on life & other inconveniences

I recently posted some thoughts about monoculture, and primarily I was responding to a column I’d seen, hailing monoculture as a good thing.

To be honest, I can see a certain part of the argument, but there are things about monoculture that bother me. Sure, the idea of a shared experience - as much as that’s ever possible - has some merit.

However, I pulled up comments made about Harrogate Crime Festival as part of the discussion. Specifically, a charge that publishers paid major money to put authors on panels at Harrogate, and therefore only big publishers could afford the festival, and thus it was dominated by big names.

In my post I said:

I’ve attended Harrogate twice, and both times enjoyed it immensely. I was exposed to authors I read religiously, and I was also exposed to authors I’d never heard of before. It had been my understanding that the program chairs invited at their own discretion, not that the slots were purchased by publishers. I could stand corrected on that, but it is true that the system used for programming Harrogate is unlike the system used at other conventions. Good or bad? What I know as a reader was that I paid thousands to go, both times, and I did not want to attend repetitive panels where people begged me to pick up their bookmark, buy their book or clutter the table with promotional garbage.

As I said, it hadn’t been my understanding that publishers bought slots on panels for authors.

And as I said, I’ve been to Harrogate twice, both times paid thousands to go.  Me?  I’m a creature of habit, I get into my comfort zone and I go with it.  Having been spoiled at Harrogate I was shocked by my first Bouchercon because the atmosphere is so different.  At Harrogate you could just relax and get to know people and authors, publishers, editors, readers and reviewers mingled as one.

At Bouchercon, I felt like a walking wallet.  

If you follow the link to the original complaint about Harrogate, you’ll see a comment in the comments section from TOPCWF (Theakston’s Old Peculier Crime Writing Festival) that says:

Authors at the Theakstons Old Peculier Crime Writing Festival actually receive a fee and we also cover the cost of their hotel room and travel. 

We receive no payment from publishers to ensure their authors are programmed. Programming decisions are made independently with our rolling Programming Chair with the support and guidance of the Committee.

That fits with what I was told previously, by one programming chair… That it was just like inviting your favourite authors to a party.  

The main reason I’d pulled it up was because it spoke to something that’s pretty common in publishing:

Struggling and midlist authors are often grumbling about the limited number of promotional dollars thrown at already successful authors, while they’re left on their own to spend considerably smaller advances doing their own promotion.  I’ve commented myself on the fact that real estate in a bookstore is something you can’t compete with, and that there was no single thing I could do myself to match what my publisher did by getting me on displays in Barnes & Noble.

Jane Jakeman’s comment proves, to some extent, the reality of the grumbling by struggling and midlist authors.  Hell, I’m sure there’ve been times I’ve said, “It’s out of my hands from here, what can I do?” when faced with insurmountable odds.  As I said myself, I couldn’t get my book end capped at Barnes & Noble - only my publisher could do that.

But I’ll admit to rolling my eyes at some places that only review hardcover releases.  

I could say a few things I don’t like about one of the major book distributors, but then, they’re things I’ve never said publicly.  Let’s just say I’m aware that the deck is stacked against small publishers - and that stacking comes at the most basic levels of distribution right up to the costly investments in bookstore placement - and leave it at that.  This isn’t a news flash for anyone.

I pulled the (at the time) recent criticism of Harrogate, not because I wanted to criticize Harrogate, but because it does speak to a real fear, and that connects to monoculture.

You see, in private conversations over the past year or so, there have been increasing concerns expressed to me over fears about the future of publishing.  On the surface, there’s nothing new about that.  However, these concerns are about the nature of what will be published.  As publishers struggle to meet new challenges and stay competitive, some industry people fear we’ll see more copies of fewer books in bookstores.

In other words, they fear the day that the only works you have to choose from in the bookstore will be written by authors with the names Brown, Patterson, Cussler, etc.  They fear the end of the midlist author, because there will be no midlist.  

It isn’t a leap, if you think about it.  Frustrated over a lack of promotional support, followed by pressure over low sales, these authors have to fight to earn their spot on the shelves.  And I can appreciate that when you haven’t started off with a six-figure book deal and your publisher only puts out 25 review copies and does nothing else to support your book you might start to feel the deck is stacked against you.

The reality is, if a publisher has a well-known author on a panel at a festival like Harrogate, or the Edinburgh Book Festival, I can fully comprehend why they might, after the fact, decide to spend advertising dollars in the program.  That doesn’t mean they bought the author’s slot.  It does mean that they invested in the event after the fact.  The simple reality is, for most publishers, attending and supporting such events probably costs a lot of money.  The first year I was there I was invited to the HarperCollins party.  The second year, Orion.  Yes, they shelled out some money for those events, to be sure.  Of course, the second year I was there, Ian Rankin and George Pelecanos were the two special guests, and it makes sense that Orion would come out to support those authors.  That said, Orion had a strong presence my first year there as well.  I knew most of the Orion faces from my first year.  They weren’t strangers to me.

I don’t want to turn this post into finger-pointing or a blame game.  I do want to state that, for the record, any assertions that publishers purchase panel slots for their authors at Harrogate is false.  This was not only asserted publicly, in the comments on that post, but privately to me as well, and I am glad that my impressions of how the festival ran were correct.

I think the main reason Harrogate came under fire is because it’s been compared to conventions, when it’s a festival.  Authors are used to signing up for a convention and then being put on a panel.  With Harrogate, it doesn’t happen that way.  There’s nothing wrong with that… it’s just different.  And in reality, I think it could be argued that Harrogate does the best job of accommodating readers.  Seriously.  I spent thousands going a second time because they brought out the authors I wanted to see.  When I go to events I want to see Ian Rankin, Val McDermid, Mark Billingham, Stuart MacBride, Simon Kernick, Natasha Cooper etc.  Yes, I’m a creature of habit, but these people are also damn entertaining.  I can appreciate that some readers (particularly local people who can attend other events throughout the year because of proximity) might not find it as appealing or important to see some of the same authors year to year, and so I can see the possible risks in having a core group of authors who attend each year, over the long term, but I think enough changes are made each year to the overall program and panelist lists to keep people coming back for more.

So, I pulled the accusations up as part of my post on monoculture, but I really hope they didn’t come off as me critically bashing the festival, because I wasn’t intending to.

My concerns about monoculture and publishing speak to the idea that we will see the number of authors published in the future decline.  I can’t say whether or not this will happen, but the idea of it bothers me.  I don’t want every book I pick up to be formulaic.  I want books to cross genres, I want fresh new ideas, I want things to invigorate me as a reader and challenge me as an author.  I want healthy, thriving small presses that bring out material that kicks ass.  

