PitchWars Bio

Well, didn’t anticipate visiting the ol’ blog since I took a break from blogging to focus on writing, but now that so much writing is done it’s about time to trot out the horse again.

You can call me KPM. My real name? Well, my pitch wars peeps know that. 😉

I’m a writer, a reader, a gamer, a fan of anything speculative, and a neuroscience graduate student who specializes in addiction research. I’ve worked hard on both my fiction writing and my dissertation writing, and I hope to get that elusive agent along with that elusive PhD.

As you can tell from past blog posts, I’m a huge anime fan. My favorite anime of all time is Trigun, although Fate/Stay Night and Madoka Magica are close seconds. I’m one of those fans who checks out the new anime shows every season—a real nerd, to be honest. 😛 I also play a lot of video games, although my gaming time has taken a hit since the grad school thing began.

I write young adult and middle grade, with a focus on fantasy and science fiction. I’ve been writing and revising my four completed novels, and I am currently querying a YA sci fi that involves time travel to the five previous extinction events throughout Earth’s history. I love prehistory, and the book was a blast to write. I also have plenty of ideas for future novels, so I’ll be a writer, successful or not, until I’m too old to look at a computer screen. Since I’m 27, that’s plenty of time!

A Speculative Fiction Fan Tries to Read Romance

 

While I typically only read science fiction and fantasy, with the occasional dabble into high literature, I also understand the necessity of reading other genres. Since I’ve started writing (with an eye to publish) a young adult novel with an element of romance, a friend reccomended I read some romance novels to understand how to write those scenes well. Considering all I’d heard about romance novels was that they were porn for women, It sounded kind of icky, but I figured I’d try it out.

 

It mostly ended in disaster.

 

First I figured that I would find a bestseller, something with thousands of reviews on Amazon or a series that had been out for ages. I selected the first one that came up on an Amazon search-the Outlander series, by Diana Gabaladon. Apparently it’s a bestselling series, though I’d never heard of it before.

 

I read the first two books in the series, and I’ve put up the reviews below. To sum it up, while the books weren’t at all bad, I didn’t like them much. There was (surprise surprise) too much focus on character interaction and too little on what would have been, and should have been, a very cool setting and plot. On top of that, I didn’t find myself liking the characters overmuch. Some emotions were raised in me, but on a very small scale. I have no interest in reading the rest of the series. Also, the sex scenes were boring as hell.

 

The next step I tried was to read M/M romance novels. If I’m going to read porn, may as well read the kind I like, right?

 

Here I found a mixed bag. A few of the books I read were absolutely terrible, putting the lie to all the five star reviews they got on Amazon. Here I found a lot of the bad stereotypes people have about romance novels-no plot, meaningless sex, stupid characters. One of the books I read was composed nearly entirely of sex scenes, which read and were led up to as though some 13 year old girl was mashing her ken dolls together in an attempt to arouse herself.  Another just had poor writing in general, and yet another started out well but nosedived after the halfway mark, ending up with what was essentially mindless furry sex. Nothing wrong with the writing on that one, but once again-good plot, lousy execution covered up by sex. I was very disappointed with it.

 

What is up with romance novels and werewolves or shifters? Random question of the day. Why is a guy being able to turn into an animal hot? Nothing wrong with it, but it’s just so far outside of “my thing” that I’m left confused.

 

However, there was one-just one-series of books I liked, by J.L Langley. I will put up the review in the future, but this book-while it had a bit too much sex- had a good combination of plot to go with it, and the characters were not just cardboard cutouts. The world the author set up was also quite well done. The genre? Sci fi, of course.

The Outlander Series Book 1+2

Outlander and A Dragonfly in Amber By Diana Gabaldon

This just isn’t my genre. That was the first thing that came to mind as I read the first few chapters of Outlander, which focuses on the character of Claire of the ever changing last name. We watch her putter around Scotland where her husband is doing research or something for nearly three chapters, and it’s all very boring. I was nearly ready to give up.

The first book actually starts when she ends up stepping through the standing stones and going back in time to 1743, where she meets not only Jack Randall, her current husband’s ancestor, but a man named James Fraser. Very long story short, she ends up living at a Scottish castle and falling in with love with the Scottish James while making an enemy of Jack, who is portrayed as a man who is bisexual and into sadomasochism. He’s referred to as a horrible pervert multiple times throughout the book, but it’s unclear whether he’s thought of that way due to his interest in S&M or because he’s bisexual. Really progressive stuff. Either way, he’s the villain of the piece, and ends up capturing and raping James (not actually portrayed, sadly), who was wanted by the English. Claire saves James and brings him back from the brink of depression using magic or something, it’s unclear. Then Claire announces she’s pregnant and the book ends. 

