The Absent Philosophy of Vulcans

I have been watching Star Trek recently. Long-story short, even though Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is my favourite Star Trek show, I realized that I haven’t actually seen the ending. But, before watching that, I also realized that I hadn't actually seen the ending of some of the other shows we own, including Star Trek: Enterprise, and since that comes "first" in chronological order, I decided to catch up with that, first, then I watched Star Trek: Discovery.

I mention all of this because after watching all of Star Trek: Enterprise, most of Star Trek: Discovery, and now I'm half-way through Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, I rediscovered and reconfirmed a conclusion that I came to a while ago:

Vulcans are Completely Illogical.

For those of you that don't know——or do know and would appreciate a refresher——Vulcans are a fictional species of aliens in the Star Trek universe, who have some mild alien characteristics such as angry eyebrows, pointy ears, green blood and stupid haircuts. But their main facet is that, socially, their entire culture is dictated by an adherence to logic, and consequently the avoidance of emotions.

To a Vulcan, to be logical is to be unemotional and to be emotional is to be illogical.

This is an interesting character trait and whilst I am going to spend the majority of this blogpost explaining why I hate it and it's stupid, I want to start by saying:

Writers are not Experts. One of the reasons why Vulcans aren’t logical is because the people writing the show are not logicians or philosophers. Personally, I think that this is a disregard for narrative responsibility, but I also understand that not everyone has my views when it comes to authorial ethics. So, it's understandable that a regular TV show whose goal was one of "social allegory" got stuff wrong sometimes, since with this science-fiction show, their goal wasn't science, but fiction.

They don’t know everything about science, nature, chemistry, physics or, of course, philosophy and logic, so they make mistakes sometimes. Most of the time that doesn’t matter, and sometimes it does.

I’m not here complaining about Vulcans because I think it’s “bad writing” or “bad acting”. Whilst I freely admit that I am of the opinion that the show would be better if the Vulcans actually were portrayed logically, I’m also aware that it’s because I’m a persnickety, little pedant. I don’t “hate” Star Trek because Vulcans are illogical, I just find it mildly annoying.

And hey, maybe you don't even understand what I'm talking about. Maybe you've seen Star Trek and think that Vulcans are a pretty logical bunch, which can be both a benefit and a detriment. Well, allow me to explain why I disagree. To begin with, I not only consider myself a philosopher, but I had two years of "Philosophy and Reason" in school, including formal logic, religion, philosophy and debate, as well as over a decade of continued self-directed learning to consolidate my own philosophies and beliefs. So, I'm not simply coming at this as a Star Trek Geek, but a Philosophy Nerd.

All that said, allow me to explain this, as logically as I can... But my problem is threefold:

1. Vulcans are Bad at Logic.

First things first, from the many shows I have seen, Vulcans are rude. In Enterprise, T'Pol often speaks ill of humans, to their face and she isn't alone. In Star Trek: Voyager, the main emotion that Tuvok displays is one of annoyance. And there are few Vulcans on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, but those that exist are either socially inept or deliberately antagonistic. Whilst I don't enjoy the original series, from what I've seen of Spock he often displays a whole lot of arrogance.
And for the record, I'm not talking about being blunt, or matter-of-fact. Vulcans often regard emotions as trivial and unimportant, but worse they often talk down to people. Sometimes outright belittling others for failure, dismissing someone for being inadequate, or acting passive-aggressive to anyone that doesn't agree with them.

I feel it's self-evident that being rude to your workmates is illogical, but allow me to provide evidence just to illustrate my point. If you insult or antagonize a coworker, they will have an emotional bias against you and so working with them will become more difficult. I am sure that Vulcans believe they are superior, but constantly saying that to other people makes no sense unless you're insecure (an emotion, *gasp*).

Also, in several of the shows, the Vulcans are presented as having deeply held beliefs of spiritualism and tradition——to which, first, I am simply going to mention the word 'RELIGION'; casually place it beside the word 'LOGICAL'... stare at the two confused for a moment, before pushing them aside dismissively and moving on.

I am willing to forgive some of the spiritualism because, although souls don't exist in real life they do in Star Trek (Vulcans call it katra and store it in people and stones; Starfleet calls it bio-neural energy and it can control people when it is detached from a body, etcetera...). So, unlike in real life, spiritualism is "accurate", but, their adherence to tradition makes no sense as tradition is a custom or belief repeated for its own sake because of either appeal to popularity or history, both of which are fallacies. I'm talking about rituals like "those who enter the temple must accept the gift of the stone of J'Kah" or "if a Vulcan female doesn't want to be married, she must choose a challenger to fight her intended husband to the death". Or, things like the pon farr, apparently Vulcans go into "heat" every seven years and must deal with this through sex or violence.
That in and of itself is an interesting plot point and that's fine, but the Vulcans consider this whole experience shameful and embarrassing... it's considered a cultural taboo. But, WHY?! Sex is necessary for the propagation of the species, it's not logical to keep such a thing secret. But more importantly, taboo is an entirely emotional concept, because the whole idea of taboo is "we don't talk about this because it makes us feel uncomfortable", even though COMFORT is an EMOTION!

Some of this is from one-off plots that make for an interesting story, and cares little for canon, but one potential explanation is that some episodes explain that Vulcans aren't actually emotionless, they're actually kind of "emotionful". They have deep, volatile, passionate emotions, but because these strong emotions lead to civil and global conflict in their history, the Vulcan society reformed itself around the ideals of logic and purging of emotion.

You might think this resolves the issues I'm pointing out, but I'd argue it only explains a few, whilst creating myriad more issues. The fact that all Vulcans are constantly feeling emotions, but suppressing them, means that it makes no sense any time that a Vulcan acts "confused" with the emotions of others or lacking in emotional intelligence. If anything, they should have high emotional intelligence and awareness, because Vulcans should have felt ALL of the emotions in order to deal with each one as it arises.

This can explain some of the traditions/taboos and rituals, as these are just examples of the Vulcans failing at suppressing their emotions. That makes sense, people fail sometimes... but I still hate it for a reason that matters a lot to me, but it's admittedly my weakest point of argument: I think that this is simply less interesting.

"A Culture Dictated by Logic" is damned fascinating, when I heard about the idea, I was intrigued to see what kind of world Vulcan was, and how they operate as a society. But then they just repeat the exact same stuff every other culture has——religion, weird marriage practices, hierarchical political structure——but they occasionally mention the word 'logic'. But it just makes it lame. So much of our society is dictated by emotion, and it's so illogical that stand-up comedians will never run out of material for joke about "look at how stupid this thing we do is". Don't get me wrong, I also like laughing at how stupid we are... but imagine what a society would be like that never made illogical mistakes.

Consider this... I was interested when I saw that Vulcans have "arranged marriage" because whilst I think it's outdated on Earth, in a long-lived culture that downplays emotion and only gets horny once every seven years it made sense to me. But, when I then learned that wives "belong to their husbands" and they "fight over them", that just ruined the whole idea. Objectification isn't logical, it requires superiority and dehumanization (devulcanization? ...I think that happens to rubber), philosophies built on hatred. And then, there's taboos against extra-marital affairs.

But, extra-marital affairs are only wrong because they can harm the social cohesion of a couple and hurt people's feelings. But Vulcans aren't meant to be driven by their feelings... surely genetic diversity is more important than "but T'krell fucked Surlak". If anything, the only purpose of marriage, or any form of socio-sexual pairing on Vulcan, would be to limit inbreeding.

Heck, why even have marriage at all? That's just anthropocentrism, so what if on Vulcan "marriage" was just "mating" which began at conception and lasted during adolescence whilst a child requires milk and direct parenting, and fathers support mothers who must nurture and nourish the child? Then, once they start going to school all adults in that town became responsible for children (just as they are responsible for each other). That makes logical sense to me, since there's no need for familial ties after their biological needs are met, and a logical society would see the need to support all children, regardless of their parentage.
I am not saying that it should be that exactly, but that is just one example of potentially thousands of ways that a society would be changed by operating with logic and without emotion. Wouldn't that be more interesting than "exactly like us, but with pointy ears and dramatic plotlines"?

2. Vulcans represent Logic Incorrectly.

Vulcans often don't succeed at their ideals, but that is understandable, right? After all, there are many human societies that strive towards goals, but fail. Social media was designed to make it easier to keep in touch with people and have fun, and now people feel more isolated and stressed than ever. Hell, the notions of Capitalism were initially proposed to help the poorer people and to give the average citizen more freedoms, yet instead it's hobbled social mobility, raised income inequality, gutted social benefits programmed and, ultimately, lead to more sickness and suffering.