I want more variety, not less.  In my heart, I believe the main reason a lot of people aren’t active readers is not because of time (though let’s face it, it can be a factor, especially with kids) but it’s because they haven’t found things of interest to them that really turn them on to the experience of reading books again.  This is why it’s so critical we help people find books based off of their tastes and interests instead of our own.  

There will always be things with more mainstream appeal, and there will always be people who want to read those things.  Nothing wrong with that.  Me personally?  I’d rather watch The Wire than Cold Case, you know what I’m saying?

The fears are there.  With some authors, that may extend no further than being afraid of staying published, and yes, that fear may have turned to frustration.

However, we must all think before we make accusations that are unfounded, and if my original post about Harrogate caused misunderstandings or offense, I do apologize to those involved in planning the festival.

I’m not one of the authors that’s started off with a big deal with a big publisher.  I worked my way up to what I’ll call a ’small big publisher’.  I’ve enjoyed a lot of publisher support because of a belief in the work.  I was stunned over the Barnes & Noble promotion, and just yesterday I was flipping through the latest Mystery Scene and saw an advertisement by Dorchester that featured three book covers - one of which was mine.  

That doesn’t mean it’s all smooth sailing from here.  My publisher is doing their part.  I have to do mine, and the number one thing I need to do is go and write the best book that I can.  

I know that if I’d started off at the top, with a big deal and a big splash, I might take it for granted and never really understand the challenges struggling authors face.  Instead, I’m keenly aware of what it is to have no distribution on your first book, and to have to work your way up.  Hell, at this point, I’m not even sure if I qualify as a mid-list author - never mind top rung!  It hasn’t been easy to even get to this point, but then, few things in life that are worthwhile are.  

Publishing is a business.  Many authors just want to write and not deal with that side of the equation.  Given the option, that’s probably what I’d choose too.  However, it’s critical we all learn the business side of the equation, and the way to draw attention to ourselves is not in publicly attacking others but in producing the best books we can and telling people what we have to offer…

Not pulling other people down with false accusations.  I hope that clears up where I was trying to go with the original post so that there’s no confusion, and if you haven’t read it yet, you might want to check out Allison Brennan’s thoughts on giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Why is it when I read this news article, the main thing that stood out to me is that if I had a character in a novel named Lex Lawless, I’m sure I’d be criticized for picking something so phony. Doesn’t it sound fake to you? And at a gun range, no less. I think Strang is a good name for a cop, though. Why is it that names are what I’m thinking about? Have I become so desensitized through my daily dose of news that all that strikes me are things that are absurd?

And… I laughed… I cried… It moved me. What else can I say about one critical paragraph in all of this? Clue: I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I think Brian said it best.

First, watch this.

And then this… Just trust me.

And just one more:

I know people have debated over whether or not a person’s more inclined to review a book favourably if they receive it for free. That might be true for a short time for what I’ll call blog reviewers, people who don’t review for money but for the love of books, who find themselves receiving ARCs eventually.

This summer, I’ve seen six - scratch that - seven movies, which is a record for me. I paid to see the new Indiana Jones film, and to see X-Files. I saw WANTED free, pre-release, and I also saw Batman, The Mummy movie and Star Wars: Clone Wars for free. I took the kids to see Kung Fu Panda too. I’m probably going to get in trouble for pulling a clip off YouTube anyway, so why not go for broke? Seeing a movie for free does nothing to soften my view of the movie.

The only thing I’m trying to decide is whether Star Wars: Clone Wars was a D+ or a C-. I’ll have to remember to keep an eye on Reel Fanatic’s blog to see if he weighs in with an opinion.

I’ll tell you why the movie had some problems for me, and I’ll start with the non-spoiler stuff. I do find that the Clone Wars trailer views better on a laptop screen, which tells me it’s really designed for the small screen, not the big screen. I’m not sure if you’ll get the full effect just viewing the clips here, but did you see how detailed the expressions were in Ratatouille? Did you see the wind blowing her hair in Final Fantasy?

Final Fantasy kicks serious ass when it comes to animation, as does anything Pixar makes, for different reasons. Final Fantasy was the first attempt at a photo realistic 3-D film. I know as a writer I’m constantly under pressure to think of all the scene-setting details that should apply, to remember to show how weather (if relevant) would affect the character, for example. There’s almost none of that attention to detail in Star Wars: Clone Wars. The animation just isn’t anywhere as good as what we’ve become accustomed to - Kung Fu Panda kicks Star Wars’ ass.

Jabba and Yoda translate pretty well, because those characters aren’t human, but unfortunately Skywalker and Kenobi don’t.

One of the simple realities of enjoying Star Wars is that you have to turn you mind off to some degree and just enjoy the ride, and that’s true for the movies as well. Don’t start critiquing the acting, or you’ll find a lot to complain about. Don’t start critiquing the dialogue - you’ll be here all day. They are what they are, which is action-packed adventure films that follow the standard quest tropes, and really, they’re about inspiring people with hope. Good will triumph over evil. Some people will stand up to fight for freedom. For me, it’s always been the emotional experience of the Star Wars movies that’s covered a multitude of sins and made them great movies that I’ve watched multiple times. And with the new movies in the theaters, we came to expect a high standard of quality.

However, I must quibble with #3, and the birth of Darth Vadar, because Lucas rewrites history. Leia has memories of her real mother from before she died, but now Amadala dies moments after naming the babies, and we see Leia handed over to her new parents. There’s no way in hell a child a few days old would have memories of her mother.

There’s revisionist history in Clone Wars as well, and this is where there might be what some consider spoilers, so skip to the bold header below if you’re worried about any reveals at all…….. For example, Anakin is no longer under Kenobi’s tutelage, and he has his own padawan learner. There’s no place in the movie that this fits within the chronology, so if you take it as an aside, a war between events narrated in movies 2 and 3, it still doesn’t make sense.

My biggest problem with Clone Wars wasn’t the revised history. It was the failure of the characters to capture me emotionally. As I’ve said before, a big part of my ability to turn off my brain and just enjoy the things done well in these movies stems from the emotional experience of watching them. Despite the history with these characters, I just couldn’t find that connection. Kenobi is truest to the Kenobi I know, and even then he’s a little too complimentary of Skywalker. And Skywalker is a little too admiring of Kenobi. Had the animation been better, maybe they would have worked for me, but it’s hard to even believe the moments of supposed weakness or self-doubt.