Despite the flippant tone above, the first book really isn’t that bad. Claire and Jamie’s romance is handled believably, and there are legitimately interesting parts of the book. Claire is a strong character, and uses her knowledge of future medicines to the benefit of the other members of the Castle Leoch.  Interactions between characters are usually interesting, and the dangerousness of such a primitive time is demonstrated well, such as in the scene where Claire is nearly burned to death for witchcraft. Sometimes, the book was a legitimate pageturner. 

And sometimes, it just wasn’t. There were too many times throughout that I did not care what was happening, and didn’t see a point to it. The first three chapters were a chore. There are clear examples of filler in this book, where what is happening has no point whatsoever to the plot. There is a difficulty stating that, however, because this a romance novel. Is the plot the battle against Jack Randall? Or is the plot Jamie and Claire’s relationship? Or is the plot about Claire’s surviving in Scotland in 1743? Or about the mystery of the standing stones? All are probably true, but guess which one is the main point of the book?

The entire story is dependent on caring about Claire and James’ relationship. And I just…didn’t. Jamie is not handled particularly well. He’s described attractively, I’ll give him that. But it seems every other page he has a new ability that he just so happened to learn when he was a kid, that does not seem realistic for someone who is continuously described as poor (This continues into book 2). It feels as though the author was making up his character and background as she went along, and didn’t hide the fact very well. Claire is better developed, but not engaging enough to carry the story on her own all the time. 

Despite that major flaw, by the end of the book I did decide to read the sequel. I hoped that since the two main character’s relationship was established in book one, that book 2 would address all the questions raised that weren’t about their relationship. So in the sense of building a good world and creating potentially interesting side plot threads, the book is worth reading for those who don’t ordinarily read romance. 

Book 2 totally disappointed me, and it was at this point that I gave up on the series. I did finish the book, but all it did was show me that this author can’t handle a plot beyond the relationship between two characters. 

Book 2 throws us back into the future, where Claire is now 40 and has Jamie’s full grown daughter Brianna, and Claire is searching for news of Jamie by looking through history archives. I was left wondering what had happened, but for the most part I was wondering why I was supposed to care about the historian she meets who has a crush on her daughter. Far too much time is devoted to him and Brianna interacting. 

Eventually we get to the real story (seeing a pattern here?) and we find out what happens to Claire and Jamie in the past. The plot of this book had every potential of being really, really good. It is an improvement on the first. The two wish to stop the Jacobite uprising, which resulted in Bonnie Prince Charlie getting a bunch of Scotsmen (Jamie’s clan included) killed in the battle at Culloden. 

Unfortunately, despite the tighter potential of the plot, there are once again too many plot threads that go nowhere. Events do nothing except test Jamie and Claire’s true wuv, including very meaningful events like a miscarriage-which were brought on by really stupid events, like Jack Randall coming back from killed in book 1 and Jamie challenging him to a duel because he obviously cares more about that than Claire. Even worse, eventually they decide that hey, maybe we should just help out the uprising after all, because that’s a good idea somehow. Um, what? There is so much in this book that just feels forced, and the potentially good story is just wasted. Part of it is that we are trapped following Claire’s point of view, and she becomes less interesting in this book due to her reliance on Jamie in their new setting (first France, then in the army at Scotland). 

The book ends with Claire leaving just before the predicted battle that will kill everyone so she can save herself and the child she is pregnant with (again), leaving the reader feeling incredibly cheated. Then we go back to the future again, where Brianna has a hissy fit because she doesn’t believe her mother about her father being Jamie, and I just don’t care anymore. I don’t feel like slogging through so much I don’t enjoy just to get to what I do and to be disappointed by how it’s handled. Romance is not my genre. 

I would give Outlander a 5 out of 10. Good setting, good plot, great writing, good characterization, poor execution (due to filler). 

I would give A Dragonfly in Amber a 6 out of 10. Good setting, Great plot, great writing, good characterization, poor execution.

E3 Day 2-Nintendo Fanboying Abounds And Sony Moves Out of The Way.

So as far as I’m concerned, Nintendo won E3, in a radical departure from previous years when they focused exclusively on their casual movement games. It seems almost sinister, ingenious. They looked very odd at E3s in the past, like the slightly strange kid who keeps inventing things that no really knows they want. Then over the next few years, their consoles sell amazingly well. Now that Nintendo has cornered the market, Microsoft copies them, making complete fools out of themselves, and Nintendo revels in even more glory when they present a much more restrained show that focuses on the games. I almost feel bad for Microsoft.