But here's the problem. Sometimes Vulcans are bad at logic, sure. But even when they're "good" at logic, they're bad at logic. Let me explain...

It all started with Star Trek: Voyager, because I hadn't seen the original series at that point. This was the first time I'd watched a show with a Vulcan as part of the main cast, so I thought that Tuvok seemed like an interesting character.

Occasionally he had some useful insight, but I noticed that on many occasions, he was outright rude, as discussed above, but I managed to justify that. My headcanon was that Vulcans aren't as good at suppressing emotions as they say they are and I moved on. But then I started to notice that even when Tuvok displayed his logical aptitude, he was still, often, proven wrong. Heck, the show even seems to delight in showing that Vulcans are wrong. I will always remember (because it annoyed me that much) one particular scene that illustrates all of this perfectly. You can watch the actual clip here (assuming Paramount hasn’t taken it down), but I want to talk about it in detail, so I'm going to transcribe it below:

in one episode of Voyager (Season 2, Ep.6: "Twisted") an “inversion field” is causing the ship to distort and we are told that it is causing rooms and corridors to rearrange, and partway through, this scene occurs...

[VOYAGER, corridor, Interior] In this scene TUVOK, a Vulcan, and CHAKOTAY, a Human, are heading towards the Bridge but are lost, due to the distortions. TUVOK and CHAKOTAY walk to a T-intersection in a corridor. CHAKOTAY attempts to continue walking, but TUVOK stops at the intersection.

TUVOK
(gesturing) I believe we should go this way, commander.

CHAKOTAY
(confused) Wh-what makes you say that?

TUVOK
If we are indeed trapped in some sort of labyrinth, then the logical course is to systematically eliminate all routes which do not lead us to our desired destination. The route that remains will be the correct one. Since we have been making a series of right turns, we should continue to do so, until we are certain that this path is not the proper one.

CHAKOTAY
(scratches ear) There’s a flaw in your logic.

TUVOK
How so, Commander?

CHAKOTAY
You’re assuming there’s a logical pattern to this maze we’re caught in, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence of that. 

TUVOK
Even within chaotic systems, there is a pattern of limited predictability.

CHAKOTAY
By the time we figure that pattern out, these distortions may have completely overrun the ship.

TUVOK
That is a possibility.

CHAKOTAY
The important thing is for at least one of us to make it back to the bridge. So, why don’t you go your way, and I’ll go mine, that way we’ll increase the chances that one of us will be successful?

TUVOK
As you wish, Commander.

The two separate, and we follow CHAKOTAY as he walks down the corridor. Moments later, TUVOK re-enters the corridor, ahead of Chakotay, from the right, both shocked at their convergent paths.

CHAKOTAY
Tell me something, Tuvok. What does your logic tell you about navigating a maze that’s constantly changing shape?

TUVOK looks around in speechless confusion.

This pisses me off for several reasons, so I'm going to break them down, one by one, in order:

1. There is a flaw in Tuvok's logic, but Chakotay doesn't find it. If you are indeed in a labyrinth, then eliminating wrong paths will necessarily find the right one, that's a logical certainty.
   The actual flaw in his logic is his premise that they are, in fact, in a labyrinth. If instead they are in a trap, or (since this is a natural phenomenon) less a hedgemaze and more a bramble patch, then there's no reason to assume that there is an accessible path to their goal, this could be inescapable.
2. Chakotay's "flaw" is even more flawed. He uses two fallacies, both anecdotal evidence "so far I haven’t seen any evidence of that" and a clear argument from ignorance to claim that the maze could be irrational, but I'd argue there's plenty of evidence that there's some logical pattern:
   i. The effect is a natural phenomenon, so it is bound by natural law.
   ii. Physics and Time aren't noticeably distorted.
   iii. The corridor flows "cleanly", as there's no sharp divisions and it doesn't flip upside down, so there's some consistency behind this effect, it's not irrational.
3. Thirdly, Tuvok's reply is also certainly correct: you can find some order in chaotic systems——that was, in fact my point as to why Chakotay was flawed.
4. In response, Chakotay uses another fallacy, an appeal to emotion, effectively arguing: "We may run out of time before you find this pattern, and die!"
5. Chakotay doesn't actually explain what methodology he is using. He simply says "you go your way, and I’ll go mine" without explaining what "my way" means, which is a fallacy since he's conveniently forgetting that they might die if they try it his way too. I believe this is the fallacy of "incomplete evidence", he's ignoring the evidence that he, too, is probably wrong!
6. When they part and eventually re-encounter one another, Chakotay asks "What does your logic tell you about navigating a maze that’s constantly changing shape?", and then Tuvok acts completely flummoxed, but I don't see why.
   

   [Author's Note: Arguably, Tuvok's path was better than Chakotay's since he reached the next intersection faster. But this was just bad choreography, Tuvok should have walked in from the left, because then he would have had to turn right, and walked into Chakotay's path backwards, showing that his method had sent him the wrong way (and proving that the maze is actually illogical).
   But even if you had changed the script so that their re-encounter was truly illogical, Tuvok should not have acted so shocked.]

   See, Tuvok's "keep turning right" idea is actually a maze-solving algorithm, called the Hand-on-wall Rule, and it does work, but only on "simply connected" mazes where the destination is on an exterior wall. It clearly wouldn't work for a shifting maze, but... there are several maze-solving algorithms. So the answer to Chakotay's question isn't to stare around, dumbfounded. It is to use something like the Pledge algorithm:
   "If the shape is changing, then we cannot rely on this method to navigate. Instead of following a turning rule, we should treat the bridge like North on a compass, and divert from that direction only to bypass obstacles."

Some of this is because of bad writing, especially that fallacy cascade from Chakotay, but writers don't see scenes like this as a flaw, but a feature. Like I said in the beginning, Writers are not Experts, so they don't understand logic properly, but they are using scenes like this to prove that emotion is superior to logic.
This is known as the Straw Vulcan trope. If you're unaware, simply put, writers feel like logic is cold and heartless so they are biased towards supporting the way they choose to live by showing how emotion is better than logic...

However, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, they are incapable of recognizing just how wrong that belief is. Logic, Reason and Skepticism are some of the best means of problem solving that humanity has devised. The only way to prove that logic fails is by failing to have logic, or by allowing luck and happenstance (i.e. writer appeal) to give logic an unfair handicap, and put emotion on top like a putting a paper crown on your head and declaring yourself king.

This is what I mean when I say that I think the show would be better if the Vulcans actually were portrayed logically, because the only reasons these Vulcans fail is because the writers don't know just how incredible a lifelong logician would be!

It would mean that every ship would have a Sherlock Holmes style thinker, who would be able to provide great insight into any problem they face.

Now you might think this would make the show "boring" because then the Vulcan would solve every problem. I think that the reason why Spock was half-Vulcan was because the writers thought having a full-blooded Vulcan on the ship was overpowered, so they watered him down to make him error-prone. But I think this misses the reality that logic is reliant upon Data (not the android trek nerds, I mean information!), Logic can work a lot like mathematics, it's theoretically perfect, but in practice if you put in the wrong numbers, you will get the wrong answer.

So, consider if you had a Vulcan Ensign who had a lot of logic, but zero experience. They would be able to provide perfectly logical solutions, but because they don't know how most things work, they would have to rely only their peers to collect enough data to make a sound deduction. Tuvok provided a perfect example in that scene above. His logic was perfect, absolutely sound, a maze-solving algorithm would solve any maze... but they weren't in a maze. He relied upon a false premise. The rest of the scene is bullshit, but Vulcans aren't magic solution-generating machines. Any Vulcan is prone to such mistakes, you don't have to break logic to prove that, you just need to throw in a little "human error" ...so to speak.

3. Emotions are Logical

I'm not actually writing this piece because I want people to write better Vulcans on Star Trek. That would be nice, sure, but I'm writing this because I personally feel like this is a symptom of a much larger issue... that is the misrepresentation of an ideology. And not just any ideology, but logic and rationality. There are several beliefs and ideologies that I consider vital to my personhood. They not only define who I am, but improve my life immeasurably. Those are:

Absurdism (an extension of Nihilism); Atheism (agnostic atheism, to be precise); and——most relevant to today's post——Skepticism (an extension of Rationality).

Yet, for some reason, all three of these are often misrepresented in culture and media.

I won't go into all of that, because I think there are enough Atheists fighting the good fight to show how religion is not a force for good. Also, whilst it annoys me I understand the Nihilism thing because there are some denominations of Nihilism that I find distasteful.

But I will focus on Rationality, because I feel like it is the least deserving of this misrepresentation. See, Vulcans create this false dichotomy of emotion/logic. You either have emotion or you have logic. In fact, the highest form of logic that Vulcans seek is the purging of even vestigial emotions, so that all that is left behind is logic.

