The Hunger Games: Mockingjay (Movies)

It's finally over. The Hunger Games trilogy is done (now a tetralogy). Was it worth splitting the last book into two movies?

Together, the two movies are 4 hours and 20 minutes of Katniss goodness. That's a lot of time spent on what many call the weakest of the three books, but I'm not sure what could be left out, as that last book contains the most cinematic writing. As it is now, the two movies capture the best parts, and stays true, changing only a few plot lines to speed up some action.

The result is two almost entirely different movies. The first is more about building up the resistance. The second is more about the actual war. Many of my friends like either the first or the second, but not always both. If you prefer all the talk and excitement of preparations, you'd probably like the first. If instead, you prefer watching all the action go down, you'd probably like the last.

I was impressed overall with both movies and enjoyed them both. When they deviated from the book, it sometimes worked, and sometimes not. For example, near the end of the second movie, they added a death trap that didn't work at all. It was too random, too easy to avoid, and too flashy.

I was a little disappointed with the final ending, not because it wasn't decent, but because I prefer how the book ends with Katniss. It was still entertaining.

My favorite of the series: the second movie (Catching Fire).

Overall, it's a good series. Well done, Liongate!

Struggling With Justice

I wish I could always write positive things, but today I'm going to write about when I'm not at my best. I know many of my readers could care less about my whining and excuses, so I'll let you know in advance. I do not write this post for you, but for those who may have, or currently are experiencing these same issues. Perhaps you could learn what NOT to do, or how to recover.

Also, I'll go ahead and report that I feel like I'm currently in a good spot again. I'm back to writing. I have a plan. I'm pushing forward. So, what you're about to read is in the past, and this is my post-mortem.

As I've mentioned at least twice in the past week, I came to a complete standstill in my writing for months. There were no excuses, no tests, no busies at work, no nothing. Yet there were struggles and depression. The main cause? There's no way around it ... it was mainly coming from working on my book Escape From the Planet Justice (which is now called just plain Justice).

I had finished my 4th draft of Justice years ago, and I set it aside for a long time. Then mid-2014, I decided to self-publish the book. After all, I had already sent it to all the major publishers, and received several rejections and a couple of ignores. What did I have to lose? Get the book ready, put it out there for people to buy. No gatekeepers -- just my book standing on its own, letting the people decide if it was worth buying.

It was a great plan. Get the 4th draft critiqued, make final revisions, get a professional editor, publish it, and sell it. Little did I know that I was going to get stuck at Step 1.

First I went to the online critique service Critters.org. It is probably the best critique service out there for science fiction. (One day I'll give a fuller review.) Up through mid-2014, I had been critiquing several short stories and even a couple of novels. I think I did three total, and those critiques were awesome. I was honest, and I provided what I thought would be the most useful feedback, along with detailed suggestions.

I posted Justice, hoping to get the same treatment in return. I put up the first chapter for everyone to read, and sent details for those wanting to critique the full book. I received four critiques of the first chapter, and just one person -- yes, ONE -- took up the task of critiquing the whole book. That guy, John, read the whole thing in like a day, and he gave me a page-long critique, which provided good overall suggestions, but no details on any specific passages.

Overall, I felt jipped. Not by John, who critiqued the whole novel, but by the lack of other independent critiques that are necessary in order to identify what the real problems are. Critters.org had let me down.

That's when I decided to turn to my friends. They could critique my novel.

But first, the Critter.org experience wasn't a complete waste. All those critiquers agreed on one thing: I needed to add something to the beginning, something short to build the world and set the stage, instead of just barging into the action. So I added something: two new chapters at the beginning, plus a major edit on the old-first-now-third chapter.

And then I went to facebook and asked who wanted to do a critique. I got two handfuls of volunteers.

Only three of them critiqued the first three chapters. I sent follow-up emails to try to get feedback from my other friends, but they were all ignored.

Out of the three, one of the friends had already critiqued the 3rd draft, so I only gave her three chapters. She says she'll critique future revisions once I'm done.

One of the others stopped at three chapters and wouldn't provide any more feedback.

The last of the three, Will, who had originally gotten me started down the path of serious writing, made it as far as Chapter 7 and then he went ballistic on me. He picked up that Chapters 4 and beyond were written earlier, and he went on about how much of a cardinal sin it was to send a critiquer such a mish-mash of writing and about how pissed off he was. He made me wish I had sent him just the old stuff without the insert at the beginning. Since he had already helped with the 2nd draft, I let him off the hook for the rest of the book.

Other than that, Will gave a very valuable critique on those first seven chapters.

Then I realized that was it. Critters.org let me down. My friends let me down. My perfect plan to self-pulish this book came to a total standstill.