And for crying out loud, would Skywalker be such an idiot as to trust a plan when he hasn’t even heard what it is? Um, no. He’s far too self-absorbed to hand over a decision without reviewing it first, at least.

What works for Clone Wars will be the appeal to kids, who won’t overanalyze the movie. Girls will enjoy Skywalker’s padawan - she’s obviously brought in to make sure that boys with sisters who’re dragged to the movie will have something to like. It’s doubtful a padawan that young and inexperienced would really be sent into a war zone, and then on such a critical mission.

But then, we’re asked to believe that of Luke in the first Star Wars movie. The only difference was he was an adult (technically) - not a kid.

We get offers for free movie tickets usually twice a month, so it’s no skin off our nose to go see the movie if there’s any possibility of appeal. In this case, we wanted to screen it, because our son wants to see it. So, that means we’ll probably live through the movie a second time, and actually pay for it, but not because it’s a good movie. Just because it’s a movie that’s made for kids, who aren’t overly critical and won’t analyze the plot and compare the graphics to identify the weaknesses.

That said, I paid money to see the new Indiana Jones movie this year, and I find myself feeling like both that film and this one were just tossed together quickly, without a lot of attention to detail, as a cash grab for the people behind them. Adults looking for substance will be disappointed, I’m sorry to say. I’d hoped for better.

The Reviewer is Reviewed

Amra Pajalic has posted her thoughts about WHAT BURNS WITHIN and they’re quite complimentary. In fact, enough to make me blush. I don’t think I mentioned that Charlie Stella took the time to put up a review on amazon - what a surprise to find out he’d picked up the book and read it, but a very nice surprise indeed.

And I really like what Amra pulled from WBW. The tough subject matter is actually handled pretty discretely, and serves mainly as a platform for commentary on attitudes about sex. I’m glad Amra liked the book.

In a recent poll on CTV.ca Canadians indicated that the performance of Team Canada at the Olympics mattered.

Specifically, that how many medals won was a matter of national pride.

If that’s the indicator, there isn’t much for us to be proud of. “As the Beijing Olympics reach the half-way point, Canada’s hopes for 15 medals (as some predicted) have been shattered.”

In fact, as far as I’ve seen, Canadians have won only two medals thus far at the Olympics.

While I think it’s safe to say that the Winter Olympics have always been stronger for us than the summer games, watching the news coverage (even from afar, online) has been infuriating for me. It feels like all this pressure is on the athletes to perform, when for the next four years the overwhelming majority of people will forget all about these athletes and do nothing to support them.

This is certainly true of the government. Minimal amounts of money are invested in the development of our athletes and artists.

This has made me think about a few critical things.

1. What does a nation’s art say about the country? As an outsider looking in, what do you learn about the nation? Is it important to you when you travel? (I’m applying art loosely here - music, writing, theatre, actual art.)

Lawren Harris

Tom Thompson

AY Jackson

What does the art here say to you?

If that’s too big a question, then what does the lack of crime fiction from a certain country indicate to you? Or a disproportionate amount of a specific type of crime fiction?

2. If funding is involved, how are expectations scaled back accordingly when the performance isn’t what’s expected? I started off wondering about athletes. Now I’m thinking of the fact that “book sales in March declined 11% to $462.1 million, based on data from 79 publishers as reported to the Association of American Publishers. Sales for the year to date rose 1.3% to $1.71 billion.”

According to my quick search, book sales were down again in June. So I’m wondering, in an industry that’s taken a lot of hits this year (I know book sales have been sluggish in Canada since last fall, in large part because of the strong Canadian dollar) how do publishers adjust performance expectations? Or do they? Do they say, “June sales were down 10%, so we should reduce our individual performance expectations by that much?” Or do they still expect the same sell-through?

See, following the Olympics can be a dangerous thing. It leads to dangerous thinking. Be sure to check at Observations From The Balcony today for the usual Daily Miscellany of Links.

Recently, I visited a bookstore. There’s nothing unusual about that, but this was a store that sells new and used books. I scanned the mystery section and didn’t see my book there.

Then I noticed that Michael Connelly was shelved in fiction. So was Peter Robinson. I continued looking, and sure enough, there I was. A used copy of my book was for sale, in the fiction section.

It was my first time seeing a used copy for sale, physically. Sure, we’ve all seen the listings on amazon, but it’s not the same thing. I’d been asked how I’d feel about it, and hadn’t really known for sure, but at that moment I was as ambivalent as ever. I’d always said that if I found my book in a used bookstore, I’d offer to sign it, so we pulled it down.

That’s when a quick flick through the pages revealed that the previous owner had been on a flight, and used $5 as a second bookmark.

This isn’t a post about sales, but I have a small side rant.  I know some authors won’t set foot in a used bookstore, some even loathe libraries. It’s true I don’t make any money off the sale of a used copy, and the philosophy is that if someone buys a used book you’re losing a new book sale, but that’s simplistic logic. Truth is, it’s more likely that those buying used books primarily buy used books, and they’re willing to take a chance on a new-to-them author at used prices, but wouldn’t if they had to pay full price.

The reality is, what authors should concern themselves with in the early stages is finding readers. If people discover my books in a used store or a library and they like them, there’s a better chance they might buy the next book new. And there’s a better chance they’ll recommend the book to others, and that I’ll actually gain more new readers. If those people prefer new books or eventually do purchase the books new, it’s actually possible that off the sale of a used book I may gain sales of several new copies.

When I think about this, it reminds me of Barbara Fister’s post about The Long Tail…

Anyway, what does this have to do with applying logic to the absurd? I think a lot of authors have the same unfortunate short-term view about book sales that we accuse publishers of having. We whine about publishers who don’t invest in building up an author’s backlist to the point where they can catch on with a wider readership while we gripe about used book sales and expect everyone to invest in us right away.

Truth is, even having your book in a used store is an investment. There are bills to pay there too, and the staff there know their books. This is part of the cycle. It’s no different than friends who lend copies, and we’ve all been doing this our entire lives. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had a recommendation from a friend who got a book in the library, or borrowed a book and later bought it for myself. I’m one of those book-owning nuts who prefers to own their own copy.

But enough about sales. The experience of finding $5 in a used copy of one of my books for sale was just so absurd, it stuck in my brain and intersected with my other thoughts of the day. You see, recently I was talking to someone about my forthcoming book, THE FRAILTY OF FLESH. And the person was talking about something that happens in the book. In order to not give anything away, I’ll say that they kept waiting for one character to just own up about something, and then when the person did, it was to a stranger instead of one of their friends.