But even when the character isn't Vulcan... when a character is a scientist and shown as being "so focused on science that they become cold and inhuman", or when dealing with computers——hell, I have a whole blog post explaining how people misunderstand the actual threat posed by computers, robots and artificial intelligence. But the reason why people fear computers is because they have logic without emotions... But that is literally impossible!

Because of the Is-Ought Problem.

First discussed by Scottish philosopher David Hume, the Is-Ought Problem is simply this: You cannot draw ethical or judgmental conclusions from purely factual arguments.
Or, to put it another way... it is impossible to make a claim about what you "ought" to do, if all you are stating is what "is"; hence, the name.

It may seem really silly, but I need you to follow me for this example, because it's vital to understanding this philosophical concept.

If ALL YOU KNOW is:
1. Your Dog is sleeping on a pillow, AND
2. That pillow will explode in 30 seconds and kill that dog.
What must you do?

You may instinctively say "Well, I'd save them!", and that's a noble desire, but it's impossible, because why would you do that?

Obviously it's because you don't want them to die, but that's something you know, meaning in that scenario:

YOU KNOW:
1. Your dog is sleeping on a pillow
2. That pillow will explode in 30 seconds.
3. You don't want your dog to die.

In order to change this situation, you need to add another premise. But not just any premise... you didn't add "the pillow is made of cotton", or "the dog is snoring softly", you didn't add any more descriptive, factual statements, because none of those help to save the dog. You needed to add in a statement about desire and goals.

This is the Is-Ought problem. No matter what "IS", the only way you can rationally reach any decision to act is by adding in a separate "OUGHT", Is does not create Ought. This is important in understanding philosophical arguments relating to ethics, but it is important also in understanding logic in general.
Because to me, the Is/Ought Problem is really the "Objective/Subjective" problem. You can make as many objective statements as you want, but in order to inspire action you need some subjective quality.

Because "ought" is inherently a subjective trait. Objectively, what "Is" is simply what is, it exists. In order to change that, you must have what is and a desire for it to change. Some desire, some want, some drive...
And desire? hey... that's one of them there "emotions", isn't it? Even if you pretend it is not "desire" but simply a preference, a predilection, then I would point out that it is impossible to prefer to do something that you have no desire to do, because these words are equivalent, at least in an emotional, subjective sense.

If a Vulcan genuinely purged all of their emotions, what would happen next?
Honestly, I think they would die. Why would they continue breathing? They may breathe thoughtlessly, many do. I'm sure they would sleep if they managed to live that long, because that's often not a conscious decision, but why would they continue eating?
See, without reason, you would have no need, desire, or intent to keep on living. Yes, it would "hurt", but if you have no desire to stop feeling pain, you would die.
It's not even suicide, as you wouldn't "want" to die either, you'd simply not enact any of the necessary actions required to live, since you'd have no reason to.

At least if they died then they would have achieved pure, emotionless objectivity because a dead body is the object we become when our subjective experience is lost.

That is the only logical conclusion to a strict, emotionless, logic-centric existence.

So, the key reason why Vulcans are not Logical is because they continually espouse this belief that they ought to purge their Emotions and become purely Logical. However, the desire to be logical is predicated on a preference for logic over emotion, which is a paradox as preference is inherently emotional.

Especially because they don't simply tout logic, but "reason", even though reason, rationale and rationality are all predicated upon having some goal, some desire, or some principle that drives your decisions, which requires more of those pesky, subjective values and desires.

I think, for Star Trek, this is an easy fix. Vulcans shouldn't want to purge emotions, they should want to purge bias. By definition, by having reason they have some desires and goals. And perhaps Vulcans (being emotional) decide to suppress and do everything they can not to act upon emotions, as this would bias themselves and others. However, because society and ideology is complicated, perhaps some Vulcans go so far that they try to eliminate "opinion", leading to this potentially catatonic state of emotionless, objective logic, which some tout as the highest calling of a Vulcan and others see for the stupidity it is.

- - -

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and Until Next Time, as you can see there is so much potential here. It was lost because it was written by writers, and not by philosophers. And for someone like me that's both, it leaves me wanting more. Because I believe that there's very few situations you can write yourself into that you can't write yourself out of. That is, of course, assuming that a solution is something you desire.
In any Case, I am left with only one conclusion:

Vulcans ⇒ ¬Emotional
Logical ⇒ Emotional
∴ Vulcans ⇒ ¬Logical

Torture in Fiction: An Editorial about Authorial Ethics

I wrote a blog post a few years ago analyzing and critiquing torture. I highly recommend that you check it out if you need more context, but the ultimate conclusion of that post is that it has been definitively proven, psychologically, philosophically, and scientifically: Torture Doesn't Work.

But I ended the post talking about how one of the leading factors that convinces people of its efficacy is fiction. I even said, and I quote:

"The only possible benefit of torture as a form of interrogation is that it sometimes makes anti-heroes seem more dramatic[...]"

——The Absurd Word Nerd (2018), Enhanced Interrogation Critiques

Because although torture doesn't work, in fiction it is incredibly effective. The bad guys use it to show just how immoral they are, and manage to find the secret information that the heroes never wanted them to know. Or, in stories that juggle a kind of moral gray area, especially starring anti-heroes, it shows just how far the hero is willing to go to stop these villains.

The only time I've seen torture not work in fiction is when the person being tortured is a meant to be superhumanly masculine, patriotic, intelligent, dangerous or (occasionally) insane for the torture to work on them. And even then, if the victim is a hero we will occasionally have their friends rushing to save them not only to stop them from being injured and potentially killed but because they "don't know how much longer they can hold out", as though torture is slowly breaking them down and they will eventually reveal the truth if they're tortured for long enough.

But, why is this? Well, I think it's because it's narratively satisfying.

Whether it's the villain torturing the hero, or the hero torturing the villain, there's a great deal of dramatic and emotional tension (and potential horror) built into the concept of hurting someone to either receive or withhold information relevant to the plot. There's that potential "crossing of the line" of morality, showing the torturer going beyond the realm of what is justifiable, and there's also the potential to empathize with either the suffering hero, or the poor villain.

And so, whilst I think it's disgusting that people perpetuate the myth of torture as an "effective interrogation method", as a writer I understand why writers do this.

However, I think that fiction portraying torture as effective is unethical.

In my post about True Crime, the Ethics of the Truth, I mentioned that I have a lot to say about the storytelling ethics, and this isn't that post but it sure as hell is a big aspect of that philosophy. Because a fundamental ideology I have when it comes to fiction is that you should Always be Honest.
You don't have to tell the Truth, I'm talking about Fiction after all, it's almost entirely lies. But, I believe that storytellers, fiction-writers, novelists, and poets have a responsibility to make sure that they are not misleading their readers with the kinds of lies they tell. Art, including Stories, is a big part of culture and if fiction spreads certain ideas that are untrue it can negatively impact society.
As I mentioned in my post Don't Watch Me, I'm Awesome, we learn from media, even when it's not educational, because it can expose us to ideas that we're not familiar with. I was discussing the things I learnt from kid's shows as a child but it's still true for adults and it can be more insidious...
When I say that fiction spreads untrue ideas, I'm obviously not talking about the dragons and the sci-fi spaceships. That doesn't spread because a reasonable person knows that this is untrue. I'm talking about the subtler implications, ideas and ideologies that fiction can teach us (both deliberately and accidentally).
Even though most people know that Mexico isn't actually yellow, the fact that most films seem to use a yellow filter for Mexico can make it seem unhealthy, polluted, cheap or unnaturally foreign, especially if you've never visited the country.
Even though writers used to kill off their gay characters first because of strict codes of conduct, or because they didn't know what else to do with them, lack of queer characterization made gay people seem like they were nothing but their sexuality.
Even though you and I know that Klingons and Ewoks don't exist, whenever these shows portray an entire alien races like some homogenous monoculture, it does perpetuate beliefs in racial essentialism, as though your race defines who you are.

So, of course, for issues like torture, it's very unlikely for people to experience it in real life meaning that people tend to believe what they see on television, since writers must know more about it than the audience, right? ...RIGHT?!

So, what can we do about it. I believe it's unethical to portray torture as effective, but clearly not everybody does (or we wouldn't be in this mess), so what's the solution?

Well, to me, it's simple. As I said before, I understand why writers use it. It's dramatic, it's intense, it shows that the heroes/villains will cross the line to achieve what they set out to do and to me there's a perfect way for writers to include something this dramatic without perpetuating the belief that torture works...