And here comes the big kicker. What did I do next? I did the wrong thing. I asked myself, "Why did I get so few critiques on this novel? How can I progress without a full critique?" My answer to myself: "It must be total crap. They must have started reading it, got bored, and set it aside. There must have been a good reason why nobody wanted to publish it earlier."

I didn't have any other projects planned to work on, so I just came to a complete stop. Did the world really need another second-rate science fiction author?

Even though I wasn't writing, I still had this urge. Stories were still wanting to come out of me. I had to do something to fix this. That's when I decided to hire a life coach. We discussed different options. One choice would have been to set aside Justice and move on to something else, but I realized I needed to conquer this book. If I could get it ready for publishing, and actually get it out on the market, then I could do anything with my other works.

I decided to give it one more try. First I read through all the critiques I did get, and I realized the answers I sought were in there, even if my friends hadn't done the whole thing.

So, I got over my whining, self-pitying, and self-loathing, and went to work. The first three chapters went rather smoothly. I had to rewrite some sections to help the flow. And then when I hit the fourth chapter, I hit me why Will (and possibly others) got so pissed off. The older writing was terrible. Well, "terrible" is too strong a word, but it was still a dozen cringes per page. I saw why Will hated the protagonist so much. And it wasn't too difficult to fix the problems.

Chapter 4 ended up suffering some major rewrites.

When I stopped for Christmas, I made it as far as the beginning of Chapter 5. Starting next week, I'll be back in business, shooting for one chapter a week. Then I'll be done in about four months. Next I'll send it to a professional editor, shooting for a release in 2017.

It's a plan.

The Three-Body Problem: Good For Blowing the Mind

What attracted me to Cixin Liu's The Three-Body Problem was the fact that a Chinese novel had won the Hugo award for 2015. I had never read a Chinese novel, but I figured it was worth a shot.

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised. The book's greatest strength is to deliver strangeness while at the same time making it accessible. The imagery was so great, it triggered for me several vivid dreams.

This first of a trilogy recounts a series of mysterious events. Wang Miao, a prominent nanomaterials scientist, becomes caught up in the investigation of unexplained scientist suicides. This leads him to a virtual-reality video game, called "Three Body," which describes a world with chaotic seasons. And this is just the beginning of that strangeness I mentioned earlier.

The name of the book, itself, provides clues as to what's going on. It's a physics/math problem that has yet to be solved explicitly. In the Two-Body problem, two masses in a system will end up in some predictable orbit around each other. But throw in a third mass, and the system becomes unpredictable.

You may ask: what does this have to do with anything? You'll have to read it to find out. I was pleased with how Cixin Liu pulls it off.

Be prepared, though, for a different kind of reading experience. I'm not sure if it's the translation, or the author's writing style, but I found the prose often going into "legend" mode, much like what you might find in the stories of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. Or probably more appropriately, some old Chinese story. This was a little strange to me, but I found the imagery beautiful and worth reading.

I strongly recommend this book, so you can also enjoy a different kind of sci-fi. In another month or so, I will pick up the sequel, The Dark Forest. The third book hasn't been translated yet, but will come out later this year. And a Chinese film will be released this year as well. Perhaps some theaters in the US will show it?

Star Wars VII: Doing It Right

Disney and J. J. Abrams pulled it off. They did Star Wars better than George Lucas! Well, at least better than the prequels.

First off, they didn't ruin it. They could have displayed the Disney castle at the beginning. Or Abrams could have used more than a few lens flares (I think I counted about 10 total?). Disney could have turned it into a musical.

It felt like ... get this ... a Star Wars movie. I loved it. The fans who caught it with me the night before opening loved it. Even a couple of days ago, there was someone clapping at the end when I saw it for a third time at an obscure theatre in Roanoke, Virginia.

So, who doesn't like it? I've seen a few negative reviews but they are a vast minority. The complaints are along the lines of "it's basically A New Hope rehashed" and "why didn't such-and-such get answered?" Then again, aren't all the other Star Wars movies variations on A New Hope? And we have two more movies on the way for answering questions.

Like I've posited before, sometimes critics give negative reviews just to remind the world that they're real critics. "I was one who gave a top-grossing film a bad review when everyone else loved it!"

Yet, even the negative critics agree: Disney and Abrams delivered, and it was well received.

P. S. I'll venture a small spoiler and impart my wisdom. Star Wars VII finally reveals why storm troopers always seem to miss their targets. Think about it. As soon as one of them takes off his helmet, he's suddenly able to hit his targets. Could it be ...? No, it couldn't be that!

2016 Preview

2016 is going to be an awesome year, because it's divisible by 32, which is 2x2x2x2x2. Check out its binary representation: 11111100000. That's six ones followed by five zeroes. Awesome! It's also the last year divisible by 32 before 2048, which will be 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 -- eleven twos! And finally, let's check out the full prime factorization of 2016: 2x2x2x2x2x3x3x7. No 2-digit prime divisors, which is only the second time this has happened in my lifetime (the other time being 2000).