I think it baffled them, maybe they found it a bit of a stretch. Not sure, but the point isn’t to pick on them either. It just got me thinking. You see, a lot of the time, we’re illogical creatures. We can act rashly, can “see red” and let our temper get the best of us. Quick survey here: Whoever’s done/said something that they knew they shouldn’t do/say at the time but couldn’t stop themselves and done/said it anyway, raise your hand.

Right. Just what I thought.

But try selling that in a work of fiction and you’ve got all sorts of potential problems, because we assess character motivation and we want to justify everything within the works we read/review/write.  Sometimes, there’s just no reasoning away the ridiculousness of our fears.  Like my recurring nightmares about Hamburglar as a child, or my worry that the only creature on earth that’s truly loved me was a cat.  Divorce will do strange things to you, and once you doubt someone you doubt everything about your history with them. You begin to reinterpret behaviours, comments… everything. Sometimes, I feel the only thing I’ve learned in the past year is how to distrust everything, and everyone. This has been compounded by the silence from some. I have a friend going through something similar, and they’ll understand perfectly what I’m saying here - you’re facing the hardest time in your life and suddenly your friends are awol. When you come out on the other side you find yourself wondering if they were ever your friends if they couldn’t even drop a couple lines in an e-mail when you’re going through a terrible time.

I discovered getting divorced turns you into a leper. The only thing worse seems to be becoming a step-mom. You’re automatically alienated from parents who don’t like what you represent, no matter how much you love your kids and how great you are with them, or that you weren’t the person who broke up their family.

Sorry. That was another side rant. Getting back on track…

Over at Peter Rozovsky’s Detectives Beyond Borders site there’s been a lively discussion in the comment trail, involving Adrian McKinty, N. Ireland and our responses to violence. I’ve provided the link, but I’m going to take the liberty of lifting a small bit of what Adrian posted in response to one of my comments:

In the incident in the cinema which I failed to link to, my wife brother and myself exited a Belfast movie theatre in the middle of a fullscale petrol bomb throwing riot. My little brother and I had at least experienced stuff like this before and were aware of the norms but my wife was (as you would expect) absolutely terrified. We had to drive home through paramilitary roadblocks, burning cars, an attempted hijacking etc and my brother and I were glibly laughing about it. It was only later when we’d got home and my brother and I were talking that we realized how normal my wife’s reaction had been and how abnormal our calmness. So you do adjust, I think, its only when you get out that you see the insanity for what it is.

- Adrian McKinty

I couldn’t have summed it up better myself.  You can take a perfectly normal, rational, intelligent person and put them in difficult circumstances and they’ll act in a completely abnormal, irrational, ridiculous manner.
 
This is why I think some people have trouble with some books.  Some books aren’t about the logical experience, aren’t about justifying every action.  They’re about the emotional reaction.  In fact, THE FRAILTY OF FLESH has a lot to do with people responding emotionally to things, and allowing that to skew their perspective.  The trick is, when they’re your POV characters, it means the reader sees through their eyes.  You have to find a way to balance that, and show the reader that maybe they aren’t thinking clearly.

I guess, like all things, your mileage may vary.  Not everyone will buy in.  However, as an author, it’s never a bad thing to have someone challenge you.  Some authors respond with the “when you write a better book, you come criticize” but the risk is that you’ll become lazy, complacent, and won’t consider those things in future works.

It’s not exactly popular to admit your own insecurities as an author, and I think the reasoning for that is based on reader expectations as well.  We want the people we idolize to be a bit larger than life, and if they maintain they’re only human, then they’re fallible.  Then we can find fault with them, and criticize them, and poke holes. 

If you’re successful and admit some insecurities, you’re modest.  If you’re unsuccessful and admit some insecurities, it’s because you aren’t very good.  Or something like that.

Do I worry about the book?  Yes.  I think half the reason we send out review copies (which have gone out now for FRAILTY, and I have a box here with some extras in it that I need to do something with) is to get reviews, which help sales, and the other part of the reason is to reassure us with positive feedback.

I haven’t really been doing the blurb thing.  I hate asking people.  This means the only feedback I have is from the few reviewers who have read advanced copies already, or peers who have asked for interviews. 

This is the best book that I’ve produced to date.  My goal is for every book to show improvement over the last, which isn’t to suggest that earlier books are necessarily weak or flawed.  The point is, I want to grow as a writer, to expand my skills, to utilize different storytelling formats where appropriate.  I always want to push myself, never coast.

I can look at THE FRAILTY OF FLESH and say that it marks growth and I’m proud of the book.  But don’t worry - privately I’ll be craving reassurance that I haven’t lost my mind, because this is one of those things you can’t always be logical about.  The nerves an author often struggles with are far more absurd than rational, and you can’t expect the rules of logic to apply.

I think most people have come to expect recommendations of certain types of books from me. I do like books that are dark, I love my police procedurals…

It isn’t often you’ll see me indulging in amateur sleuth stories that lean more to humour, but in H Mel Malton’s Polly Deacon series I found a character I liked and a series that entertained me from book 1 through to book 4.

The tragedy of it is that last I heard, the books aren’t even in print anymore. You can find them on amazon, by typing in H. Malton.

DOWN IN THE DUMPS introduces Polly Deacon, one of those characters that says and does all the things she shouldn’t do. Impulsive, strong-willed and independent, Polly resonates. She lives in a cabin in the woods, chops wood, helps on the farm, and is a contract puppet maker.

When her best friend is found dead, she’s drawn into the murder investigation. Normally wary of amateur sleuth stories, all I can say is, Polly Deacon works for me. The author manages, over the four books in the series, to find plausible reasons to get Polly involved in different cases that come up.

CUE THE DEAD GUY is not only one of my favourite book titles, but it’s also one of my favourite covers. I think part of the reason it works so well for me is that it matches the dark humour of Malton’s writing.

It would be hard for me to pick just one book within the series to recommend. It’s easy to say start at the beginning, but this is a series where you can watch the author mature, even as Polly struggles with her life and choices. DEAD COW IN AISLE THREE brings the series home to the fictional Muskoka it’s located in in a powerful way, as it makes a subtle commentary about the death of the Mom & Pop shops in cottage country as big business buys its way in.