The Deal with the Devil
Instead of torturing a captured villain, what if your characters were forced to work with them? To negotiate with these villains to get the truth out of them. They're villains after all, so it forces our heroes to bring themselves down to their level. They will need to either find a way to empathize with them and find out what it is that they desire, so they can offer it to them or if they're more difficult it may require some kind of psychoanalysis. I can even see a battle of minds like a high-stakes poker game where through dialogue the hero is trying to figure out the villain's tell, so they decipher what it is that matters to them the most, to use in their negotiations. And hey, if you really want to make things dramatic... simply make it that the one thing the villain wants in exchange for their help is something the hero would never do under any other circumstances.
This also works from the opposite side. What if the hero is captured by the villain and they offer the hero exactly what they want? If this is your story, you know your hero. You know what makes them tick. What if the enemy knows their deepest, darkest desire and offers it to them, for the price of their success...

And there's obviously then a whole lot of tension because the hero would need to find some balance of what they're willing to sacrifice. Are they willing to let the villain go, just for their information? Are they willing to give the enemy help, to finally achieve their deepest desires? What will they offer? What can they even offer each other? Will they both need to reach some compromise? What will it take for the hero to trust the villain? And should they?


As a substitute for "torture as drama", I think it ticks all the boxes except perhaps the "body horror" aspect of the gore. I think it can still be horrifying, but it's less visceral, unless you decide that the one thing the hero wants from the villain is to witness the autopsy of a corpse firsthand (in this case, I assume this is a death they always felt was suspicious), or perhaps the villain asks to eat a live animal (in this instance, I'm assuming the villain is a carnivorous monster of some kind). You can still have your gore. Heck, if you even just want pain, the prisoner could just request to fight their interrogator, one on one, no weapons.
The beauty of this idea is that it opens up so many opportunities. I could even see this becoming a major plot point if the villain requests a specific item or person, sending the hero on a minor adventure, just to get one step closer to winning.

In any case, it's better than "hurt them until they talk", not only because it's got so much more narrative potential, but because it's honest. That being said, this isn't the only option. Writers used to use this because they genuinely thought it was realistic and so they found it compelling, but now that we know the reality it's just lazy. There are many ways to get information out of someone.
Your character could use some detective work, to find clues on or about a person. Rather than interrogate them, they could simply carry them along with them on the mission, forcing the villain to fight alongside them and (hopefully) switch sides before their information is necessary. Villains can use fictional sci-fi technologies or darkly fantastical magic to try to peel the information out of the heroes mind, since the fictionalized aspect would make any torturous method of this sort more honest, especially if you make it clear that such means are necessary (since, for the umpteenth time, torture doesn't work).
Or, hell, the villain could just tell the hero what they want to know. Why? Because it doesn't matter, they believe they're going to win anyway, so they could use this as an opportunity to gloat and get under the hero's skin.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and whilst I believe that all writers have a responsibility to write honestly, I don't think this is difficult to do. It just requires adding the step of "think about the effect your story has" when writing stories, and since writing stories is a significantly cerebral task, this isn't exactly a difficult step to add in the writing process. But your stories can be just as creative, dramatic, tense, dark, disturbing, compelling and action-packed as they always were... they'll just also be better for society as well.

Until Next Time, writing is meant to be fun, so I'm not asking you to bend over backwards to make your stories more honest. Just add a dose of consideration, and your fiction will be all the better for it.

The Common Cause of a Comma Clause

I use too many commas. It's not the worst affliction, but for a writer it can make reading one's work tiresome. I've been reading through some of my older writing, especially this blog, and I have a bad habit of using commas more than necessary. I noticed it because of the em dash. Perhaps I should explain...

Let's start with the basics, Comma 101. So, for those who don't know, there are about seven major uses for a comma. In order of commonality, they are:

1. Separator Comma: Used to separate distinct items in a list of more than two items, or adjectives.
   i.e. Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
2. Clausal Commas: Used to separate dependent clauses in a sentence.
   i.e. I have written several horror stories, all in short story anthologies.
3. Adjectival Comma: Used to separate coordinate adjectives for a single noun.
   i.e. I prefer to read a story with a three-dimensional, believable, understandable protagonist.
4. Parenthetical Comma: Used for parenthetical clauses or "non-restrictive clauses".
   i.e. I enjoy hand-writing, even though I'm writing this on a keyboard, because it helps me to remember.
5. Elliptical Comma: Used to indicate an omission (similar to the way an ellipsis does).
   i.e. I sorted my bookshelf so that reference books were organized by height and fiction books, by colour.
6. Vocative Comma: Used to offset a noun, or pronoun, when addressing them in particular.
   i.e. If you've gotten this far, Reader, then I thank you for your patience.
7. Adverbial Comma: Used to offset certain adverbs from the introduction, or interruption, of a sentence.
   i.e. Furthermore, every story has an antagonist, however, they may not be a physical person.

There are also several minor uses, which have their place but I don't want to dwell on here, including separating quotations within a sentence; separating distinct numbers in dates, addresses and formal titles; & separating orders of magnitude in large numbers. [Also, yes, I prefer the "serial" comma in my lists. I have changed my mind over the years, as I have found more than one occasion where it is easier to read. If you disagree that's your prerogative.]

So, those are the main uses for a comma, in my eyes. You'll see a fair few in this very blog post.

My issue is that when I write stories I have a lot to say and a lot of my ideas are interconnected. For this reason, I tend to write long, run-on sentences. I'll give you an example:

So, when writing, because I have several ideas in my head, but one idea is related tangentially but not specifically to another idea, I will often write out that first idea as thoroughly as possible; however, I won't then end the sentence, because I wanted to tack on a little bit at the end which, although it can add some extra information, it can also stretch out the sentence to a ridiculous length.

Just look at that thing. That is a monster, and it took me no effort to write because it's the way my brain tends to work, stretching and connecting ideas whilst also trying to flesh them out. There's nothing wrong with a long sentence in and of itself, but I am often inflating these sentences beyond belief through the use of sequential parenthetical commas, and clausal commas. It can make sentences a lot harder to comprehend, because there's a lot more information to digest at once. But brains aren't really good at handling indigestion so they just spit the information back out and fail to remember it.

I only noticed that I was doing it because of the em dash. In my reading, I have noticed that a lot of writers will use an em dash (i.e. this thing "—")in the same way as a parenthesis, or a parenthetical comma. I thought this was a great stylistic choice, it looked nice and was easy to read, because rather than interrupt the line with a bracket to separate an idea, it was literally leading into a related idea. So, I decided to use it more often in my writing, especially once I learned the shortcut for it [Alt+0151, if you're curious]. But, because the em dash is so big, when I started using it to replace my parenthetical commas it became clear to me just how often I do this. Which is to say, all the damn time. The em dash looks nice when used sparingly, but I was using it so often that it was turning paragraphs into Morse Code.
If you've noticed this, I apologize. It's only recently that I realized this mistake.

But once my attention was drawn to the parenthetical/clausal comma I realized a second common error that I do. I kept using commas to denote a pause. I'll give you another example to illustrate what I mean:

So, when reading a sentence aloud, it is common to pause on the commas, to take a breath. It can make it easier to understand the meaning of the sentence, since it can help to denote those clauses, all that stuff I mentioned above. But I would use commas, where I didn't need them, to let readers know where I would have paused, if I were reading the sentences aloud. This meant I was dropping in commas, where there was no grammatical meaning attached. It was just me saying, hey, I paused here, so you should read it as though I paused for effect. But when you use a meaningless comma like that, whilst it can help people read the sentence in the way I would have read it, it makes the meaning less clear, and it can seem like a sentence is littered with parenthetical phrases, omissions, or just plain, old mistakes.  

That was a little harder to write since I am trying harder to get better at avoiding unnecessary commas. But, I guarantee that a lot of my older blog posts are littered with commas just like that. Again, if you've noticed this a long time ago, I'm sorry. I hope it didn't affect my writing too negatively.

And yes, I have had an editor who removed more than half of my commas in a story before publication because they were completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, I didn't notice because they also removed all the exclamation points (even when characters were shouting, which was just confusing), and adjusted my grammar to be more American. I thought they were just hoovering up all kinds of punctuation and that teachable moment didn't penetrate my skull.

So, what can I do about it? I comprehend what the issue is, however, it's a reflex. I like to put in commas whenever I pause, mentally. So, what's the solution? Well, I've come up with an effective tool.

PAIN.

Well, not really "pain", moreso just a physical, tangible reminder. I have sticky-taped a small bolt to the comma key of my keyboard, facing "pointy-bit" up. It's not sharp per se, but when I press that key it jabs my finger slightly, depressing my fingertip. The idea is that when I press the comma key I can't do so mindlessly. It's impossible to ignore it because there is a physical, undeniable, blunt-force reminder that I have added another comma to my writing. I won't remove it unless and until I get into the habit of pressing it less frequently.