Of course, the Nintendo conference wasn’t all Zeldas and Donkey Kongs and Kirbys and Kid Icaruses and Golden Suns…you get the point. Not only did Nintendo introduce a plethora of games that have both nostalgia value and look incredibly fun, but there’s the 3DS, a more powerful version of the DS that can play games at the same level as the PS1 (FFVII rerelease, anyone?) and, oh yeah, it has 3D too. Without the glasses. As someone who had to listen to a friend complain that games in 3D were too hard because he couldn’t perceive any depth, this comes as a great gift. Maybe now he’ll actually beat Ocarina of Time, which, by the way, is being rereleased on the system.

And that, really, brings us to Nintendo’s strength. They have history. They have all the mascots, the franchises, and the memorable characters. When people saw Link, they freaked out. When they saw Kid Icarus, they freaked out even more. Bash the strategy for it’s shallowness, but it works. I remember, even as a kid, wondering who Sony’s mascot was. Nintendo has Mario, and Sega had Sonic. But Sony? I thought it was Spyro at the time, but it may also have been Crash Bandicoot. It really was neither. Sony has no obvious mascot, no way to represent itself, and therefore people get confused. They don’t know what to get excited about. Sega has Sonic, and despite his many recent failings, people can’t help but get excited and hopeful when a new Sonic game is announced because he means a lot to all those who used to play the old games on Sega Genesis. Mascots work.

So now we come to Sony’s conference, and I don’t have much to say about it. Part of it is due to the fact that I don’t own a PS3, but also because it wasn’t particularly good, but not particularly bad. They didn’t wow us like Nintendo did, but neither did they make us cringe. Sony did…fine. They showed off several new FPS games, a genre I’ve never really enjoyed, and showcased some of the games with the new Sony Move peripheral. Sorcery looks fun, although I hope they don’t succumb to temptation and make it a Harry Potter license. The new Castlevania might not suck. They will have 3D games, on your 5000 dollar 3D television that I’m sure everyone will be rushing out to purchase tomorrow. 

What else can I say? At least they didn’t have elephants.

E3 2010: First Day-Kinect?

So the first day of E3 is over, and Microsoft has pretty much made it’s intentions clear-copy everything Nintendo does. 

The Kinect device that was demoed as Natal last year looks like it has a lot of potential. It’s basically a way for the console to read your body movements such that they are mimicked onscreen by your avatar, no controller needed. Technologically, that’s a big deal for an entertainment device. 

However, the games for Kinect? Kinect sports. Fitness games. Kinectimals, which has you interacting with a virtual pet. None of these are doing anything radically different than what the Wii has been doing for the last four years.

While morally suspect, I see nothing wrong with copying another company’s business model, as Microsoft has done here. It’s been done hundreds of times in the past. But there are two major problems with this plan that I can see.

First, to actually expect success, it has to be done better. Microsoft seems to think that simply by virtue of not having a controller at all, it’s games will automatically be seen as better or more advanced. Maybe. But to the average casual gamer who will want to play these games? Doubtful. They want to have fun, controller or not. And the Wii has been there before. Lack of a controller is not enough of a hook. Game console sales drop off after several years because everyone already has one, and the same is true of games. The Wii sold like hotcakes for the first three years. Most casual gamers have one by now, along with a copy of Wii Fit or Wii sports. Does Microsoft really think that people are going to pay more money for more of the same thing with a different label?

Second, there’s the casual gamer vs. experienced gamer divide. Many hardcore gamers dislike the Nintendo Wii because they want a real, immersive, single player gaming experience, not a collection of mini games to play with their family or friends. As a result the Wii, while enjoying sales, has gotten flack from the hardcore crowd. This crowd was the ones boosting the sales of XBox, known for it’s first person shooter games and detailed action games and RPGs. Now, it seems as though the tide is turning again. If Microsoft focuses on the casual gaming crowd, where will the hardcore gamers be? Out in the cold, probably, waiting for the bones thrown from Nintendo and Microsoft in the form of Mario Galaxy 47 or Halo 22. 

Now, that is a pessimistic view. It’s possible that the Kinect will do well, at least well enough for the Xbox to limp to the finish line. After all, children are still the primary target of many games, and kids don’t recognize similarity as well, tending to be focused on seeking differences between groups. They trust in new things as new, enraptured by the one design difference. Maybe they will see the lack of a controller as a great idea, and enough kids pressuring their parents to buy it may make it a success. On top of that, Apple has proved lately that people like buying more of the same thing. Maybe that will hold true here too. 

One last thought to chew on for any hardcore gamers out there-Is motion control really the way you want to see games go? How, exactly, would one make a single player, immersive gaming experience with motion controls? Do you really want to play an action game where you must constantly walk or run in place to get to your destination, throw punches and kicks to kill bad guys, jump to jump, etc? It sounds like a good idea in theory. But would it actually work? I’m not so sure.