And in ONE LARGE COFFIN TO GO, Polly will leave her home to travel overseas for the opportunity of a lifetime, and one that may well cost her her life. A very pregnant Polly will make important choices about her future as a result of the events that unfold.

I could look back and be more critical as a reviewer now, and niggle on some points, but as a reader I was thoroughly captivated by Polly, and her exploits, and found within these books an intriguing blend of humour and heart. If you think these books sound like ones you’d enjoy, try to track them down. They’re worth it.

Brian has the full round-up of Forgotten Book posts that were sent in, and will be adding to it through the day as posts are made online. Enjoy.

Since the book’s out, and chances are any of you reading this have already read it or decided you’re not going to, can I talk bluntly about WHAT BURNS WITHIN?  Specifically, part of the inspiration behind one element of the book?

You can take a minute and think about it.  I’ll warn you before I go anywhere near it again.

I haven’t had much to say about the horrific crime committed on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba last week.  A passenger - with apparently no provocation - pulled out a knife and stabbed the man beside him between 40 and 50 times, and then beheaded him.

It’s a crime that’s made headlines around the world.  A few days later, a man beheaded his girlfriend in Greece.  

I didn’t talk about it because it seemed, to me, insensitive.  It isn’t a case where motivations are clear, where it speaks to a failing on the part of a parent or organization.  It’s incomprehensible because of the lack of motive.  It’s a crime that’s stunned a nation, and in fact, much of the world.  Totally, absolutely senseless.  What else could I say?

Until today.  This brutal murder is back in the headlines today, for a completely different reason.

The daughter of the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Ka., told CTV.ca she and several other church members will go to Winnipeg on Saturday to demonstrate against what she described as McLean’s “filthy way of life.” Shirley Phelps-Roper said his life was emblematic of Canada’s moral decay.

“God handed us a gift,” Phelps-Roper said in a phone interview on Thursday.

She said McLean deserved his death by beheading on a Greyhound Bus last week.

“(His death was) supremely unemotional. You got God shaking in rage. There is no emotional component … He was a rebel against God. He was taught to be a rebel by his parents. He came from a rebel country … They brought this wrath upon his head. And it sucks to be him and it sucks to be them,” Phelps-Roper said.

She said his brutal murder was a sign from God.

“You gotta connect the dots, people … from your idols to your filthy way of life,” she said.

“Here’s what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth.”

She must worship the Nazis.  After all, by her logic, God was using the killer to measure out divine justice.  I guess the same must be said for the five babies who’ve died of syphillis in Alberta in recent years.  Turner Nelson, the three-year-old boy tossed off a bridge in Baltimore, by his father?  That was God’s way of highlighting his immoral lifestyle, was it?

It’s the most twisted logic imaginable.  Religious fanatics take all forms, and in truth the fanaticism of some Christian groups defies explanation.  While we struggle to understand how someone can strap explosives to their body and kill themselves in order to kill others, we live in a nation where people pick up guns and shoot doctors who perform abortions and the religious self-righteous impose themselves on the family of a murder victim by protesting at his funeral.

By Phelps-Roper’s own twisted logic, aren’t abortion doctors simply executing the extremely wicked before they have a chance to indulge in their sinful ways?

Making sense of these idiots is enough to make my head hurt, and I know it’s impossible.  It was Jesus who said:

Luke 6:37 ”Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.Luke 6:41 ”Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this– not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

Or how about Matthew 5:44:  ”But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.”

We did not see Jesus showing up at funerals and celebrating the death of the unrighteous.  We did not see Peter or Paul, or anyone else, engaging in such actions.  Instead, facing death, it was Jesus who said:

Luke 23:34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

And when Stephen was martyred?  Acts 7:60 Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

The scripture very clearly demonstrates the New Testament rule, and it’s of forgiveness and love.  You’re to pray for your enemies, you’re to let your light shine in the darkness and stand as an example.  You’re to win people to your faith by your holy life.

Not by your judgement of others.  But then, if the words of Jesus Himself are not enough to make these people wake up to the truth, what good will saying anything on my blog do?  Nothing really, it just gets it off my chest.

I spent three years of my life in full-time Christian ministry.  There are times I regret it, because I really wanted to believe in doing good for others, but that wasn’t what I saw emulated by the group I served with.  I saw people use scripture to condemn others over erratic things - like playing the violin - and they pointed fingers while indulging in their own sins in the forms of committing adultery and gossip.  

Many of my good friends have strong religious convictions, and for that matter, so do I.  However, my strongest conviction is that when zeal is urged over logic religion is dangerous, no matter which god you profess to worship.

This is where the book comes in.

When I wrote WHAT BURNS WITHIN, my feelings about people who have a feeble and distorted grasp of scripture came through.  Without giving it all away here, I will admit that a line from a song called God Rules by UNDERCOVER (”Last time water, this time fire”) contributed to the idea.

I never wanted the book to be heavy handed.  Whatever themes and issues are simmering beneath the surface, I still want to tell an entertaining story.  The thing is, news articles like the one about this church and the planned protest at the funeral make my blood boil, and I find myself wondering now if my own rage translated through at the resolution in WBW.  I don’t think it did, and that’s probably a good thing.  

Were I to focus solely on inspiration from my experiences with religious groups, I could produce half a dozen novels easily.  It probably explains my knee jerk reaction to the story about the woman whose children were removed from her custody after she sent her daughter to school with a swastika on her arm.  Long term (and even short term) exposure to religious indoctrination of any kind can be extremely damaging.  

Phelps-Roper is proof of that.  As though 9/11 wasn’t enough.

Tim McLean was a man.  A son.  A friend.  He had hopes and dreams and plans for his future.  Whatever mistakes he may have made in his life, they were his to own and not mine to judge.  His life was tragically cut short by a lunatic with a knife, with no clear motivation for murdering him.  A family that’s already struggling to make sense of the incomprehensible must now face a self-righteous religious group that says he got what he deserved.  

The Bible does not teach us that murder is God’s way of measuring judgment.  Ananias and Sapphira are proof that He’s got other means at His disposal.

Or, as my boyfriend said the other day, “If there’s one thing the Bible teaches us, it’s that even God’s son can get hurt.”

(For those who can’t get enough of talk about terrorists and religious fanaticism, check out David Terrenoire’s blog.)