It's a brutalist solution, but it's actually worked really well. My writing over the past few weeks has improved. I don't know when, if at all, I'll ever remove the bolt from my keyboard. But, I have started to actually consider the way that I use commas. In fact, the keyboard I use to write these blog posts is on a different computer, so can you see a difference? Did you even notice my excessive commas in the first place?

In any case, it's a simple (but effective) solution to improving my writing in a small, but meaningful way.

Now all I need to do is maintain a strict schedule, and I'll actually finish writing this novel!

Until Next Time, I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I wonder, what was the last thing you've done to improve yourself lately? I hope it's less barbaric than mine was...

Writing Without Writing

G'day, I hope you're well. I'm busy melting as we're in the thick of Summer, Down Under. I wish I could tell you I've been busy writing away but I'm afraid that's not the case.
The heat does tend to slow me down, but much more than that I've been busy with an online "Employability Skills Training" course. It's a mandatory, virtual, three-week program that started in January, so I've been focussing on that rather than story-writing for the past week. All I have to say about it is that the course is kind of dull and frustrating, but the facilitators do an excellent job of humanizing it and making the modules tolerable.

But I have wanted to write. I've been craving it for a while. You wouldn't know this, but I've actually started work on a novel and I'm right in the thick of it... (I know I'm reusing metaphors, but it's hot, alright? give me a break). I completed chapter one at the end of 2024, and I've had it on hold since then, because I have to focus on this course, and if I write I don't study, and it's bloody frustrating!

However, I've noticed something over the past week. See, I'm not writing, but I'm still writing. I've said it before, not all writing is writing, as the blog post in that link will attest, writing requires a sturdy foundation of research, plotting and planning. I used to refer to it as "the two-thirds", because of something J.K. Rowling said, but these days, I refer to it as the understory. Firstly, because J.K. Rowling said it and fuck that bitch - trans rights are human rights.
But secondly, as I've matured I've realized that it's bad writing to write more than double the story of your book and do so much research if it doesn't appear in the books. A recipe can be overcooked; a garden can be overgrown; a performance can be overacted; and you better believe it sweetheart when I say a story can be overwritten.

So, I've been unable to physically write but because I want to write so much I've been writing a lot of understory. I didn't realize how much I was doing it until I decided that a good outlet was to write a blog post and I looked back on the past week and change.
See, in the last week...

1. I was going for a walk, when I was thinking about that novel I'm working on. I can't tell you much about it, but all you need to know is I'm planning on it being a horror story all about the main character being kind of a monster. I've had some ideas for a sequel, but the plot hinged on people seeking out the protagonist because of a much worse threat they had to face. I had some idea they would be a monster, like the main character, but I wasn't sure if that was possible. But, as I was walking around, looking at some of the brick fences around me, I was inspired... I had an idea of a way to make a hero that was just as dangerous as the protagonist, in a new way. I won't spoil, but believe me when I say He's one Bad Dude.
   
2. I was watching a show before bed (Star Trek, if you're curious) when I was inspired by a quick scene that made me think about "sci-fi tools" and I started thinking about different ideas for the fascinating tools for Duke Forever. I came up with a few, then had to rewind the episode, because I had stopped paying attention fifteen minutes ago.
3. I was thinking about ideas for an "electronic" epistolary novel, told through online interactions. It's an idea I've been toying with for a while, but I realized that such a story could only work if the plot was focussed on the computer or internet, itself. And that inspired me to consider the different kinds of story that could be told online. Perhaps an online murder mystery, where the clues are on different online discussion forums? Or, perhaps a kind of multimedia creepypasta? I came up with an idea I like, but I won't spoil it, you'll have to wait until I write it...
   
4. Just the other day, as part of my online course, we were discussing group projects that we were doing when someone mentioned their project was boring, and I got really annoyed.
   Because we chose the project. Sure, a sausage sizzle or a fun run can be boring, but why not mix it up? ... say that Godzilla attacked your city and you need to organize a crisis centre - that's more fun, right? The stated purpose is to show that we can plan organize & budget a project, then present it—it doesn't have to be real, just realistic, and our facilitators are pretty cool, I think they'd love it.
   Then, I started thinking about the actual logistics of it for a minute before getting back on track - it was kind of fun, if I'm honest.
5. I realized that I still hadn't planned my "big, bad monster" for my SoloRPG story that I mentioned in my last post, but my issue was that I felt the idea of a single monster that I know beforehand would make it less intimidating. That's when—inspired by the Godzilla crisis centre idea, from before—I came up with an idea. I don't want to spoil that either since it's something you can read. But, I will give you a hint... I call it The Hole.

And these are the major ones, I'm not even mentioning the number of little notes I've made about character name ideas, story titles and (of course) the ideas that I considered, only to decide they were bad ideas...

But, it made me realize two things. First of all, I underestimate how much understory work I do. When I stop writing entirely and it's all I have it's actually an awful lot. I'm doing more now than usual, about twice as much, but even cut in half this is a lot of work.
Second of all, making progress as a writer isn't just about wordcount. Obviously, if you never put words to paper that's an issue that you should address. However, as someone with chronic anxiety and a mind that likes to dig into my weak points, I sometimes do feel like I'm "failing as a writer" because I don't write enough. It's a pointless, vicious cycle that makes me too stressed to plan, then I write even less. But, looking back on the past week even though I know for a fact that I haven't written a single extra word in my Work-In-Progress manuscript, and yes, I am still frustrated about that... I don't feel like I'm failing as a writer. Maybe that's because I have an external Excuse to point to, so I know it's not my fault but I think it's more than that... I don't feel like I'm not writing. I feel like I'm writing, because by doing all this I'm thinking like I'm writing. And, because of that mindset, I'm actually working on even more understory than usual.

So, this isn't just about me bragging that I've done so much understory in one week. No, it's my advice to you: If you're not writing, but you want to, think like a writer. Think like you're writing and... well... you might just put some words on a page.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd and Until Next Time TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS.
That wasn't the point of this post, but I think it bears repeating, so don't you forget it...

The Ethics of the Truth

As I mentioned in my last post I'm a little uncomfortable talking about true crime cases. There are myriad issues when discussing true crime since these cases deal with real people and so they can have far-reaching effects. Not just on the perpetrator, but on their victims, the victim's families, even the perpetrator's families.

As I've said, it makes me uncomfortable when true crime commentators talk about criminals like monsters who should be locked up forever. But, my issue is not just about opinions - after all, a simple "the opinions within are my own" disclaimer is all you need there... no, my issue is the way we present the facts in these cases. But, that seems odd doesn't it? After all, we're talking about facts and truth, right? Sure, facts can be inaccurate, but if everything is presented as honestly as possible what's the problem with sharing the truth? Well, that's what I want to talk about.

Honesty is a Virtue, I believe that wholeheartedly. It's important not to lie or cheat. However, when it comes to honesty a lot of people make the mistake of believing that honesty is the same thing as telling the truth. But this isn't the case. For one of my favourite examples, because I find it quite funny, there are occasionally signs you see reporting common crimes in an area: "vandalism banned in this area", "diving off this bridge is prohibited", "bags have been stolen in this area", that kind of thing...
But on such signs they usually end with the phrase "if you have any information, please call this number", and the number for security or management or whatever. It always makes me chuckle, because I think it would be funny to call them up and say "Lima is the capital of Peru", or "Sharks have two penises", or whatever other fun fact comes to mind. After all, it's information! They asked if I have any information, and I do, I know a lot of information.

Obviously, I wouldn't actually waste anyone's time like that, but the point is that everything I said is "information", it's all true. They really should say "if you have any relevant information". I still think it's funny because I'm a pedant like that, but even though they don't write "relevant information", we all know they don't have to... because it's already commonly understood etiquette. You don't tell everyone everything that you know to be true. If you did, every conversation would take months.

So, we don't need to tell everyone everything, but what if they ask you, specifically? What if you know the answer to a question, but choose not to answer, that's lying, right? 

I don't think so. To me, honesty isn't about telling the truth it's about not trying to trick someone, or mislead them. If someone asks you something that you don't want to tell them, you don't need to lie, but you don't need to tell them the truth either. Obviously, if you let them you believe that you didn't know, that's a form of dishonesty, but that's solved by answering with a simpler truth:
"I'm not going to tell you that", "I'm afraid that's a secret", "it's not my story to tell", "I'm not at liberty to say", or in some cases even "that's a personal question, and I'm insulted you'd even ask!"
You're not lying, you're being clear that you have the answer, but you're not going to give it to you.

