, studio = stupid
sink = dink
captain = cat pain
"who asked" = "whoa skid"
"I accept nothing but cash" = "I accept nothing but ash"
"the great pilot wheel" = "the great pilot whee"
"You keep looking at my cane" = "you keep looking at my can"
"we must stop them before they reach the shore!" = "we must stop them before they reach the whore!"
"went to the far end of the huge lobby to hide behind some plants = "went to the far end of the hug lobby to hide behind some pants"
"he threw darts at the dartboard" = "he threw drats at the dratboard"
"man, I needed that sleep" = "man, I needed that slap"
"you'll catch your death of cold!" = "you'll catch your death of cod!"
Heavenly Har-Har's
Rabbi = rabbit
"I'm your guardian angel" = "I'm your guardian agent"
Angel = angle, anal (yikes!)
Stands, Standard = Satan
Saints = Stains, Satins
Blessed peace = blessed peas
The Holy Spirit = The Holy Spit
Murderous Missteps
sat = stab
pirate ship = irate hips
exotic dancer = exotic danger
dual citizenship = duel citizenship
sacrifice = scarface
the immortal emperor = the immoral emperor
she kissed him = she kicked him
kissed his face = kicked his face
fraud squad = fraud squat
bullet = butt
"She thought treats were in order" = "she thought threats were in order"
"after picking the scum off his molars" = "after picking the scum off his morals"
"use this soothing balm" = "use this soothing blam!"
"hoarse whisper" = "horse whipper"
"she took off her hat" = "she took off her head"
Gross Mistakes
beating his chest = eating his chest
space craft = space crap
crept = crapped
autocracy = autocrappy
amateur = amaturd
faces = feces
penning = peeing
nostrils = snotrils
orange juice = organ juice
disappears = diapers
"where he was going to meet..." = "where he was going to pee"
"this is not good" = "this is not goo"
"...mucking up the place with their muddy boots" = "mucking up the place with their muddy butts"
"sneering at her" = "sneezing at her"
Poor, popcorn, popular = poop, poopcorn, poopular
"after a moment the reporter popped on screen" = "after a moment the reporter pooped on screen"
"it's a brown, foul-smelling paste" = "it's a brown, foul-smelling pasta"
Recurring Nightmares
Heel, hello, held, cell = hell
tests = testes
pencil = never you mind
good luck = um...
shirt, spit, shuttle, sunshine, white, night shift, shift bid, shift change, shifting in his chair = oh guess.
--------
I've shown you mine! Now go on, share yours. I totally dare you. Do keep it clean, though - we've all got pretty good imaginations, and we can fill in the blanks where necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)