I want to tell you a story. I’m going to ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you the story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your eyes, please. This is a story about a little girl walking home from the grocery store one sunny afternoon. I want you to picture this little girl. Suddenly a truck races up. Two men jump out and grab her. They drag her into a nearby field and they tie her up and they rip her clothes from her body. Now they climb on. First one, then the other, raping her, shattering everything innocent and pure with a vicious thrust in a fog of drunken breath and sweat. And when they’re done, after they’ve killed her tiny womb, murdered any chance for her to have children, to have life beyond her own, they decide to use her for target practice. They start throwing full beer cans at her. They throw them so hard that it tears the flesh all the way to her bones. Then they urinate on her. Now comes the hanging. They have a rope. They tie a noose. Imagine the noose going tight around her neck and with a sudden blinding jerk she’s pulled into the air and her feet and legs go kicking. They don’t find the ground. The hanging branch isn’t strong enough. It snaps and she falls back to the earth. So they pick her up, throw her in the back of the truck and drive out to Foggy Creek Bridge. Pitch her over the edge. And she drops some thirty feet down to the creek bottom below. Can you see her? Her raped, beaten, broken body soaked in their urine, soaked in their semen, soaked in her blood, left to die. Can you see her? I want you to picture that little girl. Now imagine she’s white. 

 

The quote is from the movie A Time To Kill.  It’s the kind of film that gets under your skin and makes you uncomfortable if you really think about the issues that form the foundation for the story.  A distraught father avenges the brutal rape of his daughter, and the trial becomes a race issue.  What works against Jake’s client is the fact that he’s black.

Jake can’t make the jury colour blind, so he finds a way to make them relate.

One of the things we’ve talked about in our family is the possibility of race riots if Obama loses the presidential election.  Baltimore has had race riots before, and this election more than any other the outcome of the election could affect citizens of this country from the moment a winner is declared.  

Yesterday, Brian showed me a photo of Obama, addressing the crowd in Berlin.  The comment was something to the effect of, “This is what it’s like to be respected by the world again.”

A quick google search will reveal there are some who feel that race is a losing issue for Obama, that whites feel punished for the sins of others and thus pressured into voting for Obama just to prove they aren’t racist, but to me, this election is more important than two candidates trying to get your vote.  It’s more than democrat versus republican.

The question is, what does the decision of the American people tell the rest of the world?   Perhaps the simplicity of it can be attributed to a different form of prejudice, but I feel that if Obama is not elected there are some that will condemn the United States as a backwater nation that can’t shake its own prejudices, and therefore has nothing worthy to contribute on the world state.  Why should Africa care what the U.S. has to say on African issues when only white men can be elected to the highest office in the country?  

As a Canadian, I always feel awkward pointing fingers at other countries unless I’ve lived in them.  I still feel awkward commentating on the U.S. presidential election, but I’ve been thinking a lot about this race and what it means, and what the repercussions may be.  I’ll readily admit that I don’t like McCain’s attack ads.  I don’t like anyone’s attack ads.  You know part of the reason Coke is better than Pepsi?  They had nicer commercials.

I’m serious.  Back in the days of the Cola wars, Pepsi concentrated on the put-downs, while Coke wanted to teach the world to sing.  Sandra’s translation?  Coke was nice.  Pepsi’s mean.  I don’t like bullies.  I drank Coke.

I am concerned about how the global community will respond to the outcome of this federal election, and I feel uneasy about it.  All the racial variables are issues that can’t be ignored, but they also threaten to derail the election.  I’m uneasy about the potential outcome, and I think part of the reason is that recently, my own writing cut too close to the truth and made me uncomfortable.

I read a lot of news stories, and skim headlines.  I save some things in a file, although I rarely fact check stories when I’m writing.  The purpose isn’t to be technically accurate (unless it’s required) but to maintain a basic level of awareness of pertinent issues that interest me.  They usually find a way of seeping into the writing somehow, although not always as you’d expect.  One of the things that’s stayed with me for a long time is about B.C.’s Highway of Tears.  It’s a stretch of highway in northern B.C. where several women have been murdered or have disappeared from over the years, and the cases are unsolved.  

One of the criticisms about the cases has been that there’s a lack of concern from the authorities because most of the victims are Native.  The police took a beating over the investigation into the 50+ missing women that ultimately led to the arrest of Robert Pickton.  Bones and personal items belonging to some victims were recovered from Pickton’s Port Coquitlam farm.  

Questions were asked, about why so many women disappeared before anything was done.  Would it have happened if the women had lived on the west side instead of the east?  Would it have happened if they were white middle class?

The answers were inferred in the questions being asked.  It’s hard to defend against the criticisms when it can be established that the crimes were committed over several years.

What does all of this have to do with my own writing?  I chose to make a protagonist in my series Native, for a variety of reasons.  I was concerned about accurately representing Native people.  However, I was also influenced by the fact that one of the RCMP officers who helped me with research was part Native, part French.  I was also thinking about the fact that, despite our squeaky clean image to the world, Canada has some serious problems with racism.

In particular, with how we treat Natives.

I’d been following a few cases where children under the watch of social servies died.  These cases ultimately seeped through to the story line in a subtle way.  They did not directly influence the primary case so much as they influenced how one character took shape within the series.

Specifically, my Native protagonist, Tain.

I thought if anyone picked up on what came out in THE FRAILTY OF FLESH, I may have to defend myself.  However, the news headlines this week have haunted me.  If I had not written THE FRAILTY OF FLESH a year ago…  As it is, I’m sure someone less familiar with how long it takes for books to get published could assume the book was influenced by this true story.

This week, Toronto recorded another murder.  There is nothing unusual about that.

However, the murder victim was a seven-year-old girl.  Such revelations automatically dictate increased media interest.

It is not a simple case of parental abuse that leads to murder.  It’s far more complicated, and the result means that Katelynn Sampson’s murder will be the subject of media discussion for some time to come.

The question is whether or not her death will prompt change.

Katelynn’s mother had personal issues that prompted her to place Katelynn in the care of a long-time friend, Donna Irving.  This arrangement was handled by Native Child and Family Services.  

Irving has been charged with Katelynn’s murder.  

So far, nothing seems all that dramatic about this.  Unfortunately, we’ve heard of children placed in care who’ve died before.  Tragically, many children are abused and ultimately murdered by their abusers.  What makes this case stand out?

“What I saw was probably the worst thing I’ve seen in 20 years of policing. The worst,” Det.-Sgt. Steve Ryan said.

And in a gruesome twist, yesterday’s autopsy at the Hospital For Sick Children began at 10:30 a.m. but hadn’t been completed by 5 p.m. due to the “nature and severity of Katelynn’s injuries,” police said.