[Editor's Note: We'll leave discussions of coercion and force for later, but there's no ethical issues in dishonesty for your own safety. It's a sad but common fact that sexual and religious minorities, even majority-passing ethnic minorities, often lie to protect themselves from persecution and I see no issue there, but we're talking more about the basics of honesty and ethics, in this instance.]

But, if we don't have to tell the whole truth, then that means that we are making a choice regarding what we choose to share - which truths we choose to tell. It's not usually a huge drama, in every conversation you decide on stuff that's relevant, or something you think friends will find funny or amusing. That said, even in a simple conversation amongst friends, you will choose what you won't talk about. You're deciding which truths a person should hear, and that's not even 'censorship', so much as a pragmatic decision to use one's time more effectively. But, even that has its inherent bias. You're more likely to talk to friends about that wild night of drugs than, say, your parents. You're less likely to tell that dirty joke to your kids than, for instance, your partner. That's alright, since you're presenting yourself as you want to be seen, that's alright... but it would be less alright if you did it for someone else. And, we do occasionally do that. Especially if you don't like someone, you may be inclined to tell people about the nasty things you've seen them do or heard them say.
That's obviously not nice, but it's not exactly honest... I'm not saying it's "wrong" to spread gossip, but just as we pick and choose how we present ourselves, we also pick and choose how we present others. If you're talking about how much of an arsehole your boss is, you're more likely to talk about how much work they expect of you, as opposed to them buying you present for Christmas, just to keep your story straight. It's not exactly lying, but it's dishonest in a way, since it can unfairly present a person if you refuse to acknowledge other, relevant information.

So, how does this relate to True Crime? Well... even if we just look at homicide, according to the World Health Organization, in the year 2019, there were approximately 475,000 murders across the globe. In just one year. That's over 1,000 a day, it's almost one every minute. We can't talk about every single one, especially considering that true crime can include violent crimes with survivors, kidnapping, torture...
But, we don't, do we? True Crime doesn't simply discuss every single crime there is. People pick and choose particular crimes, the ones that resonate with them. This bothers me for two reasons.

Firstly, it has the potential to misrepresent the reality of what crime is. Like, for example, True Crime tends to have a few "subgenres": There's Historical Crimes; Missing Persons cases can be their own beast; Serial Killers is a big one; White-Collar Crimes have their own style, often focusing on the legal system; there's also Wrongful Convictions; & of course Unsolved Mysteries just to name a few.

But, as diverse as this is, this diversity doesn't actually represent crime accurately.

Do you know how many crimes go 'unsolved' every year? Most of them. In America in 2022, 63% of reported crimes haven't had a conviction, almost two-thirds went unsolved. Yet, "Unsolved Mysteries" only represents a minority of the True Crime spectrum. And, if you don't follow that particular genre, the majority of cases you hear about will be solved, because these are stories with a beginning, a middle and an end, and if you don't catch the killer, the story doesn't have an ending.

But even if you realize that fact, you may be more fascinated by the goriest, the rawest, and the more disturbing cases. In that case, as I alluded to in my last post, I believe that's what leads people to believing that the solution is a larger and more powerful police force, a less forgiving prison system and a greater reliance upon the death penalty. On My Favourite Murder, "just lock them away" and "why'd them let them out?" are common refrains, despite the fact that the police force is not always a force for justice, let alone a force for law or effective crime control, and when police are given more power, they usually start by locking up even more minorities. But, if your experience of crime is the "worst of the worst", then it makes sense that you'd think cops need all the help they can get.

It's actually a study that I'm very familiar with, narratology. See, we use stories all the time, human brains are satisfied by stories, because they're neat. They package everything up nice and tidy. There's a beginning, a middle and an end, there's a message in there, a hero and a villain. The problem is that life isn't tidy. Some stories aren't neat, so when we package up stories for a general audience, we often sand off the edges. Crime stories come pre-packaged with a villain, the criminal, so by the fundamentals of story-telling, the ones stopping them (the cops) become the heroes. In an odd (but in my eyes undeniable) kind of way, most true crime is a form of copaganda, pro-police propaganda that spreads the false narrative that cops are always a force for good, and they can do no wrong.

Secondly... (yeah, this was a list of two things, but that last item went long so let me remind you), the other reason why true crime bothers me is the way that it tacitly objectifies real people. I don't think that people "own" true stories - in fact, the News exists purely because people can't claim ownership of the truth... it's actually a modern issue with the news that because investigative journalism costs money, a lot of news programs instead choose to aggregate and regurgitate news from other news sources, turning the news media into one grand ouroboros that's constantly feeding off itself.
Anyway... the point is that even if something happens to you, you don't own that story, and that's understandable. However, what's less understandable is that even though it's your story - and it's about you - you lose all control of your story. It's something I came to understand after reading the fascinating novel An Isolated Incident by Emily Maguire. Whilst it's a fictional story, it's about a regular woman, who loses her sister in an isolated incident of murder, but her grief is exacerbated when the media starts intruding into her life, questioning her, suspecting her and her friends, and even starts using her sister as a symbol of domestic violence. It's a fascinating story, but it brings up a very clear point. Even though this is her sister, her family, thousands of people claim this murder for themselves. They decide that this story is their story, monopolizing on their own grief, whilst ignoring the real victim who is refused the chance to move on from her grief because even her own memory of her sister is being twisted by the media. It's fictional, but there's a lot of truth there. For me, the most affecting chapter was when a group of feminists organizes a protest in the dead woman's honour, and starts parading around with her name and face plastered on their protest signs. The main character desperately calls up the journalists she's spoken to, asking if she can stop it. She's against domestic violence she just doesn't want her sister to become some martyr to a political cause, but the journalists tell her that she doesn't have the authority to stop a protest, it's their decision, all she can do is give them a quote... but she realizes she can't risk that since the story is so big she either has to endorse it or be villainized in the press for being against it.

The point is, whilst she doesn't own the story, people are still telling her story for her. She doesn't even want to tell her story, she wants people to leave her and her family alone, but she's denied that because someone decided that this crime was a story worth telling. Someone decided that this story belongs to Australia.

Y'know, it's thankfully died down now, but there used to be a lot of talk about cultural appropriation, taking something from another culture. Now, cultural appropriation doesn't actually exist, it can't, because cultures don't own things, culture is inherently memetic, it's not "property". However, when people talk about cultural appropriation, the actual cause of concern isn't theft, or appropriation, it's objectification. It's treating a culture as an object, to be used. But culture comes from people, by nature it's subjective, it's experience, it's history... by objectifying a culture, you dehumanize it and commodify it.
The same is true of stories. Nobody can own stories, especially true stories. However, as much as we wish we could consider true stories, such as true crime, like a narrative with characters and plot points and story structure, but that objectifies and commodifies a real tragedy.

You can share a true crime story, that's not inherently dishonest or even immoral, but it requires a deft hand because no matter how much it feels like a story, it's not a story it's the truth. The truth can be messy, it can be incomplete, it can be biased, and it may not always tell you everything. But more than anything, I think it's important to ask ourselves, is this my story to tell?

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I guess I did end up talking a bit about the ethics of storytelling after all, but this was just a small part of it, I'll probably work on a much larger discussion in the future. For now, I hope you've enjoyed this, the last post of the second-last Halloween Countdown of this blog.
I wish you all a safe and fun Halloween tomorrow and until next time--if you're going to share a horror story this Halloween, make sure it's a good one.

Fiction in Flux: A Cautionary Tale of Criminal Publishing

Some of you may be confused about the post the day before yesterday, and rightly so, it was a fictional story that I wrote called Harpy Hunt. I love posting fiction for my Halloween Countdown, whenever I get the chance to write it, and I will usually try to post something relating to the theme. Although even I admit that I often will just post an unrelated horror story that I think you'll enjoy, whether that be posting Reaper, a three-part dark superhero story during my "Forgotten Fear" Countdown, or posting Howl, a horror story about being caught alone in the woods, during my "Sickness" Countdown, or posting The Facts in the Case of Patient S., a creepy poem that I wrote the year of my "Failure" Countdown.

But at least in these, and every other case, I was posting a horror story. The day before yesterday, what I posted was, for all intents and purposes, an action story; a sword and sandal story about trying to save children from monsters. So, what does that have to do with my Halloween Countdown?

Well, odd though it seems, I picked the story specifically for this countdown, not for the story within the page, but for the story without.