Anyhow, as I mentioned in my last post, I determined that I didn't do so well in 2015 because I lacked focus (of which I will give more details in a later post). Around August, I decided to hire a life coach to help me get back on track. We're still working on it, but I've come to learn what my main priorities are, and I'm already making headway.

After doing some math, I've determined that the fastest way for me to start earning a profit is to publish music (of which I'll give more detail in my Music blog when the time is right). A big chunk of my free time in 2016 will go into that venture.

My efforts in fiction writing will be less, but more directed. My life coach explains that a good goal has to be specific (S), measurable (M), actionable (A), realistic (R), and timely (T). So, if I can set more directed goals, it drastically increases the success rate of achieving the goals.

So, here's what I have for 2016:

• "Justice": Finish the 6th draft and submit to a professional editor (prior to self-publishing).
• After a couple of weeks preparation in January, edit/rewrite one chapter a week until the draft is finished.
• During the editing stage, research reputable editors, and choose one to go with.
• When the entire draft is finished, submit to the editor.
• If time permits, institute/correct editor's changes.
• Final preparations for the book will be done in 2017.
• "The Last Actuary": Prepare another short story for the 2017 Actuarial Speculative Fiction contest.
• Start writing Oct. 1.
• Finish first draft by Dec. 1.
• Submit for critique targeting first part of Jan 2017.
• Final edit and submission will be during Jan 2017.
• 26 magazine submissions (every other week).

There will be 5 goal review sessions at the end of every other month to make sure I stay on track. The first will be around Feb. 28.

There you have it: direct, actionable, specific goals. I'll let you know how it goes along the way.

Good luck with your own goals, and shoot for a productive year!

Mel's Year in Review: 2015

Okay, there's no way around it. In the world of fiction writing, 2015 is definitely the worst year I've had ever since I've started this blog. And there aren't any good excuses this time. No actuarial exam. No super stressful times interrupting my writing. The most I can come up with is depression and lack of focus. (I promise a blog post on that depression shortly, but for now, it's time for goals.)

Though, at the same time, I've made great strides with my music, in my day job, and in other aspects in my life.

Even with this being the worst year ever, I've still had some progress in fiction writing. Here goes:

• Short stories: In January I wrote and submitted "The First Actuary" to the 11th Annual SOA Speculative Fiction Contest. I didn't win a prize, but was told I came in very close. I submitted a few more stories to magazines, but had no bites.
• Planet Justice: I am back to my sixth edit. I'm currently up to 4 chapters out of around 23.

Other stats for 2015:

• 23 blog posts (a little more than half of my output for 2014).
• 10,385 pageviews bringing the total to 52,696 (up 25%).
• The Mormon Mel had 1 new post and 531 new pageviews for a total of 1,194 (up 80%).
• The Music of Mel had 22 new posts and 2,360 new pageviews for a total of 3,431 (up 220%).
• The Econo-Mel had 0 new posts and 180 new pageviews for a total of 1,635 (up 11%).
• My YouTube videos had 31,615 views for a total of 295,116 (up 12%).
• Adsense earnings performed so poorly that you're about to get an angry update post in another month or so.
• I reviewed:
• 10 movies
• 7 TV shows
• 1 book
• 15 short stories
• My personal favorite posts:
• Agar.io and the Seven Habits (where I find life lessons in a silly video game)
• The Google Earth Plane Game (where I get excited matching pictures from the airplane with Google Earth images ... using math!)
• What Me Lazy? (where I try to psychoanalyze why I stopped writing)
• One Space or Two? (where I explain why I get annoyed with people complaining about those still using two spaces between sentences -- those people need to read my post above on Agar.io and circles of influence)

How did you do in 2015?

Peanuts: Don't Miss It

Okay. For full disclosure, I must confess that I was Charlie Brown growing up, and to some degree, I still am. Who can resist liking the loser kid that everyone loves--the kid who tries everything he can even when everything goes wrong--the kid who never seems to get up the courage to talk to that little red-headed girl?

Yes, I'd most likely enjoy any revival of Peanuts on the big screen. I was doubly and pleasantly surprised to see the movie deliver more than what I expected. For starters, the writers didn't ruin it with some annoying modern formula gimmick. They stayed true to Schulz's original comic strip. The writers also refrained from adding those dirty jokes that "only the parents pick up on" that end up in most cartoons.

The result is good clean fun. Snoopy battles the Red Baron. Schroeder plays his piano any chance he gets. Linus carries his blanket. And Charlie Brown is back to chasing the little red-headed girl. This is one of those rare gems: a rated G movie that isn't boring, and it leaves you feeling good at the end.