 

Add in this:

Ryan said Irving has four children of her own. Two young boys live with her and two older children may be in the custody of Children’s Aid, he said.

 

May be?  It gets better.  Irving had been arrested, on more than one occasion:

A search at Old City Hall courthouse yesterday revealed a troubled trail stretching from 1998 to 2004 and crowned with this week’s second-degree murder charge.

In February, 1999 she was charged with assault with a weapon. The weapon she used was pieces of plastic.

She pleaded guilty days later, was given credit for five days pre-trial custody and sentenced to one day in custody along with 18 months probation.

A criminal harassment and mischief under $5,000 charge was withdrawn. A charge for failing to attend court was stayed.

In 1998, she was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

She has also been charged three times with committing an indecent act.

She received a $128 fine for soliciting a ride in 2000 and a $92 fine for public intoxication in 2004. Both those fines were never paid.

 

Am I the only person asking if the reason that Katelynn was allowed to be placed with someone with a criminal history, whose own children may (dear God, someone tell me they can answer this question) be under the care of Children’s Aid, was because she was Native.

I’m not saying that non-Native children have never been abused within the system, or murdered.  However…  I find myself wondering if this had been a white girl if we’d even be considering the questions.  I can appreciate that not everyone with a criminal history is an unsuitable parent, but as far as I’m concerned anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to place a child with someone who has been charged with assault needs their head examined.  There’s enough stress involved with parenting:  anyone with a history of violence can snap and lose their temper and if they’ve already shown they’re willing to cross the line, to the point where the police have been involved, choosing to place a child that is not their own in their care is irresponsible.

And there is the question of where Irving’s two older children are, and if they are in the care of Children’s Aid.  At the very least, there’s the question of why they aren’t in her care.

In fact, the more I read about this case, the more obvious it is that Irving was an unsuitable caregiver for Katelynn.  I am not willing to point my finger firmly at Katelynn’s mother.  I understand that many parents fear that if their children are placed in care they may not regain custody of the child.  From that perspective, I can understand her desire to have Katelynn placed with someone she knew.  I also think that the mother understood she wasn’t in a position to take care of Katelynn, and that probably speaks to the fact that she wasn’t in the best position to make a sound choice about who looked after her daughter.

That’s the job of the agencies that oversee these placements.

We now know that Katelynn had been sleeping on the floor in Irving’s bedroom.  Was nobody following up, doing visits to evaluate this placement?  There are also references to reports that Katelynn was seen with marks on her body.  What about the teachers, neighbours, people who should have had an opportunity to take note that something was wrong?  It seems like this girl was sent off and the case file closed.

Kenn Richard, executive director of Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, said his agency, which provides support services to native families and works toward placing native children in “culturally appropriate” adoptive homes, is committed to finding out what happened.

This whole case disturbs me, on so many levels.  I hope it isn’t being suggested that any child would be placed in a house based on the race of the caregiver first, with questions of suitability and safety set aside?

And yet, my own experience in the education system, dealing with a potential removal, is enough to convince me that doing what is in the best interests of the child is rarely the top priority when placing children.

We need only look at the presidential race to understand that prejudice is alive and well.  Hilary was a female candidate.  Obama isn’t just a presidential hopeful - he’s a black presidential hopeful.  And when McCain can’t play the race card he can point out Obama’s age and say he’s too young.  Translation:  inexperienced.  (Didn’t stop him from drawing a huge, enthusiastic crowd in Berlin, did it?)

Consider how hard it is for men to get full custody of their kids.  I’ve known men who have - one after the mother shacked up with a man who abused the kids until criminal charges were filed and they were taken away from the mother.

Here’s a tip:  If you shack up with someone who talks with their fists, don’t pretend to be surprised when they hit your kids.

The courts need to stop making assumptions, that mothers are always the best caregivers, that it’s better for a Native child to be in a Native home, rather than a safe home.  Same goes for blacks or whites.  I believe in preserving the cultural identity of Native people…  I just believe in preserving life first and foremost.

I guess the question is, when will we be willing to stop letting prejudices dictate our choices, even if our choices are based off a backlash to the prejudices of others?  How do we extricate race and age and gender from our decisions to just make the right decision?  I don’t know.

I just know that this week, the death of a girl proved the truth of something I wrote about over a year ago - that we are not colour blind - and it’s a truth that makes me sad.

And until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices. 

Edited to add:  As I went upstairs for a shower, I continued to think about this post, and I realized that it was possible some might think that I’m placing the blame squarely on Native Child and Family Services.  That is not my intent.  I would, instead, blame the reality that makes it necessary for organizations like Native Child and Family Services to exist - the truth that we’ve proven all too often that we will not look after Natives, or protect Native interests.  It is the well-established history of removing Native children and placing them in the care of the church, trying to eradicate their culture and heritage, that has brought us to where we are today, and while not every person who is white is to blame for the sins of the past, I don’t think it’s stretching to say where it not for past mistreatment and centuries of abuse and neglect of Native people in Canada, Katelynn might just be alive today.

There is at least one critic in the world that agrees with me about The X-Files movie.

I know I posted it in the teaser yesterday on the old blog, but some people actually come here right off, so in case you missed it Brian has an interesting theory about movies and the mystery genre that’s worth checking out.

And finally, every now and again there is something you see that defies easy categorization.  Shocking?  Potentially offensive?  Hilarious?  An incredible display of talent in blending song and film - the lip syncing is incredible - it’s probably best you watch this video with no expectations at all, but I’d love to know what you think.  I’m calling it art.

This weekend, I’ve seen two movies on the big screen.  One was the The Mummy:  Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.  The other:  The X-Files: I Want To Believe.

Although The Mummy features returning characters in the forms of the O’Connells and a much older son Alex, I’m not sure seeing the movie because of any love of those characters would be enough to make viewers long for a fourth installment.  The first part of the movie, when Rick and Evelyn were trying to live the genteel life, went on a bit too long, and in reality, people who are that unhappy in their situation usually start taking it out on each other.  The day to day living a lie thing would probably have put more strain on them.

However, there’s an aspect of The Mummy movie that is played for laughs.  We see this more with Jonathan, Evelyn’s brother, whose sole purpose at times seems to be providing the one-liners.  The problem I had with this is that it was inconsistent.  At first he seems the generally sensible uncle-businessman, but that soon deteriorates, and there was no real reason to involve him in the adventures once the action left the city.