See, I was contracted to write that story ten years ago, in March 2014, for a small-time publisher known as Mythix Studios, as part of an anthology series known as Flux Fiction. I know the exact month because I still have a copy of the contract scanned onto my computer. Despite writing, and submitting, that story I was never paid. Now, I don't think Mythix Studios exists anymore, so you may not find them, but the person who owned, and is responsible for it is: Philip Lee McCall II
I'll gladly name and shame, he's an (admittedly small) public figure in the writing community, but he is a public figure, and it is a fact that he never paid me for my work. See, this was one of the first few stories I ever wrote for a publisher, and so I was to be underpaid—just $25 for a 5,000 word story—at the very least I was expecting US$ as McCall (who likes to use the abbreviation PLMII) was based in Florida at the time, but still even with an exchange rate leaving me with around AU$40, that's a woeful underpayment. But, I was young and foolish and I agreed to it, so as much as I find such underpayment insulting these days, I still agreed to it, and I am owed US$25
Now, this story was never published, if you look for Harpy Hunt you won't find it anywhere because the second Flux-Fiction anthology was never finished, but that doesn't matter, because like I said, I still have the contract. The contract is clear that I was to be paid, and I quote:

"Payment will be tendered to Author via PAYPAL and the transaction will be completed once the Work has been considered finalized and ready for print."

The work was considered finalized, I sent the work in and confirmed with McCall that no further work was required by me. The work was ready for print. It doesn't matter that the work wasn't published, in fact that's immaterial to me for this particular contract because all royalties went to the publisher anyway. I wasn't paying to get published, I was being paid to submit a completed work, and even though I clearly did, I wasn't paid a single red penny for my efforts.

Now, you're well within your rights to think "are you really this upset about twenty-five bucks?"
The answer is, no... it's not about the $25. I still hold McCall accountable for this petty theft, and will do so until he pays me what I am owed, is about the principle. But the reason I'm so upset is threefold.

Firstly, it's not about me... my story was never published, but my friends' stories were. If you google "Flux Fiction" and "Philip Lee McCall", you'll see that some books were published by Mythix in that series. I won't name names, but I heard about PLMII at the time through some mutual friends after their stories were accepted and published through McCall, and was encouraged to put myself out there. But even though their works were published they weren't paid either.
Philip Lee McCall II stole their work, made his profit, and never paid them for their work despite being contractually obligated to do so by a contract that he wrote! I can tell he wrote it himself, because he misspelled his own email address as "fluxfictrion@gmail.com" (I'm pretty sure this, and the correctly spelled version, are abandoned, so don't bother using it...). As far as I know, he never paid any writers for their work. Whilst I have no proof of that, I do have proof he stole work at least twice, and I'm not so generous as to assume we're the only ones.

Secondly, the reason why I'm so upset is that Philip Lee McCall II is just one example of the thousands of similar examples of small-time criminals that exist in the small-time publishing world. If you're not a writer yourself, let me assure you that there are millions of young writers out there, just starting out and eager to get their foot in the door. And waiting just beyond that door are millions of predators just waiting to feed on them.
These are young writers, and more often than not they lack confidence about their work. They don't yet know how good they are, and so they undervalue themselves, they undervalue their art and more importantly (for this discussion anyway), they undervalue their work.

Writing is an art form. We also have to consider art like a product (because Capitalism) but whether or not writing is just a fun hobby for you, a side-gig, trying to get a few ideas published or a job you want to do full-time, Writing is Work.
Yes, I have fun doing it, but how disgusting is this society that when I tell my fellow writers that writing is work, they say "oh, it's not work, I have fun doing it"—just because something doesn't feel like obligatory self-flagellation that you put yourself through out of fear of homelessness, that doesn't mean it's not fucking work. It takes time, it takes energy, it takes effort. I love doing these Halloween Countdowns, but after writing thirteen posts in thirteen days, I need to take a fucking break.
For fuck's sake - having sex is an awful lot of fun, I sure as hell love doing that too, but there's a reason most people are sweaty and out of breath afterwards - that also takes effort, energy and time!

[Editor's Note: It also bears taking into account, Sex Work is also Work, and Sex Workers require Workers Rights, but as much as that's an important topic, it's not the topic we're discussing today.]

Now this is some bullshit, but I was lucky insofar as that my story was never published (although, when contracted for work that I completed, I am still entitled to be paid). But, others are not so lucky. People like my friends, who had their work stolen and published against their will.
So, today, I am going to present 5 RULES for every writer, yes even (and especially) you newbies out there, who want to get started writing, but also don't want to get scammed... in fact, even those of you who do want to get scammed, because you allow this crap in the first place. Let me explain with this:

1. "For Exposure" is a Scam
Some people think that if they just get their work out there, it will improve their reputation as a professional writer. The reality is: writers who don't get paid, get a reputation as writers that aren't worth paying. Publishers that want to see some of your previous work want proof that they aren't wasting their money. If someone else didn't spend money on you, why should they?
Now if you're more of a "hobbyist" type, and you want to get your name out there but don't care about getting paid, there are millions of healthy ways of doing that without legitimizing scammers who will steal your work. create a blog on Blogger.com, just like I've done here; create a profile in AO3, FictionPress, Wattpad, WritersCafe, or Writing.com; hell, create a YouTube channel, and read your stories aloud. These are just half a dozen of the hundreds of ways you can post your story online without giving scammers money.

2. Never Pay to be Published.
I gets even worse than being unpaid. I've seen publishers that ask for a "submission fee". Remember what I said, Writing is Work. You don't pay for the privilege of a job interview, so why would you pay to submit your work to be considered for publication? I've seen some people argue that this is necessary for an 'editing fee' or to pay judges in certain writing contests or worse, that they're supporting a smaller publisher who can't afford to pay higher rates. This is just ridiculous. The reality is: If they can't afford to pay their judges, editors or prize money, they can't afford to pay you. You're a writer, not an investor, if a publisher can't afford to pay you, it's not your job to support a struggling business.
What really frustrates me about pay-to-play publisher scams, is that I have seen some "for exposure" scams, use their existence to legitimize their own scam. They call themselves a "free opportunity" with "no submission fee". This just normalizes a disgusting practice, and I offer every one of those scammers a "free opportunity" to eat shit and die.

3. Pay should start at 5 cents a word (at time of writing).
There are different pay rates, sure, and unless and until we do something about Capitalism, Elitism & Inflation, it's a sad reality that isn't going away any time soon. But, a lot of publishers have taken advantage of inflation to keep pay rates as low as they were in the 1950s. You might think 5¢ high, but it isn't, it's well below a semi-pro rate. Do you know what professional writers are paid?
According to the Australian Society of Authors, a fair (professional) rate for creative writing is approximately $1.03 a word. When I started, I thought eight cents a word was a professional rate, but it isn't. Semi-pro rates, by definition, are half that, they start at 50¢ a word. So, asking for 5¢ per word isn't asking too much. 
And yes, some writing may lose some value if it's outdated, or it's being published for a second time, or if you're writing it for charity, maybe it's a discounted rate. But always start at 5¢, so you recognize that half a cent is one-tenth of what your words are worth. If a publisher can't pay that, then they don't want your stories.

4. Literary Agents only get Paid if they sell your Work.
Maybe you're not small-time, maybe you actually have a few stories out there and you're looking for an agent to take you that next step towards getting your manuscript published. That's excellent, but you're not free from scams either. According to Penguin Random House an agent will take a percentage of the deal sales in exchange for their work earning the book deal, so their money comes from your profit, not from your pocket. The phrase they use is "money flows towards the author" - Just like a river, it may slow, it may stop, but it will never flow backwards unless there's something very wrong with the universe.
Even if you seem to be working for what appears to be a legitimate publisher, several scammers will deliberately pretend to work for a trusted name so that they can take advantage of that trust, to swindle you. So, you need to be cautious out there.

5. If you've been Scammed, you're a Victim, not a Villain.
I am giving you all of this advice not because I think you're stupid, or because it's your responsibility to stay vigilant. As far as I'm concerned, these people are criminals, and the law is simply ill-equipped to handle them on this scale. But, if you will, or already have, fallen victim to these scams just as I have in the past, you need to know that it's not your fault, it's theirs. Scammers take advantage of positive human compunctions towards empathy, hope and trust.
Whilst I will always promote the benefits of a healthy dose of skepticism, you're not a failure for wanting to trust someone, they're a failure for abusing that trust. Most importantly, don't be ashamed of what you've done, because you have nothing to be ashamed of, and they have everything to gain from shame keeping you silent.