I also recommend catching this movie in 3D if available. I found the 3D almost magical and very well done. I loved the juxtaposition of flat images at different layers among other three-dimensional objects. In fact, I'd go so far to say I enjoyed the 3D in this film more than most of the recent PIXAR movies released in 3D.

And one last thing. I just have to say this next part, even though it might be somewhat of a spoiler. In all the TV specials and movies, and in most of the comics, Charlie Brown always messes up. Something always happens when he's oh-so-close to his goal. For example, he goes to the national spelling bee and loses at the end because he can't spell the breed of his own dog. AAARRRGGGHHH! For years, I watched these shows, hoping that once--just once--Charlie Brown would succeed at something. I mean, if Charlie Brown could reach his goal, then maybe I could too?

Well, this movie delivers, and one of my life-long dreams is realized. Yay!

This movie is fun for the whole family. Go catch it while it's still in the theaters, and enjoy.

Patterson's Honeymoon

Why would a sci-fi buff such as I read a romance thriller book like Honeymoon by James Patterson and Howard Roughan? Because it was homework. I'm taking the new Patterson Masterclass course, which uses this book in examples. My reaction: I hope the course uses the book to show what works and what doesn't -- we'll see.

Craig Reynolds is an undercover detective investigating a series of suspicious deaths. Nora Sinclair is the black-widow woman who loves men and kills them. While this is all going on, the Tourist is trying to figure out what's in that suitcase that's getting people killed.

What works: the book is very easy to read. As one may expect from Patterson, it's a page turner. The prose is no-nonsense right-to-the-point English. That is, there's no flowery language to slow one down.

The well-planned-out plot is interesting enough to hold my attention, even though it uses many cliches.

What doesn't work: The book relies very heavily on "things aren't always as they appear." I love books that use this device effectively, but this isn't one of them. The writers withhold several details from the reader that are easily known to the characters. Thus the reader is the only one not in the know. Some reveals toward the end didn't even do anything for me.

Also, the characters are as shallow as they come. They exist, they do things, and it's hard for me to care when one of them bites the dust.

My recommendation: if you happen to be going on some beach trip, and you want to take a book to pass the time, and you don't want to remember the experience years from now, this is the book for you.

Goosebumps: Good Scunny Fun

"Scunny" is a word my kids taught me. It's "scary" plus "funny," which is what the Goosebumpsmovie is. Well, maybe more funny than scary, but if you grew up with the books and TV show, you'll most likely know what you're going to get. There are scary parts, but nothing that should scar your children for life.

The movie is cheesy, though according to my kids, it was nowhere near as cheesy as the TV show. The bad jokes are in there, but the special effects and actual acting are on a much higher level. Jack Black is funny as R. L. Stine, and his fake accent is hilarious. Stine sounds nothing like that, by the way, but it's fun imagining that he does.

The movie is a tad bit slow getting to the monsters, but the delivery is worth it. It's nice to get to know the kids before they get into trouble, and they're not just placeholders, but rather they are distinct characters that the audience seemed to enjoy.

My only complaint, which goes for many of Spielberg, Lucas, and other action movies, is that the problem is so drastic that if it were to really happen, it would wipe out everyone in a matter of minutes--no, make that seconds. The good guys are just that good in holding off the monsters--I guess.

My kids seemed to complain that some of their favorite books were not well represented in the movie, but they loved the ones they did see. My favorite was the flying poodle. (I'm not sure what that says about me.)

Since it wasn't filmed in true 3-D, we skipped that effect, though it appears some parts could be a little more enjoyable in 3-D.

Overall, the movie succeeds in capturing the essence of nearly all R. L. Stine books. It's a perfect Halloween movie for the whole family. Go catch it in the theater and enjoy.

The Martian: Really Good Science

When they were casting for The Martian, they were looking for someone with experience playing an astronaut stranded on a planet doing the best they can to get home. When they sawInterstellar, they knew they had their man.

Sorry, couldn't resist the joke. The two roles are similar, but in The Martian, Matt Damon is given much more material to work with, and he delivers like he never has before. He's funny. He's emotional. He makes the role believable.

Even though Damon is alone on Mars, a full cast of characters works together to try and bring him home. There is even friction on Earth as different parties deliberate on how to bring the task to pass.

And get this. The science is awesome. It's by far the most accurate science I've seen in a movie -- possibly ever. Hopefully this movie will inspire and push science ahead.

My only complaint is that I don't have the option near here to watch it in IMAX (or IMAX Digital). It's been pushed out by The Walk. Nonetheless, I did watch it in 3D, which added cool depth in some scenes. Ridley Scott chose to film in "real" 3D and not the fake/need-to-be-converted 3D, so there aren't any anomalies like Sandra Bullock's disconnected foot in Gravity.

Go catch this movie in the theater. Bring your friends. Go science! Enjoy.