There are several reasons people may choose to see a movie on the big screen instead of waiting for DVD, and action scenes are a popular one.  On that level, The Mummy delivers lots of bangs and crashes and chases.  However, the movie itself felt like it lacked focus.  I had to think about why that was.  There’s no question that you’re being asked to suspend belief when you indulge in a movie like this.  What works for me is knowing a legend from the start (or near the beginning) so that the direction the movie goes in can make sense.  In this movie, it felt like the legend was brought out piecemeal, so that all of the twists could be justified.  Instead, for me, they felt tacked on.  In the beginning I thought I understood that one thing would cause the curse to be broken and the Emperor to rise from the dead.  Later, it was something else, but then he was only partially raised and needed something else, again, in order to be immortal, but then when he was on the doorstep we learned if he became immortal he’d be able to do all these funky things…

In that respect, following the storyline closely isn’t a great idea, and the movie feels like a steady barrage of eye-candy in the form of action - some of which fails to really convey tension.  I was right with the creepiness of the tomb in the beginning, but unfortunately the movie failed to sustain that atmosphere and level of suspense.  I also had the impression that the people behind this movie didn’t have much idea themselves about where it was going, and just went with the “oh wouldn’t this look cool?” approach, and threw in as much stuff as they could to keep the explosions rolling.

And divide and conquer could have been more effective if it had been a tactic used earlier in the movie.  Instead, it was symbolic of a strained father-son relationship in the beginning that healed far too quickly without any real tension. 

One other thing was the fact that the reveal about our mysterious guard of the tomb was actually given away early on, by her own statement about her mother… Alex, as the person who’d found the tomb and knew the history, should have automatically connected the dots.  Unfortunately, he remained obtuse, which I’m going to chalk up to bad writing rather than bad acting, since Rachel refers to the girl’s secrets along the way, I suppose as a way of making the audience sit on the edge of their seat, wondering what they’ll learn…. only we already know the answer.

And the little sexual frustration scene felt like Temple of Doom rewritten.  Unfortunately, not re-written well.

The saving graces of the movie - for me, anyway - were Brendan Fraser and Luke Ford, Isabella Leong, Michelle Yeoh, Tian Liang… in fact, the cast is overall pretty strong.  I had the curious sense that they did the best with what they were given to work with.

Opinions may vary.  I saw the movie for free, and I was glad I hadn’t paid to see it.  Of course, bear in mind I’ve already seen far more movies in the lately than I usually do, and there isn’t much I can’t wait for DVD for.  However…. I didn’t pay to see Batman but we’re planning to go and pay to see it again soon.

However, one movie that fell into the ‘must-see’ category for me was the new X-Files movie.  We meet up with Scully - now a medical doctor - and Mulder (apparently not doing much of anything) when the FBI reaches out to Mulder for help on a case involving a kidnapped FBI agent and a psychic.

My strong sense with this movie was that a lot of people wouldn’t get it.  Part of the beauty of it is the appeal of our two central characters, who’ve both grown over time, and have their demons to deal with.  I feel this is where I must be most careful in discussing the movie, because saying much would give things away for fans of the show.

And this movie really was made for fans of the show.  Although the case is not neglected and the investigative elements are a solid part of the storyline, at least equal weight is given to the development of the characters.  Mulder and Scully do not come off as two scripted characters reciting lines of perfect dialogue and interacting in a way that people never do.  Instead, they come off as real, even a bit unpolished in a good way, with the feeling that genuine emotions are driving the outburst or exchanges or reactions they each have to different developments.  

I’m aware of some of the negative reviews of the movie prior to its release, although I did not read any in detail.  However, I do disagree with the criticisms that it was boring and tedious.  What I found in this movie was the beauty of the quiet moments.  There’s a sense that Mulder and Scully really process information, as they both battle their demons, and that worked well for me.

Another thing that worked well for me was the subplot about Scully’s patient.  I think this warrants a spoiler alert, so consider that before reading on.

There’s an underlying theme to the movie that comes into play in all the storylines, and it has to do with faith… the ability to believe.  Mulder was discredited (unjustly) out of the FBI and he’s lost faith in them.  Scully comes to Mulder in the beginning about the case, in part, because she’s worried about him, which could be interpreted as losing faith.  However, when he sinks his teeth into the case and she wants to get away from it because of her own struggles, she seems to lose faith in his ability to handle the investigation.  She also loses faith in herself to look into the darkness and not be consumed by it.

There is the obvious question of whether or not to believe the psychic, and we also see Scully struggling with her faith in God in the face of suffering that she’s powerless to stop.  In fact, that’s the critical point with her - she left the FBI and went to work as a doctor to do good and help people and she needs to believe she’s making a difference.  When she can’t, it undermines her faith in her role, in herself, and in the hospital she serves in.

I liked the ending, because it asks the audience to believe.  You get to play God.  Live or die?  Success or failure?  Only you can answer that, and in order to pick an answer you must have the courage of your conviction, because the movie does not give you that answer.

I’m not sure if people who weren’t fans of the show would enjoy the movie as much because the characters are strong, and the plot advances - in part - because of character development throughout the story.  We do see other characters that handle what could be called series on the big screen - Bond, Indiana Jones - but there’s rarely any real character development in those movies, and I think The X-Files may have had some trouble with reviewers in part because it doesn’t try to check all the boxes and just do things the way a summer blockbuster should.

In fact, I found myself wondering if this movie might have done better with an October or November release.  It isn’t about competing…  But look at the movies that come out in summer.  Kids movies like Kung Fu Panda, action-packed blockbusters like The Dark Knight, and then the other action movies such as Wanted, The Mummy, that new Star Wars movie…  The mindset for summer is not to the serious, to the stories of human drama but of superheroes and big bangs.  And the psychology behind summer movie viewing seems to have worked against The X-Files in this respect.  In The X-Files, the main storyline is about saving people.  Not just the missing FBI agent, but also Scully’s patient and ultimately Scully and Mulder are considering how to save themselves from the darkness.  Their individual conclusions may tear them apart.  

There was one question I had watching the movie, and that was whether or not a religious hospital would have allowed any treatments involving stem cells, but I was able to let that go and not let the question affect my overall enjoyment of the movie.

All in all, I think it was a good movie that I did not regret spending money to see on the big screen, one I’d like to watch again.  I think what has worked against The X-Files is the delay in making this movie, and if you want to brand a name for movie releases you can’t wait ten, six, or even four years.  I’d love to see another movie in 2012, but I think it’s too far away to carry over any new-to-the-series fans.  I have my fingers crossed, but I fear that this may mark the end of a much-loved series I’ve followed since season #1.