I was lucky that all I lost was $25 (even though, as far as I'm concerned, that story was worth at least $250), and whilst it shouldn't be your responsibility, almost nobody is going to protect you and we bear the weight of it on our own backs, especially so long as this culture is complicit in letting publishers underpay them for their work and perpetuate scams as legitimate business.
If nothing else, I'm here to tell you that you deserve a lot more than what's being offered.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and remember, this post is not meant to incite hatred or violence, merely education. I don't want anyone to "cancel", harass, or in any way abuse Philip Lee McCall II - he owes me 25 bucks, that's not worth an internet hate mob. Not that I even have enough followers for that kind of thing, but even if this could somehow explode into something much bigger, I am officially stating that I don't want it to.
He is just one small part of perpetuating a culture that exploits young writers. If you want to abuse and harass someone... well, don't. What's wrong with you? But, if you want to cancel someone, then let's cancel these scammers... but only in so far as cancel means "report their activities to the relevant authorities, and warn fellow writers to steer clear of them".

That would be a better use of your time, and it would mean a lot more to me than $25.
...but I still do want my money, Phil, and so do my friends. Come on. Pay up.

Heroes, Villains and Criminals

I have been talking a lot about what crime means to me as a philosopher and a social commentator, but today I want to talk about what it means as a writer. Crime comes up a lot in fiction, and not just when you're writing crime fiction...

Comedies may involve indecent exposure, drug use and "slapstick" assault.

A disturbing number of Romance stories feature stalking & sexual assault.
Traditionally, Slasher Horror starts with drug use and underaged sex.

Superhero action stories often rely upon vigilantism, torture and grievous bodily harm.
Although less popular, Western movies still love their gun-slinging outlaws.

And all of this is before we discuss the particular genres that are just about crime: Swashbuckling Pirate Adventure, Bank Heist Thrillers, Murder Mystery Whodunnits, International Espionage Thrillers...

Basically, unless you're exclusively writing early-childhood children's books (and sometimes, even then) as a writer, it's only a matter of time before you're likely to be writing about crime in one form or another. What I find fascinating is the way that crime, despite being, y'know... bad, isn't exclusively the domain of villains. I'm not saying I agree with the Hays Code, and that all crime should be depicted in a negative light, but it's fascinating to me the arbitrary way it is often depicted.

So many heroes are thieves, thanks to good old Robin Hood setting the standard that, so long as the rich guy doesn't deserve his money, he's fair game. Murder is also fair game, but usually only if it's quick... victims of heroes usually drop dead, they rarely strangle people. But animal abuse? Hell no, if you hurt an animal, you're evil, through and through.

Dangerous driving is usually a pulse-pounding action scene, since that's a car chase, nothing wrong with a good car chase. Torture, that can be pretty villainous, but more often than not heroes use it if "the ends justify the means" (even though in reality, torture doesn't work for gathering information). Terrorism? Well, that's pretty entirely villainous; in fact "terrorist" is synonymous with "bad guy" in a lot of action movies.

It may seem arbitrary, and that's because it is... arbitrary just means "determined by an arbiter" and an arbiter is any human making a judgement. In fact, I've noticed that when it comes to crime in fiction, a crime is judged not by whether it's cruel or kind, easy or difficult not even if it's good or evil, it's always about if it's presented as fair. Theft is unfair, unless the person doesn't deserve their money. Murder is fair, if the bad guys are also trying to kill you. Even Arson, Blackmail, Kidnapping & Stalking can be the actions of a hero, if you present it as a balanced response to some antagonistic injustice.

That's why animal cruelty, child abuse and sexual assault are so universally villainous - there's not much to really balance that scale since children and animals are already at a disadvantage and because nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted...

[Editor's Note: It bears pointing out that child abuse and animal cruelty have been depicted as heroic in cases where the hero is a child or an animal, themselves. Also, comedies, and several other films, seem to find the sexual harassment and rape of men justifiable for multiple reasons regarding gender politics that I'm not going into, but if not triggered by such discussions, you will find the following videos informative.]

So, if you're a writer, that's the lesson for you, here. See, there's a common, inaccurate claim regarding fiction-writing that "you should always make your main characters likeable". But in my experience, this isn't true at all—it's not about likeability, legality or even morality, it's about understandability, people need to understand why your character does the things they do. Even if they do some of the worst things imaginable, if readers can understand the reason why they did it, they can not only forgive it, but in some cases justify it. One of the easiest ways to do this is by making the scales of justice within your story clear, explicit and balanced, but you can even make a character act unfairly, if you can show that circumstances beyond them are forcing them to act in a rational manner.

I wasn't planning on this, but this actually ties back to my post about crime as sin, because this too is based upon cognitive bias. But, not the Sunk Cost, rather this is a kind of self-serving bias, in particular, Fundamental Attribution Error. For the sake of this post I will be referring to Fundamental Attribution Error simply as Attribution Error, but please take note that this is a personal choice that I'm making, but it may be confusing in other contexts, as there are many forms of Attribution Error, or Bias.

Attribution Error, simply put, is the cognitive mistake of attributing good actions or consequences that we (or our in-group) do on us simply being good people who do good things - the theory refers to these as "dispositional, or personality, factors"; but attributing bad actions or consequences to external factors beyond our control - the theory refers to these as "situational and environmental factors"

However, this is self-serving because we tend to do the opposite for others or members of an outgroup, and this bias is exacerbated when prior bias already exists (i.e. someone you don't like).
That's the theory, in practice it looks like this:

Let's say that several people take part in a somewhat difficult test.
If you and yours Succeed, you're likely attribute that to you being smart and earning it.
If them and theirs Succeed, you're likely to attribute it to them studying more, or getting lucky.
If you and yours Fail, you're likely to attribute that to not enough study time, or an unfair test.
If them and theirs Fail, you're likely to attribute that to them being stupid and not trying.

This happens more often than we'd like to admit. In fact, my favourite example is bumping into someone. If you accidentally bump into someone, it's because you were distracted. If someone else bumps into you, it's because they weren't watching where they were going.
The reality is, you weren't watching where you were going, because you were distracted.
And they also were distracted, which is why they weren't watching where they were going.
The reality is, we are all affected by multiple personal and situational factors, but we're more likely to give a charitable interpretation to our own actions, and an uncharitable one for others.

The reason this matters in fiction is twofold. Firstly, because that's how you game the system - by providing irrefutable, environmental factors as to why your character does bad things, you can sneak your main character backwards along this cognitive bias and into a reader's in-group. They're likely to do this anyway, by the nature of being granted access to their perspective (which I'm pretty sure relates to another cognitive bias, but I'm not going to research that right now because this is meant to be a post about writing, not psychology... even though I admit there's a lot of overlap when creating characters).

[Editor's Note: I couldn't help myself. Whilst admittedly my research was lacking, I did find a connection between empathizing with Point-of-View Characters, and the psychological and emotional drive, called Belongingness. Basically, when reading a book from another perspective, we have an inherent desire to belong to their group. It can be counteracted by strong enmity and pre-existing negative biases, but unless they are uncharacteristically strong, the desire to belong can break down those barriers. I'd argue this is the reason why bigots complain so much when feminine, queer and/or non-white characters are given prominence in fiction is because they recognize that it encourages empathy and it's a powerful force, but this editor's note is long enough, and that could be an entire blog post unto itself.]

Secondly, I think that this means the writer bears great responsibility when it comes to representation in stories. As I've said, and I will continue to say throughout this Countdown, criminals are not inherently evil people. I'm not concerned that stories depict crime, I love those stories because crime is rife with drama and drama is what makes some stories so deeply fascinating. But, we have the capacity to decide who people empathize with, who is good and bad, and more than ever I think that writers need to be conscious of that reality. It's too early for me to divulge, since it's an idea I had only a month or so ago, but I've been ruminating upon the idea of "authorial ethics". There's already study regarding ethics in journalism and there's some regressive discussion of ethics in media portrayals of violence and sex. I wonder if it would be beneficial to have a more definitive concept of ethics in fiction. I'm not actually sure if it's possible, since if it were too strict, it would be tantamount to censorship, but that's not my goal.
See, the point is, if you are a writer you have the power the decide, simply by putting words to a page, who has the right to be a hero, who has the qualities of a villain, who deserves to be considered a peer, who's in your in-group, who's in your outgroup, and what actions make the world a better place, and what makes it worse. I'm not prepared to tell you what you should and shouldn't do, but I can say without reservation: As a writer, you are responsible for the words that you write, and if you don't take that responsibility seriously, you can do more harm than good.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I really think a "the true crime here is..." preface would be suitable, something about using words to do harm or not taking responsibility for your fiction, but I already used that cliche in a prior post, and I don't want to be here repeating myself. That's not really a fiction responsibility thing, so much as a mild compulsive tendency to avoid repetition whenever possible.
Until Next Time, what do you think? What crimes do you find interesting in fiction, and would you be interested in a discussion in regard to "authorial ethics"? Let me know in the comments below, and I'll see you tomorrow wherein I'm going to share an old story I wrote with you, as well as the story behind it...